Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
Peter Kyle Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Lords amendment 49D engages Commons financial privilege. If Lords amendment 49D is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Before Clause 138
Requirement to make provision in relation to transparency of copyrighted works used in relation to AI models
2.2 pm
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49D.
I want to start by putting on record something that I should perhaps have said a bit more about in this place. I cherish the UK creative industries—their immense contribution to our national and personal lives; their embodiment of the best of human creativity—and I appreciate the sincerity of their concerns about the future. I want to express my genuine gratitude to the whole of the creative sector, from national treasures such as Sir Ian McKellen, Kate Bush and, yes, Sir Elton John, whose performances enrich our lives—having seen all of them perform live, I can say how much that has personally enriched my life—to local artists such as Pauly the painter, whose paintings of Hove enrich my ministerial office in Whitehall. However, this is not a competition about who loves the sector most; it is an argument about how best to champion the interests of creatives, large and small, and to protect and promote them into the future.
The purpose of the Data (Use and Access) Bill is to better harness data for economic growth, to improve public services and to support modern digital government, and I acknowledge the agreements reached in the other place on scientific research and sex data to that end. The Bill before us today is one step closer to completion, and I am grateful to Minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch for her work on these important issues. I am sure the House will unite in wishing her a happy birthday today—it is a significant birthday, but I will not do her the discourtesy of mentioning which one.
This Bill was never intended to be about artificial intelligence, intellectual property and copyright. However, the other place has yet again suggested that there be an amendment on this issue, despite hon. Members of this elected House having already removed a similar amendment twice before. Madam Deputy Speaker, I also note your decision that the amendment from the other place still conflicts with the financial privileges of this place. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms has stated repeatedly, we absolutely recognise that a workable solution on transparency is a key part of tackling this issue, but we absolutely disagree that this Bill or this amendment is the right way to address it.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for mentioning Kate Bush; she is the love of my life and has been since I was nine.
We have repeatedly spoken about the need for a tech solution to address this issue. I have a background in data and technology and have been meeting several companies that seem between them to have a possible tech solution. Will the Secretary of State meet me and them to discuss it?
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, for her love of Kate Bush, which I share, and for her passion for finding a workable solution and way forward. As I go through my remarks, I hope she will see that I propose a way to formalise the insight, wisdom and experience of the kinds of companies that she references, so that they can move forward. It is because of the complexities around AI copyright law and the understandable sensitivities of content creators that this needs to be done properly and carefully in a considered, measured and reasoned way. That is what this Government intend to do.
In order to make progress all of us need to work to find some common ground and reflect on things that we could have done better. In that spirit, let me say to this House and the other place that I regret the timing of the consultation on copyright and AI and the consideration of this Bill and the way that the two collided, and I regret that by indicating a preferred option it appeared to some that I had taken a side in the debate before everyone felt that they had been listened to.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s words; it is great to hear words such as “cherish” and “champion” in this House. I acknowledge that there is no opt-out in the Bill, but the Secretary of State mentioned the consultation that was launched alongside it, which adjoins these very issues. Will my right hon. Friend confirm once and for all that the Government’s preferred opt-out for reserving copyright is now abandoned?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. Just to clarify, this is a legacy Bill which has been in Parliament several times before, including under the previous Government, so it was always inevitable that at whatever time the consultation was launched it would have coincided with the Bill going through Parliament. That was never my intention but, as I have just said, I accept that that was the impression given. When we went into the consultation, I believed that opting out could have offered an opportunity to bring both sides together, but I now accept that that is not the case.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
This afternoon, we will go to the Ivor Novello awards to celebrate the ability and talent of the best of our songwriters from across this country—it will be a magnificent and wonderful display. Those writers are seriously concerned that their works will be ingested and churned out in an inferior way. The Government are not offering anything to our creators. The amendment that the Lords have presented seems to be reasonable, so what is wrong with it as a way forward?
Peter Kyle
As I have said, and as I will elaborate, the Government and I believe that there is a better way forward to give the creative sectors and creators the protections that they need. It would deliver them the certainties, protections and ability to have transparency and to be renumerated, and provide more possibilities to large creators, or those who represent them, to deliver licences into the future. We need to take the issues in the round, not just one part of them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a great time at the Ivor Novello awards. I congratulate everyone who wins, has been nominated or is participating today, especially U2, who are I think receiving an award—other creators who I have seen live many times.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have told me that they feel that their works have already been scraped, and that AI development has already trampled over their rights. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give me that we already recognise that this is a time-limited issue and that action is required?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. It is true that much content has already been used and subsumed by AI models, usually from other territories and under the current law. Nothing illustrates the need to have a comprehensive think about the way forward than the example that he has just given.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
I see that the right hon. Lady, the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, is on her feet, and, of course, I give way.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I appreciate the tone in which the Secretary of State has started his speech. Ministers keep repeating a mantra about “the uncertainty” of what our copyright law says about AI training. However, there is no uncertainty: commercial generative AI training on UK copyright work is illegal in the UK, but what rightsholders need is what this amendment says:
“clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information”
about
“the use of their copyright works used, and the means by which those works were accessed”.
A legislative vehicle in the future, however welcome, will be simply too late to protect the livelihoods of so many of the UK’s 2.5 million creative workers, who fear that this uncertainty line is just an excuse to undermine copyright law. Is the Government really committed to proactively enforcing our copyright law? If they do not do so through this Bill now, how will they do it and when?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, which is thoughtful as always. May I pick her up on one substantial point? I have not used the word “uncertainty” or implied that the challenge we have is uncertainty. Existing copyright law is very certain, but it is not fit for purpose. All the dangers and the existing loss into AI models have happened within the existing law. The challenges that we have, which I will go into further, are happening currently.
We need to ensure that we can have a domestic legal system that is fit for the digital age; we cannot rely on legislation that was created for, and is still only effective in, the analogue age. I want to give certainty. The reason that I am making this speech is to give certainty, not only in my words but most importantly in legislation, in the most rapid fashion possible, so that creatives and the AI sector can move forward together.
Unfortunately, at times the Bill has been presented as a battle between creative industries and new technology companies, but nothing could be further from the truth
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his tone and for the direction of travel that he is setting out. Bearing in mind that he is talking about “the most rapid fashion possible”, why are the Government refusing to put notice of backstop powers for transparency in the Bill? That is what the creative industries would like to see, in order to give reassurance that, in anticipation of further legislation along the line, the Secretary of State and the Government give themselves the powers to act, when and if they see that the current rules are being broken systemically by AI and tech companies.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend—nobody speaks with more passion and insight on the subject than she does. I simply say that the amendment is not comprehensive enough and does not tackle the needs and opportunities of both sectors. The only way that our country will benefit from the maximum potential that both these sectors present is if we can bring them together to find a way forward. Pitting one against the other is unnecessarily divisive and damages both.
The truth is that growing Britain’s economy needs both sectors to succeed and to prosper. Britain has to be the place where the creative industries, every bit as much as AI companies, can invest and grow, confident that their future prosperity is assured. We have to become a country where our people can enjoy the benefits and the opportunities of both. There is an investment battle for Britain happening, and we must win it.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend’s tone is most welcome, but it is also consistent with how he has been both in private and public on this matter, and I thank him for that, while sharing much of his taste in music. Does he agree that transparency should be a prerequisite for all AI development, not a matter for copyright to handle? If not now, will he commit to including such powers in secondary legislation, should the voluntary approach fail?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s tone and for the way that he has engaged so fruitfully, passionately and effectively, both on the record and in the conversations that we have had together.
Transparency is the foundation upon which we will build the future solutions to this problem. In a moment, I will go on to talk a bit more about how I intend to deliver that progress, but in order to have remuneration, solutions and the empowerment that creatives need in the digital age, of course we need transparency, which is essential and immutable. I will strive on behalf of creatives to deliver those things in a way that is also enforceable and will make the tangible difference, to give them the grip that they need in a digital age that they are currently lacking in the age that we live in.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State talks about delivering certainty, but does he not see that the certainty he is giving is to large multinational tech companies that will be able to get away with scraping original content that is copyrighted? Through the Bill, he will give such companies the certainty to abuse the rights of creatives.
Peter Kyle
In all sincerity, I am confused by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The Bill before us does not mention AI or copyright—it has nothing to do with those items. The Data (Use and Access) Bill is as I described at the beginning of my remarks. If there is a clause, sentence or paragraph of the legislation that is before us and for consideration that damages either the AI sectors or the creative industries, then I would like him to stand up and read that out. What I am proposing is a comprehensive solution in legislation to both the opportunities and the challenges presented to the AI sector, which is a barrier for companies in that sector investing here, and to the current direction of travel that is posing an existential threat to the nature of the creative sector as we know it. That is what I am proposing, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill before us does not damage any of those interests in the way that he suggests.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he is comprehensively showing our commitment to the creative industries. Like him, I am a huge nerd when it comes to amazing new innovations in data and AI. I am hugely enthusiastic about them, but I also share his equally huge enthusiasm for the creative industries. I appreciate what he is saying about transparency—for me, that is the absolutely key point—but what is the backstop if the voluntary approach does not create the transparency that creators need to understand how their creations are being used and if they are being remunerated properly for that?
Peter Kyle
The reason I opened the consultation in the first place was to try to understand where the concerns are and where the tech companies can provide their suggested solutions, on the back of which we can come together as two Houses of Parliament and two separate sectors to find the way forward. If we cannot answer the question that my hon. Friend poses, how will the legislation, which I will propose as soon as I can, get through either House?
We need to bring both sectors together. We need to have workable, implementable solutions that have grip in the digital age as well as the confidence of both Houses to get the legislation forward. I ask Members across this House and in the other place to offer me a degree of trust that I will lead it through the difficult, challenging process—which has bedevilled not just the current situation, but the Government before—needed to deliver it for those who need it the most.
Peter Kyle
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who was the first on his feet, then I will come to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).
Mr Alaba
I appreciate the tone with which the Secretary of State is conducting this discussion, and I thank him for that. Having spent two decades running businesses and projects in the creative sector before entering this House, may I ask the Secretary of State to confirm when the Government intend to bring forward the promised AI and IP Bill? Will he commit to prioritising transparency obligations in the next Parliament or even to finding a suitable vehicle? Finally, will stakeholders be formally consulted before that Bill is introduced?
Peter Kyle
We can see what a fast learner my hon. Friend has become since he has been in this place, as he got three questions into a 30-second intervention. I will take them in reverse order. I assure him that I will engage with both sectors and give a meaningful voice, including finding ways of engaging views across the House in that process. On his first two questions, I have striven to speak—perhaps even stretched the boundaries of the clarity with which I am allowed to speak—about the future when it comes to legislation and the processes and formalities of this House, in which we are governed by traditions, conventions and the wrath of the Leader of the House.
I know and hope that when I offer my words, Members with varying degrees of experience will understand that there are meanings behind them about the speed, enthusiasm and determination to get this issue resolved swiftly, but the legislative programme of the House is in the hands of His Majesty the King and the Leader of the House, for whom we have high regard—I know that she will be watching somewhere in this building, ready to pounce should I step one millimetre out of line. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford will understand as I go through my remarks and speak in a bit more detail about my intentions that the necessity for speed and alacrity underpins every single one of my words.
Ms Billington
On the point about speed, determination and the conventions of this House with regard to the legislative programme, in some ways that gives the Secretary of State a case for putting backstop powers on the face of this Bill to create the confidence that the creative industries require, so that we do not have to wait for full legislation. Having some confidence now would give the Government the power to enforce if they saw something that passed the test and there were some transgressions. There is a case for what we are asking for because of those constraints.
Peter Kyle
Let me be as direct as I possibly can. The amendment before us does not include powers of enforcement; it would give powers to the Secretary of State, but it gives no indication of how those powers should be used. Given that ambiguity, it would be incumbent on me to use the powers in a way in which I saw fit, and I would see fit to do a thorough engagement on the back of such powers before using them, if I decided to use them at all. Any of my successors in the post could well use those powers in vastly different ways, which would lead to great instability in an area where I am determined to create stability. Finally, it would be disempowering for this place to have all those powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and future Secretaries of State when what we really need is a comprehensive set of legislative measures that this place and the other place have fully endorsed, is on statute and can give the security that both sectors need into the future.
It was remiss of me to take the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), even though it was an important one, before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, to whom I turn now.
Rachael Maskell
I do take a word spoken at the Dispatch Box as a commitment, so I really welcome what the Secretary of State is saying. Will he ensure that, beyond transparency, there will be accountability? That is the missing element in the Lords amendment in particular. We need accountability for those businesses and platforms that go on to make profit out of our creatives’ work. They should be held to account as the Secretary of State approaches this issue in a more comprehensive way, working with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
Peter Kyle
The range of interventions shows several things, including the breadth of wisdom and experience in this House and the complex nature of the issue at hand. That is all being dealt with by one amendment that does not actually touch on many of the issues that I am being questioned about. Again, that reinforces the need to deal with this issue in the round and in its entirety, with all its complexities.
I will turn to the point that my hon. Friend raises shortly, but the extraterritorial nature of the way in which AI is being consumed, scraped and brought into the models adds challenges to getting a grip on it. That is why having a Bill that incentivises investment in this country, alongside giving modern digital rights and obligations to creatives in the digital age, is a way in which we can incentivise companies to come and obey the law of this land as we move forward.
I believe one more Member was on their feet to whom I am yet to give way.
Sally Jameson
While I agree with most of the Secretary of State’s music recommendations, I pay tribute to Girls Aloud, who are the ultimate pop icons in the British music industry.
Sally Jameson
A close second. Will the Secretary of State commit to chairing a cross-sector working group with the AI industries and the creative sector in the room to help to inform any future legislation?
Peter Kyle
I kind of regret taking that intervention, because it contains the first reference to a band I have not seen live. I have some life goals yet, so I will add it to my bucket list.
I will turn to the point that my hon. Friend made then make progress, because we have limited time here, and I want to ensure that Opposition figures have all the time that they need to make their points. These issues need serious and dedicated consideration. We have never needed the language of conflict, betrayal or slavery in this debate.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
I am going to make some progress. I will try to give way a bit later.
It is time to tone down the unnecessary rhetoric and instead recognise that the country needs to strike a balance between content and creativity, transparency and training, and recognition and reward. That cannot be done by well-meaning but ultimately imperfect amendments to a Bill that was never intended to do such a thing. The issue of AI copyright needs properly considered and enforceable legislation, drafted with the inclusion, involvement and experience of both creatives and technologists. To that end, I can tell the House that I am now setting up a series of expert working groups to bring together people from both sectors on the issues of transparency, licensing and other technical standards to chart a workable way forward. I will ensure that the outcome of these endeavours is made available to Members of both Houses.
Peter Kyle
I am going to make some progress, but other voices will be heard.
Much of the creative content on the internet has already been scraped elsewhere in the world. We cannot turn back time, and nor should we kid ourselves that we can exercise extraterritorial reach that we simply do not have. My determination is to get this absolutely right, not just rush it right now, which would make us feel better but would make no real improvements to the status quo. Let me be absolutely clear to the House: I get it, and I will get it right.
Finally, just as I regret that this has been portrayed as a choice between creatives and artificial intelligence, it is regrettable to me that this has become an issue of contention between this House and the other place. This House is not putting the interests of one sector above those of another—that would be the wrong approach. The right approach is to recognise that this is too important and complex an issue to be rushed. It deserves proper consideration, and it requires us to accept our responsibility to do this right, in a way that reflects the seriousness of the situation and the sensitivities of both sectors. For now, let us just put this data Bill behind us.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given the constructive tone that the Secretary of State is taking today, would he like to say a word of praise for the upper House, without whose determination to keep revisiting this matter he might not have felt it quite so necessary to come to this House today and outline in such detail the constructive alternatives he wishes to put forward?
Peter Kyle
I of course acknowledge the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I have acknowledged a couple of times already in my speech the work of the upper House and several Members of it, and the constructive and functional way in which we have resolved disagreements on other parts of the Bill. That is the way both Houses were designed to work—in co-operation, sometimes with tension, but ultimately to deliver the legislation that the Government intend to introduce, using the primacy of this place.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is not the first time I have engaged, privately or publicly. Many of the statements I have made today have been made previously, but not in the pointed way that I am doing now, which I hope rises to the moment we are in. I have already acknowledged how, looking back, I would have taken other actions to bring this matter to a conclusion much sooner. I also hope that other Members across this House and in the other place will similarly act in a way that can put this moment behind us, so that we can focus on using the power of Government and, of course, of both Houses to get this right for those sectors that are counting on us to do just that.
From this moment, I give this House my personal commitment from the Dispatch Box to unstinting work alongside both sectors, working together to resolve the contentious issue of AI and copyright quickly and effectively. I will report back to this House regularly on the progress made. My responsibility as Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is to bring forward proposals on copyright that can deliver the balance we seek between the interests of the creative industries and those of the AI industry. We will do that, and we will get it right.
Several hon. Members rose—
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
This is the second time we have considered this amendment in this House, and it is the second time we have received this, “Just trust me—I just want to get on with it” homily that all the ministerial team present when we discuss the matter. They say they want to set up all sorts of working groups and that they want to get to legislation. None of us have any difficulty with or objection to that, but what we want is action now. We get concerned when the Secretary of State, as he just did, says that there is no certainty in our copyright laws just now.
Pete Wishart
The Secretary of State can check back in Hansard. That is exactly what he said, and that is where the concern and anxiety comes in. The Government might get a technical victory today because of the invocation of financial issues, but the Bill will come back again from the House of Lords. They are not going to give up.
Everybody is united with the House of Lords when it comes to these issues; everybody wants a solution now. Nobody agrees with the Government’s position—except the AI firms that seek to benefit from the unauthorised use of our cultural work—and the anger is growing. The more the public see of this, the more our constituents get increasingly concerned about how our artists are being treated. We only need to look at Sir Elton John’s reaction on Sunday—not just the choice of language about the Government Front Benchers, but that he feels so dismissed he is even threatening legal action.
Surely the way forward is compromise and the Government going some way toward giving the creative sector what they want. Lords amendment 49D presents that approach. It respects the financial prerogatives of this Government, and it has taken on board everything that the Front Benchers have said. I urge the Government to reconsider their position and to engage seriously on the substance of the amendment, which would address copyright holders’ calls for transparency without imposing immediate enforcement costs. It would require AI developers to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information on how their works have been used and how they were accessed. Nothing could be fairer than that.
The Government use words like “may” rather than “must”, thereby avoiding direct spending obligations. We must surely work together on the basis of what has been agreed between both Houses, and try to ensure that we get something that meets everybody’s concerns. That has to start with this Lords amendment. I urge the Government to accept it at this really late stage, and I encourage Labour Back Benchers, who have made fantastic contributions today and who have stood up to this Government, to vote against them. That will show exactly how strongly they feel about this issue. I encourage Labour colleagues to back the amendment.
Sir John Whittingdale
Well, the ministerial foreword to the consultation paper suggests there was uncertainty, and that has consistently been one of the reasons why the Government have said they need to carry out all these consultations. Even if the law is clear, as the Secretary of State suggests—personally, I believe it is clear—the important thing is that it can only be enforced if those who have their copyright breached are aware that that has taken place. That is why transparency is of critical importance, as I know the Government have acknowledged.
The Secretary of State has said this afternoon that he is going to set up more working parties. Our concern is that, as the Secretary of State has just said, a large amount of copyrighted material is already being scraped by generative AI. His working parties and further consultations—we wait to hear when legislation might arrive—mean that it will be another few years before we actually have this measure on the statute book. There is an opportunity to have something on the statute book now, and he will be aware that the existing provisions—the robots.txt provisions—are simply being ignored. They are not working, and it is important that we act immediately to send a very clear signal that we expect transparency to be in place and for generative AI companies to properly remunerate licence holders.
I want to mention some of the other provisions. On the Order Paper, the Government have said that Lords amendment 49D “engages financial privilege”.
Sir John Whittingdale
Well, the Clerks may have advised—[Interruption.] I merely suggest that it is very unclear. As many in the House of Lords have suggested, it is very unclear how the amendment can engage financial privilege. The amendment use the word “may”, so it does not contain any requirement on the Government to indulge in financial expenditure. It is a worrying precedent if the Government are going to avoid debate on policy by suggesting that—
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Kyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
The Government are committed to supporting innovation in Hertfordshire and across the country, and we are investing a record £20.4 billion in research and development this financial year alone. In the last financial year, UK Research and Innovation invested £67 million in projects in Hertfordshire. For example, more than £650,000 was awarded to Copco Ltd, which is based in Hemel Hempstead, to develop a digitally enhanced low-cost technology in aerostructures.
David Taylor
I was fortunate enough to visit the British Standards Institution in Hemel Hempstead recently to see its work helping businesses to deliver better products and drive towards a more sustainable planet. Its research shows that 78% of UK companies increase turnover and productivity because of the BSI’s standards. What steps are the Government taking to support more companies to adopt and certify standards, such as the BSI’s AI management systems standards, so that we can grow the UK tech sector and enable innovation and collaboration safely and securely?
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s question; it shows how diligently and assiduously he is working for the businesses in his constituency. I can assure him that high standards lead to their adoption, and this Government are committed to the very highest of standards. I saw that myself on visits to Hertfordshire: I visited Airbus and the tech firm Autolus, which are both doing cutting-edge work to the highest of standards, contributing to innovation in our country as well as the area that he represents so well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is right that such work is helping not just Hertfordshire but everywhere else. He has been a regular visitor to Northern Ireland and has taken a specific interest in cyber-security there. Has he had the opportunity to interact with companies in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can benefit from the expansion of the cyber-security industry?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s recognition that I have a personal commitment to Northern Ireland, which I recently visited for the second time. This Government are committed to cyber-security right across the United Kingdom. The budgets for it and their application are subject to Barnett consequentials. I know that he will be working with the devolved Administration to ensure that that money is spent wisely, and in central Government they will have the partner they need.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary on the UK-US trade deal, which, among many provisions, includes the commitment to deepen digital trade. My Department will continue to work across Whitehall to strengthen the transatlantic trade relationship that benefits our country so greatly. When it comes to online harms, we will continue to strengthen those provisions too.
Mr Morrison
Many of my constituents have contacted me with concerns around social media and public health. Nearly 40% of children report that social media has a negative impact on their mental health and, with glaring holes in the Online Safety Act 2023, dangerous smaller websites remain unregulated. Can the Secretary of State confirm that protections for children will not be up for negotiation in any deal with the United States?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for that question. I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s concern for the welfare of young people online, which is why so many provisions have been brought in since I came into office, including issuing a statement of strategic priorities to Ofcom, tackling intimate image abuse and getting right behind the implementation of the new regulations from January and age verification, which will come in in July. We are behind those as well as working on what will come next and strengthening it. I reassure him and the House that online harms are never up for negotiation under this Government.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Peter Kyle
I reassure my hon. Friend that I am looking very closely at how we strengthen the online safety regime in order to protect children further into the future. I have commissioned research into the exact causal relationship between which products young people use and the impact that they have on them, and I will act accordingly from there.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Given the growing concerns around the Online Safety Act, which could be weakened during UK-US trade negotiations, and reports that the Secretary of State is meeting repeatedly with tech giants, including Amazon, Google and Meta, it is vital that children’s safety remains a red line in both our trade policy and our ongoing, evolving data protection framework. I welcome the comments that he made around the fact that online harms will not be up for negotiation, but can he confirm that the Online Safety Act will not be up for negotiation in the UK-US trade deal now or in the future?
Peter Kyle
We have just delivered a deal between the UK and the US, and none of it weakened any of the legislation we have that keeps children safe in this country. We were promised by the Conservatives that we were at the front of the queue for a US trade deal; this Government took us out of the queue altogether and delivered the deal. The previous Government took a decade; we delivered the deal, and we are strengthening the rights that young people have to keep them safe, not weakening them.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
This Government are piloting a range of technologies, including generative AI and large language models, across Departments in order to release their potential to boost public sector productivity. We are aiming for a smarter, smaller state, and that is exactly what we will deliver.
Luke Murphy
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The Government are rightly focused on driving public sector reforms through the smarter use of technology, and in Basingstoke we have seen what is possible. ICS.AI has already helped Derby city council to save millions of pounds using AI. GemaSecure, another local firm, is developing home-grown tech to help to protect vital infrastructure from cyber-threats, and TBSC has produced software to reduce costs wasted on unused IT subscriptions by up to 25%. Will the Secretary of State join me in Basingstoke to meet those firms and others to discuss how his Department can work with them to help to achieve our mission of building a more efficient, secure and modern public sector?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is highlighting the great work coming out of Basingstoke, which will not just contribute to the productivity of local authorities around the country but benefit our entire economy. I can assure him that this Government are committed to harnessing the power of British technology, putting it to use for citizens across our country and for productivity in Government, and I look forward to engaging more with the companies he has mentioned.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The use of AI in radiotherapy planning increases productivity twentyfold, yet the Government’s decision to stop funding for AI contouring is estimated to cost waiting lists half a million extra days. Will the Secretary of State intervene and talk to his friends in the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that they restore that funding and save lives?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are investing heavily in AI technology across the NHS for the benefit of patients. I have visited Huddersfield hospital, where AI has been fully integrated into the radiography department. I will look into the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and if there are any conversations to be had, I can assure him that we are on the side of patients and of harnessing technology for the good of patients.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Accurate data is important, particularly in the public sector—we will be voting on this later today. How will the Secretary of State measure his planned productivity improvements? How will he define success, and over what time period?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are deploying technology to deliver productivity gains across Whitehall, which are starting now. We are investing heavily through the digital centre that we created in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and working intensively with Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We have already identified billions of pounds-worth of savings, which will be put to use within Government without delay for the benefit of citizens.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
This Government are harnessing the power of technology to create a smarter, smaller state. My Department is partnering with the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to understand how AI can save taxpayers’ money and deliver the world-class public services that people deserve. At the same time, we are tearing down the barriers facing businesses that want to invest in Britain. Last month, we welcomed experts from across the energy and tech sectors to the first meeting of the AI energy council, at which we discussed how we can use clean energy to power our domestic AI sector and deliver strong growth and good jobs right across the country.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I met Jess and Hannah from Aston Clinton in my constituency, who are doing brilliant work to encourage parents to delay giving their children smartphones. Responding on Second Reading of the safer phones Bill, the Minister for digital, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), agreed that excessive smartphone usage is detrimental to the physical, mental and spiritual health of young people, and confirmed that the Government intend to act in this area. Can the Secretary of State share what his next steps will be?
Peter Kyle
I agree with my hon. Friend; excessive smartphone use is detrimental to children, as it is to MPs across the House. I can assure her that I am commissioning evidence on the impact of social media use on children. I am looking particularly closely at the addictive nature of some of the algorithms being deployed, and at how we can act to keep children safe and benefit their welfare.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Labour has cancelled Britain’s new national supercomputer at the University of Edinburgh, damaging our research capability and economic growth. That project was fully funded by the Conservatives, and the university says that it will be a disaster if the cancellation is not reversed, so will the Government reinstate that supercomputer, or will it be another victim of the Chancellor’s failed economic experiment?
Peter Kyle
It surprises me that the hon. Gentleman continues down this path. One of the first decisions I had to take after becoming Secretary of State was how we deal with an unfunded commitment for hundreds of millions of pounds where the money never existed—the Treasury had not committed it. Not a single letter had gone to my Department from the Treasury, yet the previous Government spent years making verbal commitments. We will deliver a compute strategy that is fit for purpose, that will get our country where it needs to be—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are not going to get everybody in, Secretary of State.
Alan Mak
That project was fully funded, and the Secretary of State knows it. While Labour cancels our tech investment, our competitors—the US, Germany and Japan—are all increasing theirs. Next month, the Chancellor will cut the Department’s budget in real terms, so can the Secretary of State tell us today whether he will allow the Treasury to cancel more investment in Britain’s future, or will he finally speak up for Britain’s vital tech sector?
Peter Kyle
We will release the compute strategy. That strategy will be fully funded and fully delivered—unlike under the Government, which the hon. Gentleman was part of, that let our country down.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Online Safety: Statement of Strategic Priorities
Peter Kyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I am today laying before Parliament the Government’s draft statement of strategic priorities for online safety. This statement is a critical document that outlines the Government’s areas of focus for online safety, and that the independent regulator, Ofcom, must have regard to as it continues its work to implement the Online Safety Act 2023.
The first duty of any Government is to keep their people safe. My Department’s role in that essential duty involves tackling the growing epidemic of online harm that is threatening the health and happiness of people across Britain.
Since we came into government, I have made it my priority to implement the Online Safety Act as quickly and effectively as possible. In March, the illegal codes of practice came into force, obliging firms to take steps to remove illegal content from the services they provide. Ofcom has already begun enforcement investigations.
By summer, the children’s codes will be fully in force. Service providers will have to protect children from harmful content, including pornography and the promotion of suicide, self-harm and eating disorders.
The pace of change in the online world means that we cannot afford to slow down. As we confront extraordinary new opportunities and grave new risks, our approach must be anchored in a set of principles about what a good online world looks like.
That is what the statement of strategic priorities sets out to do. It outlines the Government’s strategic priorities and desired outcomes across a number of online safety areas, including safety by design, transparency and accountability, agile regulation, inclusivity and resilience, and technology and innovation.
The statement follows a statutory consultation that ran between 20 November 2024 and 10 January 2025. A range of stakeholders with interest and expertise across the policy areas covered by the Act, including child safety and tackling violence against women and girls, were consulted. I would like to thank all respondents for taking the time and effort to respond.
These strategic priorities have been designed to support the ambitious implementation and delivery of the Act, to ensure that its protections are implemented as effectively as possible, delivering the best safety outcomes for all users. First and foremost, that means putting the safety of children at the foundation of our online world.
Ofcom, as the independent regulator, must have regard to the priorities set out in the statement when exercising its online safety functions. We are committed to working with Ofcom to implement the Act. Together, working with partners across civil society and industry, we will drive forward progress against these priorities to build a better online world for all.
I intend to designate the statement for the purposes of section 172 of the Online Safety Act after the end of the statutory “40-day period”, as defined in section 173 of the Act, unless either House of Parliament resolves not to approve it within that period.
[HCWS623]
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
Peter Kyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House has worked incredibly hard to get the Bill to where it is today. It is a relief that after so many attempts to get this piece of legislation through, over such a long period of time and multiple Governments, we will finally get it across the line. I put on record my thanks to the people who have got us to where we are, including the Members from across the House who have contributed in sincere and passionate ways during today’s debate on Report, and now on Third Reading.
I also put on record my very sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), the Minister responsible. He has seen the Bill through assiduously, persistently, and with passion at all times to make sure that it passes through Parliament and is out there, benefiting the people of Britain. I thank him, and also officials in my Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. There are certain officials who have been working on this Bill since 2022 and who have put their life and soul into it, often seven times a week. Their dedication to getting this piece of legislation through should be recognised by Members right across the House—it certainly is by me. I thank them very much.
I hope the House has noticed that the Government have tabled amendments to improve the Bill until the last moment. By making it an offence to request the creation of deepfake intimate images without consent and empowering the courts to deprive offenders of images and devices containing them, we will ensure consistency in our approach to protecting women and girls from that vile, demeaning form of abuse.
To conclude in the short time I have available, the Bill will make life better for working people right across our country.
Peter Kyle
I am afraid that in the time I have, I cannot give way. I want to do the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak), the courtesy of allowing him to have his say in the remaining couple of minutes.
The Bill will give working people across our country a stronger economy, better public services, and more time to do the things they like with the people they love. I look forward to working with people, including hon. Members from across the House, to resolve as quickly as possible any outstanding issues that may arise after the Bill passes. The version of the Bill that is before us today is its third substantive iteration. It follows two failed attempts by the previous Government, the first of which started back in July 2022. It is time that we got this done; for far too long, our citizens and businesses have paid the price of the failure to deliver data reform, and we cannot expect them to put up with it any longer. Today, we have an opportunity to finally get it right. The Bill that is before us today will remove the brakes that are holding back our country.
Online Safety Act Implementation: Protecting Children
Peter Kyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
Today, I am laying in Parliament Ofcom’s draft codes of practice for child safety duties under the Online Safety Act, setting out the statutory duties providers face and the measures they must take to fulfil them.
We are in the midst of an epidemic in online harm. Young people are exposed to a slew of horrific content on the sites that many of them use every day. The consequences can be devastating, from pornography that cruelly warps their expectations of healthy relationships to content which encourages, promotes or provides instructions for self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Parents trying to protect their children may not understand what is going on behind their bedroom doors or find themselves powerless to stop it.
Today, that changes. Building on the illegal codes which came into force last month, the draft codes of practice are some of the most far-reaching protections in the world. For the first time, platforms will have to prioritise children’s safety by law, protecting children in the UK from seeing content including pornography, violent content, or that which promotes self-harm, suicide or eating disorders.
We know that harm is happening to children right now. If we are to safeguard healthier, happier childhoods for our young people, we cannot afford to hesitate in protecting them. From today, services will have three months to assess the risk of harm their services pose to children. Once the codes have gone through the parliamentary process, Ofcom must issue them. The relevant duties will come into force 21 calendar days later, and Ofcom will be able to enforce against non-compliance. By summer, the child online safety regime will be fully in force.
I know that Ofcom is prepared to make full use of its powers under the Act. After the illegal codes of practice came into force last month, Ofcom swiftly opened several enforcement programmes to assess industry compliance. In the months to come, I expect them to build on the strong precedent they have set. When the lives of our children are at stake, we must be relentless in our efforts to protect them.
Once in force, the codes will change young people’s lives for the better, protecting happy, healthy childhoods from the kind of horrific content that too often cuts them short. This is a landmark moment, but it is not the end point of our efforts to protect children online. The rapid change that has characterised the last decade of the digital age shows no signs of slowing down, bringing with it extraordinary opportunities and grave new risks. In this context, we will act swifty if our laws continue to fall short. These codes are the foundation for child safety, not the limit, and Ofcom has already announced plans to launch a consultation in spring 2025 on additional measures.
For now, though, the message to industry is clear. You must act now to protect children using your services. If you fail to do so, Ofcom will not hesitate to enforce the law.
[HCWS598]
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Kyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I praise my hon. Friend’s work as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. She knows full well the importance of this area. She will also know that the Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls over the course of a decade. That is one of our missions in government. Ofcom has now published its draft guidance and I expect it, after that good work and good start, to implement that in full in the months and years ahead.
Sarah Owen
Like many, I have seen adverts for artificial intelligence apps, which are some of the most downloaded apps across the world, targeted directly at teenagers. These adverts boast about the apps’ ability to create AI videos of non-consensual intimate acts between real people without their knowledge. We know that these tools disproportionately hurt women and young people. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to protect women, girls and young boys from this deeply malicious use of artificial intelligence, and will he take action against AI companies that promote these features?
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, because she raises an incredibly important point. It is one that was tackled in our manifesto—our promise of change for the country—and it is one that we are now delivering in government. We will bring forward amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, and we are working closely with Baroness Owen in the House of Lords to make sure that they are effective. We expect these issues to be dealt with. The creation of non-consensual deepfakes will become illegal, and they will be tackled into the future.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Technology is a significant enabler of trafficking, which has affected many women in my constituency. The incredible social enterprise Bramber Bakehouse supports women victims and survivors of trafficking through the art of baking. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Bramber Bakehouse and its founder, Lucy Butt, on their work and on her being the inaugural co-chair of the new domestic abuse network in Eastbourne, which is trying to reduce violence against women and girls?
Peter Kyle
I praise the work of the charity that the hon. Member mentions in his constituency. May I also praise him for the interview he gave at the weekend on this subject, which was very touching indeed? I assure him that the experiences being tackled by the charity he mentioned and the ones he raised in his interview are being tackled by this Government.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I applaud the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls over a decade, even as the vectors for that violence evolve. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee inquiry into harmful social media algorithms has heard how they can drive the adoption of misogynist and extremist views among young men and boys, as powerfully illustrated in the series “Adolescence”. Does the Online Safety Act 2023 give Ofcom the powers to address these harms before they reach the threshold of illegality, and if so, how?
Peter Kyle
I thank my hon. Friend in particular for the work she is doing on behalf of her Select Committee. I am also grateful for the national debate that has been sparked by the programme “Adolescence”. It is incredibly important that we act in these areas. The powers that came in last week to take down illegal content, but also the powers that are coming in later this year in June, will mean that all those publishing content must make sure it is age-appropriate. That will be a step forward. I am watching the impact of these new powers closely, and I will act accordingly if they are not strong enough.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Significant concerns were raised in the recent Westminster Hall debate on the implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023. Will the Minister take urgent steps to better categorise online platforms, to better protect women and girls online?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Member that, whatever the size of the organisation and whatever category that organisation or platform is in, the onus is on them. The legal duty to remove illegal content and to act with the new powers that will be coming in later this year remains intact, and they must act. I expect Ofcom to use those powers as assertively as necessary to make sure that people are protected in our country.
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question. The Government are acting on it, and the Health Secretary has been acting on it. I myself have contacted all Government Departments on the back of that important review to ensure that every Department is aware of it, of some of its contents, and of its relevance to different Departments, and I will be meeting the author in the coming days and weeks to ensure that she is satisfied with the action that the Government are taking.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
Being a leader in the new space race is vital to protecting the UK’s security and delivering on our mission for growth. The Government have invested in a range of launch capabilities, including spaceports in Cornwall and Scotland and also launch vehicles. Most recently, we invested £20 million to enable the UK rocket manufacturer Orbex to complete the construction of its launch vehicle.
Douglas McAllister
What work is the Department doing to ensure that the UK space sector is a launch pad for innovation and investment, and creates skilled jobs—both commercial and in the defence sector—across Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole?
Peter Kyle
We have space skills across the UK, but we have particular expertise in Scotland. I enjoyed visiting Glasgow recently to see how every part of its economy supports the space sector, especially the small satellite manufacturing sector. Several launch operations, including Orbex, are targeting orbital launches from SaxaVord spaceport in Shetland this year. That is a testament to the innovation taking place throughout the UK and specifically in Scotland.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
If that first space launch happens, and I believe it will, it will happen at SaxaVord in Unst, and the Secretary of State will be very welcome to join us when it does. For the UK space sector as a whole to recognise the full opportunities we have, we need to get serious about the delivery of the Government’s space strategy. Last year, the National Audit Office identified a number of challenges that the strategy faces. When will we hear the Government’s response?
Peter Kyle
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, when we came into office, we did not inherit a clear strategy for delivering on our priorities for space. That strategy is now being developed. The investments we are making as a Department and a Government into space, and the way we are making sure that our relationship with the European Space Agency is delivering for the British sector—we have more grants being delivered in the UK in the latest round of funding than any other country—show that we are delivering. I share his enthusiasm and certainty that a launch will happen this year, and I very much look forward to being there alongside him to witness it.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I welcome the national conversation taking place about how we protect children online. The Online Safety Act 2023 requires all regulated user-to-user and search services to comply with the illegal content and child safety rules. The illegal content duties came into effect last week, and I am closely monitoring the impact of these duties on online safety.
Susan Murray
Many schools in my constituency of Mid Dunbartonshire use mobile phones as an educational tool, yet along with this learning opportunity comes easy access to sites posting horrendous content. I would like to know how the Government plan to tackle small, foreign-based websites exposing people to graphic content. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that smaller platforms are adequately regulated to protect children from online harms?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question and the manner in which she expressed it, which recognised the complexity of smartphone use—the benefits as well as the potential harmful aspects. I can assure her that, as of last week, the power to demand that illegal content be taken down has come into force. I accept that there is still illegal content online, but I am closely watching the way that Ofcom responds. I think that, in the coming days and weeks, she will see action showing how assertive it intends to be, and I expect it to be, in doing so. It also has a taskforce looking at the small but risky sites she mentions. I will be looking at this very closely and supporting Ofcom in relation to its requirement to act in those circumstances.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The domestic abuse charity Oasis in my constituency has alerted me to the appalling situation whereby young women are being coerced into setting up OnlyFans accounts to generate income. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking to ensure that the sector can root out coercion and exploitation?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is a champion on these issues. Oasis, a great charity, is lucky to have her here in the House of Commons as a voice for its work and for the need to make radical changes to keep people safe online. I can assure her that the situation she describes breaches several aspects of law, including the need to take down illegal content. I will be watching closely, as she will, and working with her to ensure that the new powers and those that are coming online are effective and that we adapt to these challenges in future.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
On my safer screens tour, to discuss online safety for children, students themselves are calling for action. They talk about brain rot and the subtle but dangerous impact on their mental health, their self-esteem, their world outlook and their time. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Liberal Democrats that, given this public health crisis and the massive profits made by social media giants such as Musk, we should look to seek revenues from a digital service tax, rather than cutting benefits from disabled people and struggling families?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Lady—she will have heard this from my previous answers—that we are determined to keep young people safe online. Online activity and the services offered to people in this country and around the world are adapting and evolving fast because of the speed of innovation. We need a regulatory and legislative landscape that can keep up with that innovation, and we need a Government who will ensure they are on the side of young people and vulnerable people of any age. I can assure her that, in this Government and this Secretary of State, they have that.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I start by thanking Professor Sullivan for her independent review into sex and gender data. This is an important area, and we have shared the report with Departments as part of our ongoing policy work. After landmark online safety regulations came into force last week, platforms will now have to act to take down illegal content. I have just got back from the United States, where, from Nvidia’s conference stage to investor meetings, my message was clear: the UK is hungry for the new era of growth that is promised by AI and emerging technology. As the Chancellor shares her spring statement, that is an era I will keep working with her to deliver.
Dame Meg Hillier
The Secretary of State has today referred to space and AI as key drivers of growth. Closer to home, in my constituency and across the country, our creative industries are huge drivers of growth, but there is a battle with AI. If our creators’ content is taken and they are not recompensed, that will damage the economy, too. Is he talking to those industries and to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that our creative content creators are protected?
Peter Kyle
I can assure my hon. Friend that I am speaking to both sectors, and I am determined that both sectors will get fit for the future as we face the opportunities and challenges. We are lucky as a country to have the second largest creative arts sector and the third largest AI market in the world. This is both a benefit and an opportunity for our country, and this Government will navigate any challenges it poses so that both sectors are fit to exploit the opportunities they have and for commercial gain into the future.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Luke Shipley has grown his tech start-up from two employees to more than 100 in just five years. This year, Luke wanted to double his workforce in Britain, but Labour’s jobs tax is forcing him to look abroad. While our competitors benefit, our communities at home are missing out. Why has the Secretary of State failed to protect them from Labour’s jobs tax?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the business the shadow Secretary of State is referring to that the economic environment here will not only fix the foundations of our economy, but face the future. The very fact that so many people from organisations around the world are now building out in the UK shows that Britain has the best regulatory, legislative and economic environment in which to invest and thrive as a tech sector into the future. Thank goodness this Government are doing that, instead of offering the decline of the previous Government.
Alan Mak
Luke says Labour’s jobs tax is a huge blow to Britain’s tech sector, and he is absolutely right. Jobs are being destroyed, investment is down and our wealth creators are leaving the country. Why is the Secretary of State not clearing up the Chancellor’s mess?
Peter Kyle
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has been reading the news. We have had more than £30 billion of tech investment in this country from around the world. He should be celebrating that, not talking it down.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I was so happy to learn about Safran’s work. It is leading the world in electric motors for the aviation sector, as the first to receive certification from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency for powering the future generation of air mobility. This is a Government who are supporting that kind of innovation and ensuring that this country is leading the world in innovation, job creation, wealth creation and solving the big challenges the world faces into the future.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Peter Kyle
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. I have met Baroness Bertin, the author of the report, and I am seeking ways to ensure that the issues raised in it are acted upon.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
AI Security Institute
Peter Kyle Excerpts(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
We recently launched the AI opportunities action plan to create one of the biggest clusters of AI innovation in the world and deliver a new era of prosperity and wealth creation for our country—harnessing AI to deliver on the plan for change.
None of that is possible unless we can mitigate the risks that AI presents. Safeguarding Britain’s national security, a key pillar of the Government’s plan for change, alongside protecting citizens from crime, will continue to be a driving principle of the UK’s approach to the responsible development of AI. That is why I am renaming our AI Safety Institute as the AI Security Institute.
This change of name better reflects the team’s essential remit and the priorities that they have always focused on. Their work does not centre on freedom of speech or deciding what counts as bias and discrimination.
My Department addresses these issues in other places. Through the fairness innovation challenge, we are supporting the development of socio-technical solutions to bias and discrimination. And through our work on AI assurance, we are making sure that we adopt this technology safely and responsibly across the economy.
The team at AISI, though, are focused on serious AI risks with security implications, such as how the technology can be used to develop chemical and biological weapons, or to carry out cyberattacks, or to enable crimes such as fraud and child sexual abuse.
To achieve this, the institute will partner across Government, including with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory—the Ministry of Defence’s science and technology organisation—the Laboratory for AI Security Research, and the national security community. That includes building on the expertise of the National Cyber Security Centre, the UK’s national technical authority for cyber-security, including AI.
As part of this update, the institute will also launch a new criminal misuse team, which will work jointly with the Home Office to conduct research on a range of crime and security issues that threaten to harm British citizens.
This work is also rooted in the strength of our partnerships with the companies that are at the frontier of AI development. Working with those companies, the Government can conduct scientifically informed tests to understand new AI capabilities and the risks they pose. US companies have led the way in taking security risks seriously, but we need to scrutinise all models regardless of their jurisdiction of origin. That is why the institute will take a leading role in testing AI models wherever they come from, open or closed. This ground-breaking scientific research will be shared with our allies, demonstrating the UK’s commitment to our shared security.
The UK is alive to the security risks of today, but also aware of the risks of tomorrow. The 2025 international AI safety report, led by Yoshua Bengio, warns us that—without the checks and balances of people directing them—we must consider the possibility that risks will not just come from malicious actors misusing AI models, but from the models themselves. We do not yet know the full extent of these risks, but as we deploy AI across our economy, our society and the critical infrastructure that keeps our nation secure, we cannot afford to ignore them. The AI Security Institute will be critical to this mission.
Governments are not passive bystanders in the AI revolution; we have agency in how AI shapes our society. The UK Government have a responsibility to use that agency to defend our democratic way of life. Only countries with a deep and knowing understanding of this technology will be able to build the capacity they need to deliver for their citizens in the 21st century. This depends on the democratic world rallying together to maintain our leadership in AI and protect our fundamental values: freedom, openness and opportunity. This will not only keep our people safe, but ensure that they are the first to benefit from the new era of wealth and prosperity that AI will bring.
[HCWS462]
Point of Order
Peter Kyle Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for giving me notice of it. I trust that he notified the Secretary of State of his intention to raise it. Should the Secretary of State feel that the record needs to be corrected, there are processes whereby he may do so, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why detain the House? Why don’t I just apologise now, and correct the record? I am grateful to the hon. Member for alerting me to that information. I am happy to correct the record, and I am happy to apologise to him for saying what I said earlier. I should also correct the thrust of my argument this morning, which was that there was insouciance during the period between the March statement and the general election in July. Actually, it was not insouciance; it was just incompetence that meant they could not get the deal across the line.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
Peter Kyle ExcerptsWednesday 12th February 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 64-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (4 Feb 2025)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Government are using technology to grow the economy and create new jobs in order to empower citizens and deliver a smaller, smarter state, but none of that is possible without data. Successive Governments failed to set out the extraordinary opportunity that data presents. Our citizens have counted the cost in slower growth, fewer jobs and flatlining productivity; in communities that feel less safe because police officers are spending more time filling in forms and less time out on the streets, where we need them; in hospitals, where patients are left waiting longer for the care that they so desperately need; and when people queue up to register the death of a loved one, or struggle to rent new homes without the decades-old documents that they need to prove their identity. An outdated approach to data is holding Britain’s economy back. This Bill will take the brakes off, unleashing a new era of wealth and opportunity for all.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Secretary of State says that successive Governments failed to act, but is it not the case that this Bill is almost identical to the one that the last Conservative Government introduced, which very nearly made it on to the statute book?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. Indeed, a lot of this Bill is based on the one that his Government introduced. They called a general election, which halted it in its tracks. We offered to get that Bill through in wash-up, but that was turned down by the Government. We are here today to discuss a Bill that his Government could well have got through; of course, they had 14 years to do so. I am grateful to him for pointing that out, and for no doubt supporting a Bill for which he claims so much credit.
The smart data measures in the Bill could make switching energy suppliers as quick and easy as switching bank accounts. Consumers will be able to compare utility prices and find better deals, putting money in their pockets. Businesses will be forced to innovate and improve their services, too. Fast-growing firms will also benefit from the digital verification services that this Bill enables. Today, people spend months waiting to get paperwork sorted for a new job. By helping people to prove who they are without physical documents, we will cut the time it takes to get on the payroll, and give businesses the freedom to get on with growth.
One of the biggest barriers to growth is the appalling state of Britain’s crumbling infrastructure. Today, streets are being endlessly dug up and re-dug up by different firms repairing gas one year and water the next. At the same time, bigger infrastructure projects have stalled and fallen silent for years. By offering a complete and accurate picture of the underground infrastructure, the national underground asset register will strengthen Britain’s building bureaucracy. It will cut the time it takes for workers on site to get the data they need from six days to six seconds. That means that they will be able to get on with building the roads, railways and homes that Britain so desperately needs.
Today, a siloed approach to data is slowing the state down. Patients are put through the same tests again and again, and prescription errors mean that they get the wrong medication. This is simply unacceptable. The NHS has one of the deepest, most diverse datasets in the world, but the people who need that data cannot access it. By introducing mandatory information standards for all information technology suppliers, this Bill will ensure that information can flow safely, securely and seamlessly through the healthcare system.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Secretary of State outline the benefits that this Bill will have for my constituents in Harlow? I am thinking in particular of residents with multiple prescriptions who struggle to quickly have the data at their fingertips.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is championing his constituents, and I am pleased to inform him that the Bill will deliver much more streamlined access to the healthcare system, from primary care right the way through to hospitals, where information should flow freely, not just because of the incentives being put in place but the actual requirements. Of course, when patients travel to their GP or to hospital, they will be able to count on far less disruption on the pavements and in the streets, simply because of the underground asset register. Those are just two examples of how this Bill will benefit his constituents.
The Bill will make it easier to introduce transformative new technologies such as artificial intelligence. It will reduce duplication and error, and save our doctors and nurses time so that they can focus on the patients who need them the most. The same goes for the police officers keeping our country safe: the measures proposed in this Bill will save them 1.5 million hours every single year.
Engaging with the state today takes time and effort, but I see no reason why it should. I created the new Government Digital Service to deliver efficient, convenient digital public services that are shaped around citizens’ lives. This Bill will bolster those efforts.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Open banking benefits 12 million customers every year by allowing them access to their data. It has been a great success. Does the Secretary of State see that as a model for how citizens can access their data held by the state?
Peter Kyle
Smart data underpins the service that the hon. Gentleman refers to. We see boundless opportunities for smart data to be applied in new ways, and the Bill before us will unlock some of those opportunities. I am grateful to him for getting that on the record.
An electronic register of births and deaths will make life that little bit easier for a new parent or those who have lost a loved one. However—
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Some of my constituents have raised concerns about how their information will be kept safely in the online register of births and deaths. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the Government keep such information safely?
Peter Kyle
It is imperative that we reassure people up and down the country that their data will be used safely and wisely, and that they will always remain in control of how their data is used. I can give my hon. Friend those reassurances. The House will notice that this Government have acted with transparency when it comes to informing the public how data and the algorithms that process that data are being used. Just last week I released more algorithms for public scrutiny, so that they can be put into the algorithm playbook that we have released. From Department to Department, more of those algorithms will be made available as our resources allow. That is just one example of how we are using transparency to earn the public’s trust. In the year before the general election, just one Department released an algorithm for public scrutiny.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
There is a great deal in this Bill that we can all support, but some difficult concepts lurk within it, as I know the Secretary of State will recognise. He is talking about data transparency. One of the issues of concern is about precisely what we mean by the “scientific research” on which data may be employed, and precisely what we mean by “the public interest” that must be served by that scientific research. We will not examine this issue on Second Reading, but may I ask him to commit to a proper examination of those concepts as the Bill moves forward, so that we can all understand what we mean and the public can get the reassurance that he describes?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his informed intervention. I can assure him that we take this issue very seriously. I can also assure him that this is one of the issues on which we will go into considerable depth in Committee, and I am sure that his Whips are hearing of his interest in getting on to that Committee. He is clearly volunteering to put in the hard yards to make sure that we get the Bill right.
None of the things that I have outlined will succeed without trust. People will not use technology unless they are confident that it is being used safely, but we often lack the rigorous evidence that we need to take decisions about the safety of our rapidly changing online world. The provisions in this Bill will allow researchers to access data held by platforms, enabling them to conduct robust independent research into online safety. I am grateful to peers for their dedication in rigorously scrutinising these measures. We have listened closely, and in response we have made some important changes to the Bill. First, we have brought forward measures to strengthen data protection for children. Information society service providers likely to be accessed by children will now have clear legal duties to consider how best to protect and support children when designing their data-processing activities.
Secondly, we have added a provision to help charities use email to engage with people who have previously supported their charitable purposes. Thirdly, we have committed to making it easier for people to navigate data protection measures in a world transformed by technology. In two rapidly growing sectors—automated decision making and edtech—we will ask the Information Commissioner’s Office to publish codes of practice to give people the knowledge and confidence they need to use personal data legally.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that clause 80 removes the existing right of individuals not to be subjected to solely automated decision-making processes unless it involves a category of special data. In practice, this might mean that journalists could have their data processed through ADM, which could pose significant risks to their sources. What reassurance can he give me that these concerns will be explored and assessed as the Bill passes through the House?
Peter Kyle
The Bill improves the automated decision-making process, but individual attributes and sectors will be impacted and we will of course take that into consideration in Committee, where I am sure that issue will be raised. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it on record on Second Reading.
Peers also added several measures during the Bill’s Report stage. First, Baroness Owen ran an admirable campaign to outlaw the creation of intimate images and deepfakes. This horrific form of online abuse has a devastating impact on its victims. The Government will work with Baroness Owen to ensure that the drafting of intimate image abuse measures in Committee keeps women and girls safe. Secondly, my Ministers will work with Opposition Members to explore the possibility of new security guidance for users of the national underground asset register, as proposed by Viscount Camrose. I am confident that we will find a solution that is satisfactory to all.
Thirdly, Viscount Colville added a public interest test for scientific researchers seeking to use clause 67 to process personal data. However, expecting scientists to define the outcomes of their work in advance goes against the unpredictable nature of research. Many groundbreaking discoveries come from research with no clear public benefits at the start. The mRNA-based vaccines that saved millions of lives during the covid-19 pandemic drew on curiosity-driven research that for years had had no practical applications. Today’s AI revolution draws on decades-old neural networks research that was long thought unimportant. As the Royal Society has said, this additional public interest requirement would be an undue bureaucratic burden on researchers. For these reasons, we will seek to overturn the measure.
Fourthly, many Members will have observed Baroness Kidron’s campaign on AI and copyright with keen interest. One of the extraordinary things about Britain is our ability to support a cutting-edge AI sector and world-leading creative industries at the same time. Both are fundamental to our future prosperity and standing in the world, and I refuse to choose between them.
Peter Kyle
I will finish this section of my speech and then give way to those Members who have a considerable interest in this area. Let me say what I have to say, and then I will hear what hon. Members would like to contribute and engage as fully as I can.
The final framework must reward human creativity, incentivise innovation and provide the certainty required for long-term growth in both sectors, but the importance and complexity of this issue means that it should be considered through the live consultation. As I said in that consultation, legislation is ultimately likely to be needed.
Pete Wishart
Of course the creative industries are excited about the inclusion of clauses 135 to 139, which they see as their guarantee and protection against the ravages of generative artificial intelligence. Those clauses are in the Bill to protect our creative industries. Will the Secretary of State assure the House today that he will respect them and keep them in the Bill, with no attempt to water them down?
Peter Kyle
I pay tribute to those in the creative arts sector who are in the House today. I know that, for people who engage in that kind of activity, it is not just a job; it is a passion that comes straight from the heart. They are emotionally connected in a profound way to the work that they create, which is a credit not just to them as individuals but to our entire country. I can assure them that I have no intention at all of standing in the way of respect for their work.
As we go through this process, it will be essential that we listen to the voices from both sides. The consultation that is currently live is a meaningful one, and I assure the House that I am engaging with it. I look forward to hearing all the voices in the consultation and, as I have said, it is likely that legislation on this specific issue will come out of it. That would give the House an opportunity to go through this issue in enormous detail at the appropriate time. I am listening carefully and I want to engage with all the voices throughout the Committee stage and ensure that the debate continues.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Some creatives are arguing that the current consultation could be undermined because it already promotes a preferred option, which is the handing over of creatives’ intellectual property to the AI sector. That would include creatives such as composers, lyricists and writers—one of whom the Secretary of State is sitting next to. Some of them are struggling to earn a fair living, although perhaps not our hon. Friend the Minister. AI models are being trained on those creatives’ work without their knowledge or consent. Without adequate protection for those creatives and without greater transparency over when their intellectual property is being scraped, the creative industries as we know them will cease to exist. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that those creative voices, of whom there are 2.4 million in Britain, are heard throughout the Committee stage?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her offer of advocacy for the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant). I have never known him to lack a voice for self-advocacy. However, should the time arise, I know that she will be on his speed dial. The issues that she has raised are of profound importance. As I have said, I recognise not just the economic issues but the personal connection that creatives have with the art and work that they create. I have absolutely no intention of disempowering them in that relationship, and I certainly have no intention whatsoever of taking away any rights from those individuals without any consultation.
We recognise that people in the creative arts sector are making representations, as they absolutely should be, and I listen carefully to them, but this country has the third largest AI market in the world. There are young people currently studying in schools, colleges and universities around the country who aspire to work in the technology sector, and they should not have to leave the country and work abroad in order to fulfil their potential. Of the people who have contributed so much to our economy, of course those in the creative arts are absolutely front and centre. Alongside them is the technology sector, which is providing enormous opportunities in job creation, wealth creation and innovation right across the country. Parts of this country are becoming a magnet for talent, not only from this country but from around the world, and I do not want anybody to feel that they have to leave the country to seek opportunities to exploit their talent and potential as individuals. I believe there is a way forward, and I assure the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that, whatever people think of the consultation, I am listening very closely. The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms has been engaging fully, and we take these issues incredibly seriously. We will continue to do so in Committee and beyond.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I am a great admirer of the Secretary of State, and I admire his belief in his cause today. The creative sector will have heard his commitment to listen, and I thank him for ensuring the openness and engagement of his Ministers on this issue. In the spirit of listening, will he agree from the Dispatch Box today to meet those creatives who are keen to have an audience with him on this significant issue?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s work on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in scrutinising these areas and for being a voice for the sector. It goes without saying that I would be delighted to meet the people he references, and the same goes for Members on both sides of the House. Whether I can fit every one of the 2.5 million people who work in the sector into my office, I do not know. It is a bigger office than I had seven months ago, but I am not sure I can fit everyone in. However, I will do my absolute best; I am here to listen and learn, as I have been from the outset, and I am here to find a way through. It is time to reconcile these issues and to give certainty to people in both the creative arts sector and the technology sector. I believe the Bill is the moment for this House to provide the certainty that both sides need as we move forward.
Fifthly and finally, let me say a word on Lord Lucas’s amendments. People will use digital identities to buy a house, to rent a car and to get a job. The intention of clause 45(6) is to force public authorities to share whether someone’s information, such as their sex, has changed when disclosing information under clause 45 as part of a digital verification check. That would mean passing on an excessive amount of personal data. Sharing such changes by default would be an unjustifiable invasion of people’s privacy, and I am unable to say that clause 45(6) is compatible with human rights law, which is why we will seek to overturn the amendment.
Sir Jeremy Wright
The Secretary of State is very generous in giving way. Before he finishes, may I ask him about the situation we are creating with this Bill and the Online Safety Act 2023 of setting a framework within which regulators need to operate and cover a good deal of ground? Does he think the advent of these pieces of legislation makes a stronger case for a new Committee of this House, and perhaps a Joint Committee, to maintain scrutiny of ongoing digital regulation? If so, will he be prepared to advance that case?
Peter Kyle
That is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s second audition of the day. I am open-minded on these issues, and I take leadership from the Leader of the House on Committee matters.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on this Bill, and on setting out the importance and ubiquity of data; the current confusion on data sharing, data formats, data processing and data usage; and the lack of action by the previous Government to address some of these issues.
Given the evolution of AI technology, its simply being a method of processing data and its growing importance and applications, can this Bill possibly address all future issues? Is this Bill the Government’s last word on data, or is it their first word?
Peter Kyle
Of course, we should have had this Bill two years ago. We have seen enormous progress on AI technology since then. I have been at the Paris summit for the past few days, and I saw where this technology is heading. Huge advances in the power of AI and the move towards artificial general intelligence are happening faster than anybody imagined. I cannot guarantee that this Bill will be sound for time immemorial, but I can say that it is fit for the moment in which we are living.
I reassure my hon. Friend that all our regulators have been tasked with assessing how non-frontier AI, as applied throughout the economy and society, will impact the sectors they regulate. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is offering assistance, where needed, as we assess the impact across our society.
My hon. Friend refers to a general-purpose technology, and it will therefore be applied and deployed in different parts of the economy and society in very different ways. We must make sure that, as a society, we deploy it safely. Once we ensure that the technology is safe, we can embrace it and explore all the opportunities that it offers.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
It is hard to imagine a dataset in which it is more important to maintain confidentiality than patient data. This Bill makes changes to the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that there are no changes to patient confidentiality?
Peter Kyle
I am pleased to give the hon. Member that assurance.
Data reform could not be more urgent or more necessary. Governments have spent years waxing lyrical about the immense promise of technology.
Peter Kyle
I will carry on, I am afraid.
The failure of previous Governments to deliver data reform has undermined that promise, stalling economic growth and leaving our public services wrapped up in red tape, and our citizens have paid the price. This Bill will smash the silos standing in the way of reform and remove the brakes that are holding Britain back.
Alan Mak
The creative industries sector is telling us that that solution is not fit for purpose. We will hold the Labour Government to account because the creative industries are extremely important.
Under the Conservatives, we became the second largest exporter of television programming and the fourth largest exporter of film, while also being home to world-class theatre, music, broadcasting and journalism.
Alan Mak
I make progress, but I will give way shortly.
On the Conservative Benches, we have many well-respected champions of the creative industries sector. I am especially looking forward to the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, who brings his insight as a former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, creative industries Minister and Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the current Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, for her work and leadership on the issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), the shadow DCMS Minister, are both long-standing advocates for the creative industries. They have both engaged extensively with the creative industries on AI and copyright issues, and together we will continue to champion those industries in this House and beyond.
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman did not answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the opt-out or not? He seemed to disagree with it, but then he described exactly the same process as we have in the consultation.
Alan Mak
The Secretary of State needs to listen to the creative industries sector. So far he has ignored that sector, issued a consultation late and given it no faith whatsoever. The timing of the consultation and the Bill is fully faulty, reflecting Labour’s entirely incoherent approach—[Interruption.] The Government’s consultation on AI and copyright is open for another two weeks and it will take them many months to respond to the views expressed. On top of that, more time will be needed for the Government to come to any sort of conclusion, and that is before the Chancellor and No. 10 panic, take control of the policy, edge out the Secretary of State and cause even more delay.
Alan Mak
I am not in government, so I will not give way until later—although if the Secretary of State wants to come to the Dispatch Box to explain why his consultation and review are late and why he has not given any certainty to the sector, I am happy to give way, but I do not think he wants to do that. Let us go back to the Bill—[Interruption.] Okay, I am happy to give way.
Peter Kyle
Well, we certainly did not take 14 years to do that, but will the hon. Gentleman answer this: does he agree with the opt-out system? Yes or no?
Alan Mak
The Secretary of State keeps asking me questions, but I am not in government. It is for him to answer. It is for him to bring forward a consultation and legislation, and to give certainty to the creative sector. There is no point asking me questions—I am not in government.
What I can tell the Secretary of State is that it is extremely unfortunate that this legislation is passing through Parliament now, while the consultation is still ongoing. Amendments are being tabled by Members from all parts of both Houses, leading to legislative positions being crystalised even though the consultation has not yet closed. If the Government really took seriously the views of the public, the tech sector, the creative industries and other stakeholders, they would not be following this approach or timetable. Therefore, we will table amendments calling on the Government to respond to their own consultation more quickly.
Labour’s consultation provides the worst of all worlds: it does not provide any legal certainty or allow the views of those who have responded to be taken seriously. However, Labour should take the views of parliamentarians seriously, including those of its own Back-Bench MPs, who have voiced concerns at the Government’s approach in this very House. Labour should also take seriously the views of those in the other place. The Secretary of State acknowledged that the Government have already been heavily defeated on several amendments, including the Conservative amendments tabled by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge on sexually explicit deepfake images, which secured wide-ranging support. The Government were also defeated on Conservative amendments tabled by Lord Lucas and Lord Arbuthnot that recognise the importance of accurate data, particularly when it comes to gender and sex. Confusing biological sex and elective gender puts patient safety at risk.
The Bill is lengthy and we will continue to properly scrutinise it as it progresses through the House. Labour’s track record to date on science and technology issues is so bad it needs all the help it can get. In just eight months in office, the Labour Government have already committed eight acts of harm on science and technology issues. They have imposed a national insurance jobs tax, punishing tech workers and businesses; lost a £450 million investment from AstraZeneca, doing away hundreds of jobs; launched an AI plan with no new funding or delivery plan, which creates two new quangos and more red tape; cancelled the UK’s new exascale supercomputer, hampering our scientists while our competitors race ahead; skipped the international AI summit of world leaders, started by the Conservatives but ignored by this Labour Prime Minister; scrapped £500 million of funding for the AI research resource, which funds computer power for AI; abandoned Conservative plans for the national maths academy, harming the next generation of data scientists; and aligned Britain with the EU’s failing approach to AI and copyright.
Labour’s approach is analogue government in the digital age: slow, uninspiring and not good enough for Britain. Labour promised so much, but it has delivered only failure.
Alison Hume
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is crucial that the Government take that into account at the end of the consultation.
Peter Kyle
We have heard lots of voices from the creative arts sector. The point of the consultation is to hear from all sectors. So far in the debate we have not heard representations or voices from the technology sector—I look forward to the contribution by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone)—but I have been reassured by the technology companies that they are engaging with the consultation and are trying to present the technological solutions for which my hon. Friend inquires. That is why the live consultation is so important: so that I, and we as a House, can judge whether the submissions from technology companies are robust and implementable enough and can see where the technology will go. The consultation is still live during this debate, and I hope that by the time we are in Committee, we can have more of an informed discussion, even though, as I said before, there is the likelihood of further parliamentary involvement down the line in a fully informed way.
Alison Hume
I thank the Secretary of State for his reassurances. I know that creatives are worried because the scraping is happening now and will carry on until we have a solution. We must protect the creative industries. They grew by over a third between 2010 and 2023 in terms of gross value added, far outpacing growth in the UK economy as a whole. They are worth more to the economy than life sciences, car manufacturing, aerospace and the oil and gas sectors combined. They are a glorious British success story. They make us proud. They make us feel good. They shape the nation’s identity. They make us, well, us. They are represented in every corner of the UK, with 2.4 million workers, 70% of whom live outside London. They are writers, musicians, photographers, artists—all manner of wonderful creative folk, powering one of our greatest success stories and one of our best engines for growth.
In my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, I have been entreated by individual creatives and small and medium-sized enterprises to ask the Government to look after their rights and to protect their income. Recently, I proudly served on the Employment Rights Bill Committee—a Bill that will see the biggest improvements for working people in a generation. Creatives are working people, too. Creative work is work. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has talked about her determination to take the brakes off the creative industries and turbocharge growth.
If the creative industries are a fast car, the creative is the driver. Without us, it is the equivalent of a driverless car—fine, maybe, to get from A to B—but if we are to produce the kind of quality scripts behind the superb television dramas that entertain, comfort, inspire and, as recently shown in the case of “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, effect meaningful change, we need a human being at the wheel. To have a human there, we need to ensure that they are paid for doing what they do best: being original.
We should inspire the rest of the world to adopt high standards, lead from the front and amplify our influence on the global stage. Britain’s creative industries deserve a dynamic licensing market that protects copyright and drives growth and innovation in both the creative and tech sectors. I look forward to the outcome of the consultation on AI and copyright and to working with the Secretary of State and the Minister to find a future-proofed solution, which protects original work and the ability to earn an income from it. The Labour party was founded on the principle of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. Being in government is our opportunity to fulfil that principle for UK creatives.
Cyber-security of AI: Government Response
Peter Kyle Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
Artificial intelligence is one of the most vital technologies of our lifetimes. It has incredible potential to improve our public services, boost productivity and rebuild our economy. However, to take full advantage we need to build trust in these systems which are increasingly part of our day-to-day lives. AI is at the heart of the Government’s plan to kickstart an era of economic growth, transform how we deliver public services, and boost living standards for working people across the country. To fully realise these benefits, we must protect end users and address the very real security threats to AI systems and models.
Last Friday, I set out the Government’s response to the call for views on the cyber-security of AI and set out our ambitious next steps to protect organisations in the UK so they can be confident they can adopt AI securely.
The UK Government’s research into the cyber-security of AI found there are clear and specific risks to the security of AI models and systems throughout the AI life cycle. It is imperative these are addressed so consumers and organisations can safely benefit from AI technologies.
A call for views on the Government’s proposed interventions was held from 15 May 2024 to 9 August 2024. The proposals included a two-part approach, comprised of a voluntary code of practice, which forms the basis for the second part, a global standard developed at an international standards body. Together, these establish baseline security requirements which will help reduce the number and impact of successful cyber-attacks and protect users’ data and the economy.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology received 123 responses to the call for views. I greatly appreciate all the responses we received, including those from international partners and industry which make this a truly global endeavour. I am particularly pleased respondents were overwhelmingly supportive of the Government-proposed two-part intervention.
We have taken this feedback and used it to update the code of practice and create a new implementation guide that supports the code. The guide provides detail that supports organisations, particularly small and medium enterprises, with implementing the code. The voluntary code of practice on the cyber-security of AI that is set out in this Government response will be used to inform the development of a new global standard. Through this work, the UK, as a world leader in securing technology, will continue to advocate the importance of cyber-security and the need for a secure by design approach across all technologies.
The code of practice and the new implementation guide forms one part of Government’s wider work on AI and is aligned and contributing to the vital programme that DSIT is progressing on frontier AI to prepare the UK for future advanced AI models. As announced in the King’s Speech last summer, we will deliver on our manifesto commitment by placing binding requirements on the handful of companies developing the most powerful AI systems. This highly targeted legislation will build on the voluntary commitments secured at the Seoul AI safety summit for frontier AI companies to develop and deploy their systems responsibly and strengthen the role of the AI Safety Institute.
This work on the cyber-security of AI is also aligned with DSIT’s other cyber-security initiatives, such as the upcoming draft codes of practice for cyber governance and Software which will improve security practices, outcomes, and confidence for UK organisations.
We have published the Government’s response on www.gov.uk, alongside the updated AI cyber-security code of practice and implementation guide.
As we begin to develop a global standard for AI cyber- security based on this work, it is my hope these documents will help ensure we can all benefit from secure AI and will kickstart economic growth and innovation.
[HCWS409]