Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Kyle Excerpts(1 week 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 Ofcom has now published its draft guidance and I expect it, after that good work and good start, to implement that in full in the months and years ahead.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(1 month, 1 week 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(1 month, 3 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
(1 month, 3 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(1 month, 4 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]
Digital Government
Peter Kyle Excerpts(2 months, 1 week 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 pleased to present the “State of Digital Government Review” and “Blueprint for Modern Digital Government” to Parliament.
We have already shown how technologies like artificial intelligence can drive economic growth, create new jobs and improve living standards. We have announced AI-powered tools that will make the state more productive, too. Now, we are setting out how we will use technology to empower citizens and transform their experience of the state and the services it provides.
In the last two decades, the digital revolution has changed the world. Commerce, banking and travel are easier and more convenient than ever before. However, the state has been allowed to fall behind.
The “State of Digital Government Review” shows just how wide the gap between the state and the private sector has become. A comprehensive evaluation of the United Kingdom’s public sector digital infrastructure and capabilities, it shows that successes are too often achieved despite the system: they rely on the dedication of experts doing their best with limited resources, navigating processes which were not designed for a digital age, and implementing policies which were not designed to be digital first. As well as finding that our current paradigm of digital transformation is not working, it reveals a fragmented technology landscape that is dependent on ageing legacy systems and exposed to cyber-attacks and technology failure; where data is siloed; and which does not have enough skilled people to sustain and transform it.
The statistics are shocking. Failure to adopt new technology costs the taxpayer £45 billion a year. Some 47% of central Government services still rely on non-digital methods like phone calls or paper forms, and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency alone processes 45,000 letters every day. Over half of government’s tech budget goes to external consultants, short-term contractors and managed services providers.
It is working people who are paying the price. To manage a long-term disability in Britain today, you have to engage with more than 40 different services across nine organisations. A recent cyber-attack on NHS provider Synnovis led to over 10,000 appointments being postponed—heartbreaking news for patients who had already waited months, sometimes years, to be seen.
As progress has stalled, satisfaction has declined. There has been an 11% fall in satisfaction with Government digital services in the last decade. We need a co-ordinated, strategic vision for modern digital Government more than ever. That is what the “Blueprint for Modern Digital Government” provides. It sets out our vision for putting the state at citizens’ fingertips, with public services that fit around the lives of the people who use them. To deliver that vision, it sets out a six-point plan:
We will join up public sector digital services, acting as one public sector to enable next-generation public services, better supporting businesses, and ensuring that services are consistently high-standard.
We will harness the power of AI for the public good, establishing an AI adoption unit to build and deploy AI into public services, growing AI capacity and capability across Government, and building trust, responsibility and accountability into all we do.
We will strengthen and extend our digital and data public infrastructure, expanding gov.uk One Login and other common components, enabling access to data through the national data library, strengthening cyber and technical resilience and building more responsibly.
To make this happen, we need to elevate digital leadership to the centre of public sector decision-making, invest in the digital and data profession to compete for talent, and raise the digital skills baseline for all public servants.
And there are some hard changes to make to how we deliver in government. We need to reform the Government’s approach to funding digital and technology, and maximise the value and potential of public procurement.
As we do this, we will be open with this House and the public, publishing and acting on performance data, and doing more of the work of Government in the open, so that people can help shape changes that affect them.
The blueprint will transform how citizens experience the state, empowering them to engage with digital public services when, how, and where they choose. It also sets out how we will use technology to drive radical, far-reaching reform across the public sector.
Delivery of the blueprint will be led by the new digital centre of Government within my Department. This new team has now been established, bringing together the work of the previous Government Digital Service, the Centre Digital and Data Office, and the incubator for AI from the Cabinet Office, as well as the Geospatial Commission and part of the responsible technology adoption unit from other parts of my Department. This new integrated function will be referred to as the Government Digital Service.
[HCWS375]
Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan
Peter Kyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks 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)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about the Government’s AI opportunities action plan.
This Government were elected on a programme of change. Today, we are publishing the latest step in delivering our plan for change with the AI opportunities action plan. Our plan for change is clear: we will grow the economy, backing British business, with good jobs putting more money in working people’s pockets; and we will rebuild our crumbling public services, too, providing our people with world-class healthcare and education. That ambition shapes our approach to artificial intelligence—the technology set to define our shared future economic and social progress.
AI is no longer the stuff of sci-fi movies and “Dr Who”; the AI revolution is right here and right now. In NHS hospitals, AI is helping doctors to detect and treat disease faster and more effectively, reducing patient waits and saving more lives. In local schools, AI is equipping teachers with the tools to spend more time helping every pupil to achieve their full potential. In high streets across the country, small businesses have started using AI to grow their companies and compete on the global stage.
The applications are boundless and the opportunities profound, but only those countries with the courage to seize them will fully benefit. We do not get to decide whether AI will become part of our world—it already is; the choice is between waiting for AI to reshape our lives, or shaping the future of that technology so that the British economy and working people reap its maximum benefit. We choose fully to embrace the opportunity that AI presents to build a better future for all our citizens. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.
Since the first industrial revolution, science and technological progress has been the single greatest force of change. Once again, a reforming Labour Government are called to harness the white heat of scientific revolution in the interests of working people. From ending hospital backlogs to securing home-grown energy and giving children the best start in life, AI is essential to our programme of change.
Championing change is in Britons’ DNA—we pioneered the age of steam. I believe that Britain can be a leader now, in the AI age. With world-class talent, excellent universities and an unrivalled record of scientific discovery, we can do so. Home to success stories such as Google DeepMind, ARM and Wayve, we have the third largest AI market in the world.
Just as we have been on AI safety, I believe that Britain has a responsibility to provide global leadership by fairly and effectively seizing the opportunities that AI presents to improve lives. That is why in July last year I asked Matt Clifford to prepare the AI opportunities action plan. Across 50 recommendations, that plan shows how we can shape the application of AI in a modern social market economy, anchored in principles of shared prosperity, improved public services and increased personal opportunity. Through partnership with leading companies and researchers, we will strengthen the foundations of our AI ecosystem, use AI to deliver real change for our citizens, and secure our future by ensuring that we are home to the firms right at the frontier of this technology.
Change has already started. Our transformative planning reforms will make it easier to build data centres—the industrial engines of the AI age. Skills England will prepare British people to be active participants in tomorrow’s business successes. The digital centre of government will use technology to transform the relationship between the modern state and citizens. However, faced with a technology that shows no signs of slowing, we must move faster and further. We are taking forward recommendations to expand Britain’s sovereign AI compute capacity by at least 20 times by 2030, ensuring that British researchers can access the tools they need to develop cutting-edge AI.
We will create AI growth zones to speed up the construction of critical compute infrastructure right across the United Kingdom. With enhanced access to power and streamlined planning approvals, those zones will bring faster growth and better jobs to communities who have missed out in the past. The first pilot AI growth zone will be at Culham in Oxfordshire, a world-renowned hub for clean energy and fusion research. They will pioneer innovative partnerships with business to deliver secure dedicated computing capacity that supports our national priorities. We will also seek a private sector partner to develop one of the UK’s largest AI data centres, beginning with 100 MW of capacity, with plans to scale up to 500 MW.
One of the biggest barriers to success in the AI age is the immense amount of energy that the technology uses. The Energy Secretary and I are convening and co-chairing a new AI energy council to provide expert insight into how to meet this demand, including opportunities to accelerate investment in innovative solutions, such as small modular reactors.
Infrastructure alone, though, is not enough. To deliver security, prosperity and opportunity for every citizen into the long term, we must be makers of this technology, and not just takers. Britain needs our own national champions—our own Googles and Microsofts. We are launching a new dedicated team with a mandate to strengthen our sovereign AI capacities by supporting high-potential frontier AI companies in the UK. This team will work across and beyond Government, partnering with the fast-growing firms to ensure that they can access the compute capacity, the data and the global talent they need to succeed in Britain.
We have already seen how a small number of companies at the frontier of AI are set to wield outsized global influence. We have a narrow window of opportunity to secure a stake in the future of AI. By acting now, we can secure a better future for the British people in the decades to come, but this is just the start. We will safely unlock the value of public sector data assets to support secure, responsible and ethical AI innovation. We will overhaul the skills system to safeguard our status as a top destination for global talent, with a workforce ready for the AI age. We will use a scan, pilot and scale approach to quickly identify and trial ways of using AI to transform our economy and improve our public services.
The stakes just could not be higher. This is a top priority for the Prime Minister and across Government. We will harness the power of AI to fulfil our promise to the British people of better jobs, better public services and better lives. We have attracted more than £25 billion-worth of investment into AI since we took office. This week alone, global giants have committed a further £14 billion-worth of investment. Phase 2 of the spending review will see every Department using technology to drive forward our national missions to deliver better value for taxpayers. AI will also be fundamental to the industrial strategy to attract investment, to grow the economy and to create high-quality, well-paid jobs across the country.
The AI revolution is now. This Government are determined to fully harness this opportunity for British businesses and working people right across the United Kingdom. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Let me begin by thanking Matt Clifford for his work. Having known Matt for many years, I am grateful for his long-standing contribution to the tech sector, including with the last Conservative Government.
It was that last Conservative Government who identified the opportunities of AI early, and we acted decisively. We kept Britain out of the EU’s anti-growth regulatory regime, enabling our tech sector to flourish. In contrast, the Secretary of State is on record praising the EU’s approach to AI, which even President Macron rejected. Will the Secretary rule out regulatory alignment with the EU on AI issues? We also launched the incubator for AI, which led on groundbreaking work to improve productivity, and the gov.uk chatbot, both of which were led by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). Can the Secretary of State guarantee the future of both projects under this Government?
We also provided £500 million for AI compute, because our AI sector requires cutting-edge computing power, as well as more energy to power data centres. Labour’s energy policy is taking our country to the brink of blackouts. Instead of just launching another quango—the AI energy council—can the Secretary of State assure the House that the AI sector will have reliable access to all the energy it needs? It was a Conservative Government who organised the world’s first AI safety summit and delivered the world’s third largest AI market, fostering an environment in which Sir Demis Hassabis won the Nobel prize last year. Even the Prime Minister admitted today that when it comes to AI, Britain starts with a position of strength.
The bad news is that Labour is already squandering the world-leading AI position that we built up for Britain. Last July, one of Labour’s first actions on entering government was to cut £1.3 billion of funding for Britain’s first exascale supercomputer and the AI research resource—both of which Matt Clifford’s report says deserve support. Why did the Secretary of State not stand up to the Chancellor when she cut the funding last July? Anyone reading the plan will see that it has been fully drenched in Labour gobbledegook, peppered with references to “missions”, “mission delivery boards”, “clusters”, “sector champions” and even “local trusted intermediaries”. Its plan confirms what everyone suspected all along: Labour prefers technocratic jargon over the actual tech sector.
The plan was ready last September and due to be published last November. Why did Labour delay publication again and again, and finally choose a day when it needed to divert attention away from the beleaguered Chancellor? What is not in the plan is even more telling than what is. First, there is nothing to correct the huge damage that Labour has already inflicted on the AI sector through the Chancellor’s national insurance jobs tax, which punishes every tech worker by £900 per person per year. Will the Secretary of State apologise today for making our tech workers take a wage cut and for reducing their living standards?
Labour’s response is full of aspirational dates for targets to be met, but there are no specific plans setting out how it will achieve the targets or pay for them—so much for the Chancellor’s iron grip on the public finances. Given that there is no new funding, will the Secretary of State give a precise date for publishing his spending plans, and confirm what funding will be cut from existing projects to pay for this plan’s 50 new commitments? Why have the Government created two more AI quangos today? The Prime Minister has announced or created a quango almost every week since coming to office. Today, it is clearly the tech sector’s turn. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House and the country that his two new AI quangos will not just tie up our tech sector in more red tape?
Last week, the Chancellor fled the country. As she headed east, our economy went south. Labour promised growth but it has delivered failure. It has published an underwhelming plan three months late. It has punished our tech workers with the national insurance jobs tax. It has saddled our tech sector with red tape and more quangos, and it aligns itself with the EU when everybody else is saying no. Labour’s delayed AI plan is analogue Government in the digital age: slow, uninspiring and not good enough for Britain. Our country deserves the best, but Labour has let Britain down again.
Peter Kyle
I am kind of grateful for the hon. Member’s comments, but I feel a bit sorry for him. He praised Matt Clifford and his independent report, because Matt Clifford is an astonishing person—as a House we should all give credit to somebody who has been so successful in the tech sector out there in the real economy, while giving up so much time for public service. I am grateful for him. But the hon. Member then went on to talk about his report as if it is Labour’s report, “full of gobbledegook”. It was not Labour’s report but Matt Clifford’s report. If the hon. Member respected Matt Clifford, he would not be attacking the very report that he authored. I did not author it; I just looked at the recommendations, saw the logic and the scale of the ambition in it and said yes. We share that sense of ambition and we will deliver it, too.
If the hon. Member cared so much about compute and the exascale computer, his Government would have done something fundamental to deliver it. They would have allocated the money. If they are standing up in public and saying that they will deliver something, it is pretty basic stuff to allocate the resources to deliver it. That project never existed, because the money never existed. It was a fraud committed on the scientific community of our country—smoke and mirrors from the outset. All I did was be honest with the public about the scale of the deceit inflicted on them. I corrected a wrong from the previous Administration.
Today, we have a plan. The task set for Matt Clifford was not to look at what Government—particularly the previous Government—are capable of and then to try to design a programme limited by the scale of their chaotic abilities. Instead, the Prime Minister and I asked Matt Clifford to look at our country’s potential if we get everything right on the digital infrastructure and opportunities of the future, and that is what his plan has done. There are things this Government need to do differently in order to realise the potential out there in our country, and that is what we have set about doing today by accepting all 50 recommendations.
When they were in office, the Conservatives did down our country; now, in opposition, they do nothing but talk it down. That is a shame.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I welcome the Government embracing AI and the Secretary of State’s leadership in accepting every single one of Matt Clifford’s recommendations —I hope he will be as receptive in accepting the recommendations of my Committee. Does the Secretary of State agree that those who say this plan is irrelevant to the challenges of economic growth in public sector financing that we are facing fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the opportunities that AI represents, its presence everywhere in our lives already, the frenetic pace of its implementation and its ability to drive growth? Most importantly, however, they misunderstand the nature of business confidence. Having a Government who understand how to drive these opportunities into every home, business and public sector service in the land is a reason for business confidence.
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments and for the service of her Committee. It was a privilege to go before her Committee so soon after its formation, and I look forward to engaging in the future. She is completely right. We hear a lot about business confidence and the words that come out of certain parts of the business community, but today, they have voted with their investment. We have announced an additional £14 billion and the creation of up to 13,000 jobs as a result of today’s investment—that is business showing confidence in this Government. Of course, for many of the schemes announced today, the policies will deliver into the short, medium and long term. Together with our regulatory innovation office and our planning reforms, that investment will mean that shovels go into the ground quickly, and the jobs and wealth that will be created by it will start paying dividends very soon.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement.
We are all too aware of the economic malaise inherited from the previous Conservative Government. Innovation in technology can help to reverse years of decline, and the UK must be a world leader in quality innovation. From helping to save lives to boosting our economy, good tech is good for business, and that is why safety and AI innovation must go hand in hand. We must build trust and bring people along, not risk breeding suspicion or fear. As the Ada Lovelace Institute said this morning,
“there will be no bigger roadblock to AI’s transformative potential than a failure in public confidence.”
The national data library would represent a major shift in public sector data handling. How will the Government ensure the necessary safeguards are in place? How will they maintain public confidence?
While the focus on AI training is welcome, we must go beyond high-level skills. Not only are tech companies themselves calling out for technical skills, but AI is here now, shaping workplaces, services and lives. What is being done to ensure all sectors of society can access lifelong learning and training? Where is the strategy to address digital exclusion so that no one is left behind? Furthermore, the text and data mining regime is a concern. Creatives will be dismayed by the Government’s acceptance of an opt-out system, which I urge the Government to reassess.
The Prime Minister says that our AI safety infrastructure is world leading, but companies are calling for better funding access with better support from the British Business Bank, simpler ways of working with international talent and better infrastructure, from labs to internet access. How will the Government choose where those growth zones will be and ensure the benefits are shared across the UK? How will they ensure that small, innovative start-ups are not left behind?
Innovation must go hand in hand with safety and trust, with the right guardrails in place to promote safety by design. Only by doing so can we lead in quality innovation and ensure the benefits are felt across the UK.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her constructive comments. She mentions trust. Trust is incredibly important in this whole agenda. We have seen too many times in the past where a fearful public have failed to fully grasp the potential for innovation coming out of the scientific community in this country. We are not going to make that mistake. We understand from the outset that to take the public with us we must inspire confidence. We must have safety assured from the outset and that is a commitment I make today. If people are not safe and protected, and do not feel safe, they will not explore confidently all the potential that AI and the digital world presents to them, their families, their communities, their businesses and us as a country. We must ensure that they do so.
On intellectual property, a consultation is under way. The hon. Lady, along with the rest of the public and all interested parties, are very welcome to take part—indeed, I implore them to do so.
Growth zones present the most remarkable opportunity for parts of our country. We want to ensure not just that every part of the country benefits, but that those parts of the country that experienced deindustrialisation and suffered at the hands of the Conservative Government over 14 years of stagnation, chaos and the poor strategic planning of our economy, benefit the most. In the coming weeks we will announce the process by which we will select the future AI growth zones. I implore areas, regions and parts of our country that are interested to start looking at the Government’s direction of travel to see whether they can play a part, and whether they can get involved and start delivering AI growth zones in their area. There are parts of the country that will really benefit. We want to ensure that we have a set of local authorities and areas that are eager to take advantage of it.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Cities like Stoke-on-Trent, left behind by the previous Conservative Government, could significantly benefit from targeted AI investment. AI growth zones are one such opportunity. We have a great site in Stoke-on-Trent and energy innovations. Will the Secretary of State outline plans for using AI to drive investment towards the CreaTech hub that is Stoke-on-Trent?
Peter Kyle
The people of Stoke-on-Trent are extremely lucky to have such a strong advocate, not just for the infrastructure of the future but for the skills and the talent that exists across Stoke-on-Trent. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are eagerly awaiting any interest that Stoke-on-Trent shows in the growth zone area and in all the other announcements that came out in the plan today. We will not do “to” communities; we will partner “with” communities, areas and the nations of the United Kingdom to ensure that everyone benefits. Those who are hungry to embrace the agenda will have an active partner in my Department and this Government.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The action plan calls for an AI sector champion in the creative industries, but what the Government really need is a creative industries champion. The Government’s copyright and AI consultation, which is so crucial for the creative industries, does not close until 25 February. One option on the table includes maintaining our current gold-standard copyright regime. Why does it seem that the Government have already made up their mind on that consultation? This plan heralds the reform of the UK text and data mining regime to be as least as competitive as the EU’s. This plan makes a nonsense of that consultation, does it not?
Peter Kyle
The hon. Lady, unfortunately, does not understand the idea of a consultation. We are open minded and we are listening eagerly to the sector. What I will not do is be forced to make a choice. We have the second-largest creative industries market in the world and the third-largest AI market in the world. This is a gift for a country like ours: two great sectors that are rooted in the future of where global economic prosperity lies. She and the Conservative party want us to make a choice between one or the other. We will not make that choice. On her call for a Government champion for the creative arts, we have one: the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant). I sit alongside him and am very grateful to do so.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
Small businesses and start-ups are vital to the local economy in my constituency and throughout the UK. Can the Secretary of State explain how his AI action plan will help those small businesses to seize the opportunities of AI, and deliver the growth that we desperately need across the country?
Peter Kyle
The people and businesses of High Peak have a great champion in my hon. Friend, and as such they will be able to reap the rewards. We need all parts of the economy to embrace digital technology fully in a digital future, and to do so with confidence. The Office for Budget Responsibility said some time ago that if businesses across Britain did do so equally it would add 0.5% to productivity, which would mean £27 billion of fiscal headroom for the Exchequer. We have set about doing so because that is how we can break out of the inheritance from the Conservative Government of high tax and low growth. We want to invest in that future, and small businesses will be at the forefront. The great thing about AI and digital technology is that it puts into the hands of small businesses the kind of power that to date has only been within the reach of large businesses. This is a huge opportunity, and I hope that people running small and medium-sized enterprises across the country will grab it with both hands.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
This morning the Prime Minister spoke about the Government’s wish to develop a clear and trusted copyright regime, which is, I believe, what many in the creative industries thought we already had. When the Secretary of State comes to consider Matt Clifford’s recommendation for reform of the text and data mining regime, will the consultation include consideration of potentially strengthening intellectual property protection rather than weakening it?
Peter Kyle
The right hon. Gentleman is a persistent advocate of the issue that he has raised, but let me gently say to him that if the current legal regime were so satisfactory, there would not be so many outstanding court cases concerning that precise issue; it is clearly struggling to keep up with the time in which we are living. We want to ensure that, yes, we do strengthen the rights of the people who use the creative industries and all the great potential that that has for individual copyrighted material, and we want to strengthen that into the future, but also to get it right for the future. That is why we are thinking about the needs, demands and opportunities of the future, and making sure that the settlement for those creating digital, AI and creative industry products and services benefits them equally as we go forward, and that they have the assertion of the law.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I am equally excited by the opportunities that being a leader in AI can bring to the people of the UK. As my right hon. Friend will know, Milton Keynes has been a leader from its outset. We have Bletchley Park, the birthplace of machine learning and AI, but Milton Keynes businesses are leading as well, especially in arts, services and transport. The heart of our security services efforts is based there, as is our skills base between the South Central institute of technology, Cranfield university and the Open university. Will my right hon. Friend meet me, and other AI champions from Milton Keynes, to come up with actions to make this plan a reality for the people there?
Peter Kyle
I have visited Silicon Valley three times in the past year, and one of the things I have noticed is that the constituent parts that make it so magical when it comes to innovation and the upscaling of it exist here in the UK, but we are not bringing it together and using it in the right way. My hon. Friend has just identified many of those constituent elements in Milton Keynes, and they have a great champion in her, because they need to be co-ordinated better to fully exploit the opportunities of the future. I hope that, along with this Government and my Department, I can be the partner that she needs, and I look forward to meeting her and her stakeholders.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I very much agree with the sentiments of the Secretary of State about the opportunities that AI presents, including those that it presents to my constituents, but with any opportunity often comes risk. Can he update the House on any conversations he has had with colleagues from the Home Office about ensuring that police are properly trained, equipped and resourced to deal with crime that is brought about through, for instance, deepfakes, misinformation or disinformation?
Peter Kyle
The hon. Lady has raised a very good point. I can assure her that we are indeed in touch with the Home Office, as we are with every frontline public service department, to ensure that AI is used and the potential is embraced. However, as I said earlier, safety and protection must be the first step, so that the public can be reassured that we are using this technology wisely and in their interests.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Future AI will be essential to the future of our public services, particularly in improving productivity. Can he say exactly what the Government will do to assist our public services to take advantage of the opportunities that AI offers?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The thing about AI is that it is not a singular technology; it is a general purpose technology. Just in health alone, AI is already being used in hospitals’ radiography departments, such as in Huddersfield, to make sure that scanning is more precise. We can detect early patterns quicker, so we get to disease quicker, and productivity is increasing—in Huddersfield’s case, from 700 to 1,000 scans a week. Simultaneously, AI is ensuring that doctors’ time is used more wisely in the test pilots that we are running. We are using digital technology to create a more human experience, because doctors can spend more time with patients. That is what happens when we use AI and digital technology wisely. It is why we, unlike the previous Government, will not sit on the sidelines and let the market do business as it sees fit. We will use the power of Government, and the agency that comes with it, to ensure that this technology is used for the benefit of all.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I do not know whether the Secretary of State has had a moment to read The Times this morning, but it reports that the Chancellor is using a new AI tool to answer her emails. It is 70% accurate and is
“performing as good or better than existing processes”,
which does not say a great deal for the ability of the Chancellor to answer her own emails. Be that as it may, could the Secretary of State please reassure us that any AI tool being used across Government will ensure that any statement brought to the Dispatch Box by the Chancellor is 100% accurate?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are piloting, developing and hoping to deploy AI across Government to drive efficiencies and effectiveness, and to serve the people of this country better than ever before—and certainly better, more efficiently and more effectively than they experienced during the previous 14 years.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Can my right hon. Friend set out what role he envisages the digital centre of Government will play in driving AI adoption across public services and Departments to benefit my residents in Exeter?
Peter Kyle
The people of Exeter will experience many benefits through this Government’s digital technology programme. We have created the digital centre of Government because previously digital services were dispersed across Government. The Government often bought off-the-shelf products and services from big providers, because the capacity did not exist in Government to understand, develop, deploy and program services in-house. We now have a powerful digital centre of Government, which is working alongside tech companies and often developing in-house. I am really excited that in the days and weeks—not months and years—that lie ahead, we will tell the public more about what the digital service is delivering for citizens across this country.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the Government’s ambition in this space, but one area of significant challenge to many tech companies that I have observed and invested in over 20 years has been the ecosystem of investment in the UK. May I urge the Secretary of State to work closely with the Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), who is undertaking valuable work on pension reforms, so that we can intensify the understanding in the City of the opportunities that exist in this new sector, particularly at series C and before, where there is a gap? It has a meaningful impact on the growth potential of so many businesses across this country.
Peter Kyle
The right hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly pertinent point, and he mentions one of the great challenges. There are many challenges in this agenda, which is why we are striving so hard to get as much progress as we can. Removing one of the key barriers to not just upscaling innovation, but keeping it in this country, involves making sure that the investment landscape is comprehensive and swift enough—not just at spin out and scale up, but when we get to the point where we need the further rounds of investment that he mentions. Sometimes that is in the hundreds of millions of pounds, and sometimes it takes time to become profitable. Taking that kind of investment risk is essential.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary are both working intensively on pension reform. We did so in opposition, and we are carrying on with the Mansion House process. We want to make sure that the investment landscape in this country is world class. Right now, we have some work to do, but we are getting there.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I am pleased that today’s action plan refers to the expertise and development in AI that already exists in Edinburgh. It is understandable that the Government had to cancel a number of unfunded projects from the last Administration. However, will my right hon. Friend work with stakeholders to ensure that the ambition to develop an exascale computer in Edinburgh is at the heart of the Government’s long-term plan and will be brought forward in the next six months?
Peter Kyle
At last, there is a great advocate for a sustainable, fully funded, fully costed compute landscape for our country. That is something we have begun announcing in today’s plan, and into the spring I will announce further strategy on compute. I want to make sure that we have the right resilient, sustainable investment that our country needs when it comes to public compute. We have committed today to increasing our public compute by a factor of 20 in the next five years. That shows the scale of our ambition. My hon. Friend can rest assured that when we make announcements on the compute needs of our country, particularly when individual institutions are involved, they will be fully costed, they will be fully funded and they will be delivered.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
People in our world-class creative sector will not be in the least bit reassured by the Minister this afternoon. Our artists face the real prospect of their wonderful works being ingested by AI companies without recompense or even permission. We know that the consultation is ongoing, but what people want to hear is the Minister’s intention when it comes to copyright. Can he reassure people who are listening today that our wonderful copyright regime will remain in place at the end of this process?
Peter Kyle
We are already on record as saying that we want more licensing of copyrighted material, not less. The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is a mischaracterisation of the intentions of this Government. The consultation is there, and we want to hear from people. We will deliver a way forward that harnesses all the opportunities of the creative industries into the future, not based on the past. We will allow AI companies to come here and invest into the future. We do not need to pit both sectors against each other. We as a country should celebrate that we have an economy so diverse that we can have the best of both sectors. We can have world-class sectors in both AI technology and the creative arts. That is something that we celebrate, but we seem to be the only party in this House that does.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement this afternoon. I know that he takes this subject really seriously. He was in my constituency just before Christmas, although it is a shame that he did not go into the PET scanner. I welcome the improvements in terms of education. For the many parents who, like me, have to battle with Google Classroom when they forget the password, I hope AI can resolve that issue.
One of the issues with AI is the mistrust in some communities, particularly black and minority ethnic communities, who worry about what their data will be used for. How will the Secretary of State work with certain communities, including in my constituency and other diverse constituencies, to build up public trust and confidence that their data will be used in an ethical and safe manner?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend makes the most important point. I am determined—I have said this publicly numerous times—that equity will be built into the technology and the policies of this Government from the outset. When she reads the reports, when she hears the words of this Government and when she listens to the Prime Minister, I hope she is reassured that this Government want to ensure that everyone from every background not only feels the ability to connect with and work within the tech sector here to create the technology of the future, but benefits equally from the products that come out the other side, including being able to use products intuitively and benefit from the wealth that is created from them. When it comes to using public data, I realise that there are communities in parts of this country that need to be taken on a longer journey and to be more reassured, and I fully commit to doing so as we go forward.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I welcome this action plan, which mentions data centres. As the Secretary of State may be aware, the Deputy Prime Minister is currently reviewing the need for a data centre in Kings Langley in my constituency.
Both the report and the Secretary of State talk about ensuring that the infrastructure is in the right place. I am working alongside my constituents in Kings Langley, because the proposed site is prime green belt. If there is a need to build on and develop the site, housing would make better sense, because energy—a huge requirement for data centres—is not available nearby. How can the Secretary of State ensure that we are not encouraging the building of white elephants in the wrong places?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the energy and other constituent needs of data centres are, at last, being taken into account in strategic planning in our country. We have created the AI Energy Council, which is jointly chaired by the Energy Secretary and me, and the planning reforms will mean that we can expedite investment in data centres.
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that data centres are not a singular investment, but that other innovations, industries and businesses often cluster around them. He mentioned heat, and community heat networks often stem and flow from such investments, if there is the right local leadership, if there is planning in place and if there is the vision to make sure that our country benefits the most.
We have that vision, and I implore the hon. Gentleman to start getting involved with the local issues to shape what unfolds for the digital infrastructure of the future, so that it benefits absolutely everyone. This is a potential source of sustainable, good-quality wealth creation and job creation into the future. I suggest that his party gets on board and grabs it with both hands, rather than talking down the agenda we are putting forward today.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am delighted that Vantage Data Centres is working to build one of Europe’s largest data centre campuses in Wales, and plans to invest over £12 billion in data centres across the UK, creating 11,500 jobs. This is, of course, great news for our Government’s economic growth mission. Can the Secretary of State therefore provide some insight into what this will mean for areas like my Monmouthshire constituency?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful that my hon. Friend can already see the benefits from this investment, because she is positive and is engaging and thinking deeply about the potential benefits. Incidentally, this investment is happening right now—not in the future, but right now. She will be best placed to help steer it for the benefit of all. The people of Monmouthshire are very grateful to have her, just as we are very grateful to have her in the House, as a champion for these issues.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I revert to the article in The Times mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), headlined: “Rachel Reeves using AI to reply to Treasury emails”.
Sir Julian Lewis
I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not want to misquote the headline.
Nevertheless—as we now all know who she is—I discover that, instead of corresponding with her civil servants, as I thought, I am engaging with something called a “correspondence triage automation tool”, which is used for
“the automatic matching of correspondence with appropriate standard responses”.
That might give us cause to chuckle, but can we at least have an assurance that when we write to Ministers, even if they are not replying, they will at least be informed of the fact that concerns have been raised by Members of this House?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that Ministers are fully engaged in corresponding with Members across the House. Having been a Back Bencher for so long in opposition, I can assure you that I strive to be a lot better than what I experienced during so many of those years.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Can I just remind the Secretary of State that we do not use “you” in the Chamber? Please can questions and answers be brief? I would like to get everybody in before 6 o’clock.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their vision and leadership on this critical issue. These exciting plans could help us to drive growth, create jobs and improve public services. Places like Peterborough could be at the heart of the silicon fens if we get this right. Critical to that will be the issue of skills in cities like mine—cities that were left behind for too long by the previous Government. Can the Secretary of State update and inform us on what progress his Department is making on assessing the UK skills gap when it comes to AI, and how we can ensure that growth benefits all parts of the country as we embark on this plan?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He said, “if we choose to”. This Government do choose to, and that means engaging with the Education Secretary on the skills agenda, and being determined to ensure that every community across the United Kingdom has equal access to the technology’s potential.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Secretary of State is a constituency neighbour, so he will know that the convergence of the AI expertise at the University of Sussex, sustainable power from Rampion wind farm and computer power expertise from Universal Quantum, based in Haywards Heath, creates an ideal ecosystem for supporting the UK Government’s ambitious AI strategy. Does he agree that our corner of Sussex is a strong contender to be a hub for sustainable AI development? Will he meet me to discuss those opportunities?
Peter Kyle
It will not surprise the hon. Lady or the House to hear that I agree with championing Sussex. I went to the University of Sussex myself; I am an alumnus. Its AI research centre was established in the 1960s. That shows just how long scientific endeavour in digital technology has been in full flow in this country. Of course, I look forward to meeting the hon. Lady, perhaps down in sunny Sussex.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
AI offers immense potential for driving economic growth, but it also presents challenges for post-industrial areas, such as my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter, including the risk of job displacement, skills shortages and infrastructure gaps, as well as concerns around public trust and the impact on communities. How are the Government addressing those challenges to ensure that AI delivers highly skilled sustainable jobs and long-term benefits to regions like mine in the midlands?
Peter Kyle
I assure my hon. Friend that the communities that he refers to are at the front and centre of the way that we envisage using the power of Government to steer this technology for the good of all. It is essential that communities like his benefit. In the past, wave after wave of revolution negatively impacted such communities, but that will not happen on our watch.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I make no apology for returning to the vital question of copyright. Notwithstanding the consultation, the plan recommends that we follow Europe in having an opt-out model. Does the Secretary of State not agree with me and the News Media Association that that would be a watering down of our exemplary copyright laws?
Peter Kyle
We put forward proposals as an entire package, which we are consulting on. The hon. Gentleman references one part of the package. If he looks at it as a whole, he will see that we are striving to take care of all the competing challenges, because of the benefits and opportunities for modern Britain.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that AI is not going away? It is therefore best for the UK to lead development and best practice, so that AI systems are safer for my constituents in Wolverhampton North East.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This technology is not going away. The choice this Government have made is not to sit on the sidelines, as the Conservative Government did for the last 14 years. We will safely positively explore all the potential that AI has for our country, our economy and communities like hers. I am grateful for her attitude towards the statement, because that is the way to ensure that communities like hers benefit greatly from the next wave of industrial progress.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State makes clear his ambition to make the United Kingdom the frontier home of choice for AI firms, and he hopes to see a significant increase in data centres. I trust that his ambition will be fulfilled. The Republic of Ireland, our neighbour, has been very successful in securing multiple data centres, primarily because of its very competitive corporation tax rate. Is a competitive corporation tax rate the missing component that would bring all this work together?
Peter Kyle
I got to Northern Ireland as soon as I could after my appointment to this job. I have to correct the hon. and learned Gentleman on one point. We have attracted £24 billion of investment in AI in this country since taking office, and an additional £14 billion this week alone. I think that tells the House that the missing ingredient was not what he said it was, but a Labour Government.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I welcome today’s statement, and wholeheartedly support close work with the private sector, and the investments in AI and data centres. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about his work to encourage more small businesses to benefit from AI, and will he consider Reading as a potential hub?
Peter Kyle
I really look forward to Reading getting involved, and to it offering to partner with us. We want to get investment into great places like Reading, which has a lot of great small businesses. Small businesses in communities up and down the country could benefit the most. They might sometimes feel like they are tucked away, but they can enter the global stage because of the technology that is before us. The Government’s job is to ensure that the infrastructure is there, and that all the technology is as accessible to small businesses as it is to big companies.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
We should be under no illusion: the U-turn on a supercomputer is exactly that. We committed £1.3 billion to it; Labour cancelled it. Can the Secretary of State tell the House how much money has been set aside to achieve his supercomputer ambitions?
Peter Kyle
I admire the way the Conservatives just push through with this. They did not commit a single penny to a single one of the projects that the hon. Gentleman mentions. They want all the benefits of our Budget, but will not say how they would pay for them. He is actually asking me to cut £800 million, or £1.3 billion, of revenue—perhaps cut thousands of research grants to universities and PhD students—to pay for a project that the Conservative Government announced but did not commit a single penny to.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State mentioned the benefits to industrial communities such as Stockton North. Does he agree that the commitment to artificial intelligence will lead to more investment in data-intensive heavy industries, such as chemicals and life sciences? I warmly invite him to visit the Billingham chemicals cluster in my constituency if he wishes to see industrial AI in action.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend could not be more right. Not only will AI improve the investment landscape for physical infrastructure but it will mean profound technological advances in all sorts of industries, including those that are chemistry dependent. I am so glad that those industries have an MP who recognises that, is on their side, and is sticking up for them today in the British Parliament.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is clear that AI brings great opportunities, as well as some dangers. Nowhere is that more clear than in the military realm, where, to put it simply, an algorithm can help us make a decision about who to kill, and the quicker we do that, the more of an advantage it gives our side. On the other side of the ledger, if we kill the wrong person, our entire legal and ethical framework for how we conduct war disappears. Will the Secretary of State give the House a broad outline of his discussions with the Ministry of Defence on this important international issue?
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I assure him that we have a world-class defence industry in this country, world-class defensive capabilities in the Ministry of Defence, and a Government who are determined to ensure that not just digital technology and AI but all evolving technology is used ethically and appropriately in the defence of our nation. I also assure him that the Prime Minister has written to each Government Department asking for their plans on digital progress and safely harnessing the power of digital technology, and that my Department and the Ministry of Defence are in touch.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
At the risk of disagreeing with some of my colleagues, it is surely Mid Cheshire that is leading the way on AI innovation in the north-west; we have a number of companies working on game-changing applications. Safety Shield Global in Winsford won a King’s award for enterprise for its AI model, which has been 10 years in the making and is keeping construction workers safe on sites all over the world. The action plan talks about the potential of post-industrial constituencies such as mine to act as AI growth zones—key drivers for regional growth. How can areas work with the Government to get AI growth zones up and running, and how soon does he expect them to be operational?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing that example from his constituency. In the coming weeks, we will release details of how local communities can get involved and apply to become AI growth zones; I really look forward to seeing his.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Over the summer, the UK Labour Government cancelled £1.3 billion-worth of investment in tech and AI projects, including £800 million for the next-generation exascale supercomputer at the University of Edinburgh. The UK Government described the project as making “little strategic sense”, yet today they have pledged to turbocharge AI, including through plans to build a brand-new—wait for it—supercomputer. There is to be new investment; given that the University of Edinburgh has been at the centre of research and development of AI for more than 60 years, will the new supercomputer be located in Edinburgh?
Peter Kyle
I will make the basic point again, because I think the hon. Gentleman needs to hear it again: I could not cut something that did not exist. I have extended the life of the existing supercomputer for another year, so that people have the reassurance that the capabilities needed are there, via the University of Edinburgh. In that time, I have been working on a strategy that will have resilience because it will be fully costed, fully planned and fully funded, so that from spring, when the strategy will be released, those who need to know the strategic opportunities in our country will have the certainty that they need, now and for the long term.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
A barrier to the growth of data centres for AI is their need for power. Rolls-Royce in Derby is at the forefront of small modular reactors and micro-reactors. SMRs are small enough to be on or next to data centre sites, and micro-reactors are the size of a shipping container. Co-location would mean less vulnerability to grid failure and cyber-attacks. Will the Secretary of State work with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to explore whether this could be the clean energy solution needed to support sovereign AI capabilities?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s very pertinent question. Investment is going into new sources of energy from investors around the world. I am really pleased that we have Rolls-Royce, which I visited just before the election, up in Coventry. I saw some of Rolls-Royce’s capabilities and heard some of its ambitions. I assure her that the AI Energy Council, which I chair jointly with the Energy Secretary, will take into consideration these sorts of issues, and ensure that the Government engage with those innovations. We want to ensure that we are at the forefront of not just data infrastructure but all the related industries from which our country can benefit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Given that AI capability will seemingly be used positively, can the Secretary of State explain how the plan will advance areas such as healthcare? Does he see it as a way of reducing backlogs in the NHS, including in waiting lists and booking systems, and can he confirm that all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will play their part and benefit from AI?
Peter Kyle
I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contributions, and have enjoyed working with him in opposition and now in government. AI has enormous potential for the health service; it could improve productivity, bring about innovation, and advance treatments and medicine. I assure him that we are striving for that. The Health Secretary and I are making many visits together to try to understand how we can work together to ensure that technology is developed and implemented throughout the NHS. I have been in touch with the Northern Ireland Assembly on the way forward, and on how the Administration in Westminster can partner with the Northern Ireland Government and ensure that Northern Ireland benefits. I know that there are challenges with the waiting lists there.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in praising Matt Clifford, who has produced a top-class report. When building data centres for training AI models, two things are needed: lots of energy, and ideally, cold weather. Fortunately, Scotland has both of those in abundance, so will the Secretary of State ensure that one of the AI growth zones is in Scotland?
Peter Kyle
I am not going to engage on the weather, coming from Brighton, which is the sunniest mainland city in the UK, but I thank my hon. Friend for letting me get that on the record. I assure him that we want all parts of the United Kingdom to benefit. I was in touch with the Scottish Government Finance Minister just last week. I am determined that all parts of the United Kingdom benefit, and that fully includes Scotland. Scotland is lucky to have him here championing its cause and celebrating its potential.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Progress in this area will be incredibly energy dependent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to speed up the roll-out of small and advanced modular reactors to meet that demand? Given its history, skillset and location, Hartlepool presents a perfect opportunity for this type of investment.
Peter Kyle
I assure my hon. Friend that we are striving to ensure that innovation of all kinds is expedited. That is why I established the regulatory innovation office in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. We are already piloting four areas of policy so that we can get innovation off the drawing board and into the economy, benefiting the health and wealth of the nation as quickly as possible. I assure him that we are wasting no time to get that done.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. As he said, the AI revolution is taking place now, and it will make significant improvements in the promotion of public services and businesses. However, would he reassure my constituents in Wolverhampton West on what specific steps he will take to ensure that AI is safe in every possible way?
Peter Kyle
The work of the AI Safety Institute is ongoing, and it does world-class work. Of course, AI is fuelled by data, and we know that the public need reassurance that data will be used safely. With a data Bill going through, and with a Government that want to ensure people have the rights they need to have control over their data, I want to assure my hon. Friend on the use of data, technology and AI, as well as on the use of algorithms, which are increasingly being used in the private sector, but also in Government. Unlike the previous Government, I want to ensure that algorithms are published by Departments so that everybody can understand what it is that we are doing in their interests to benefit the country, because without understanding it, people will not feel safe with it being used. I will not tolerate that because we need to ensure that we as a country use this technology for the public good.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s leadership on AI—it is good to have someone taking this seriously. As somebody who was teaching a year ago, I am always interested in the application of AI in the classroom, especially when it comes to reducing teacher workload so they can spend more face-to-face time with their students. I am also interested in the application of AI in creating personalised learning resources for students based on their ability. Will the Secretary of State speak about that in more detail and potentially tell us about the timelines for rolling this out in our schools?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful that my hon. Friend has brought his experience from the classroom into the Chamber and into debates such as this one. As somebody who has experienced neurological challenges and barriers to learning as a child and through life, one of the most exciting parts of the digital and AI revolution that is unfolding is that, if we harness this correctly, a single classroom can exist both for students who have barriers to learning and for others who have specific talents that need stretching and challenging. Of course, there is no replacement for great teaching and the people and teachers in the classroom working with students, but with the assistance of digital technology and with what AI can do to provide a granular, detailed and tailored experience for students, that is something we are working on. My Department is working with the Department for Education so we can get this technology into classrooms and, as he says, for the benefit of all students right around the United Kingdom.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
On Friday, I visited a major National Grid upgrade project in my constituency, which will connect to a huge new data centre in north-west London. The Secretary of State has talked about the additional energy infrastructure needed, but how will he work to speed up the planning system, including taking on those who seek to block this critical new infrastructure, so that we can harness the benefits?
Peter Kyle
We certainly saved a great question for last. We are absolutely determined about the plan we have put forward today, and let me express my gratitude one final time to Matt Clifford for doing the report. To fully embrace this technology, we need to get a lot right. We need to get regulation and planning right. We are already undertaking a huge reform of our planning system—the biggest for well over a generation. That will include the ability for Government locally and centrally to ensure that investment into industries and infrastructure of the future is expedited and that it faces no barriers, so it can be put to the common good for our country and its citizens without delay.
Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan
Peter Kyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
In July, I commissioned Matt Clifford CBE, tech entrepreneur and chair of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, to develop an AI opportunities action plan. Today, that plan, and the Government’s response to it, have been published.
This Government promised to deliver change and improve lives in every part of the country; to grow a faster, fairer economy with good jobs that put more money in working people’s pockets; and to rebuild our crumbling public services and provide our citizens with the world-class healthcare and education they deserve.
That clear sense of purpose has fundamentally shaped our approach to AI. This is no longer a technology that belongs in a distant future—the AI revolution is already happening, and it will define the decade to come. We must decide whether we sit back and wait for this technology to shape our lives or get ahead and ensure that British people are the first to benefit.
This Government are hugely optimistic about AI’s potential to change our country for the better and deliver a decade of national renewal. AI is at the heart of our plan for change. From building an NHS fit for the future and making Britain a clean energy superpower, to taking back our streets and bringing down the barriers to opportunity for all, none of our national missions are possible without embracing the power of technology. Most importantly, an AI-powered economy will improve living standards for working people across the country.
We have led the world on AI safety. Now, we have a responsibility to capitalise on our unique position to provide global leadership in seizing the opportunities of AI. The AI opportunities action plan proposes 50 recommendations reflecting the scale and pace required to strengthen the foundations of the UK’s AI ecosystem, deliver real change for citizens through using AI in the public and private sectors, and securing our future by ensuring the UK is a first mover on AI.
In our response, we set out how we intend to shape the application of AI within a modern social market economy, based on the principles of shared economic prosperity, improved public services and increased personal opportunities. To deliver the plan’s recommendations, we are taking decisive action to deliver enduring change:
Creating AI growth zones, areas with enhanced access to power and streamlined planning approvals, to establish new public-private partnerships and accelerate the development of AI infrastructure on UK soil.
Expanding our sovereign AI compute capacity by at least 20 times by 2030, ensuring that the UK can keep pace as our compute needs grow.
Creating a new AI Energy Council, bringing together industry leaders from the energy and AI sectors, co-chaired by me and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. The Energy Council will provide expert insight on the energy needs of AI, alongside opportunities to accelerate investment in the develop of renewable and innovative energy solutions to meet those needs.
Launching a new dedicated team with a mandate to strengthen the UK’s sovereign AI capabilities by supporting our national champions at the frontier of AI. Operating with the agility of the vaccines task force, the team will partner with AI companies and use every tool at Government’s disposal to ensure they have access to the compute, data and talent they need to succeed.
The action plan shows us that we have a narrow window to secure our stake in the future of AI, and deliver a better future for British people. We must take decisive action before it is too late. Today, we have set out our plan to secure our global leadership in the AI revolution and fulfil our fundamental promise to the British people. This is a top priority for the Prime Minister. Working right across Government, we will use AI to grow our economy, rebuild our broken public services and improve living standards for working people. Together, we will ensure that British citizens are the first to benefit from the extraordinary opportunities this technology can offer.
[HCWS360]
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Kyle Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
The Government are committed to increasing the research and development allocation to a record £20.4 billion in 2024-25. Lord Vallance continues to meet mathematical science representatives to determine how best to support the sector. The Government are supporting the mathematical science sector in ways that best deliver for the taxpayer, without the time and expense required to set up a new organisation.
Jack Rankin
In the last financial year, the Department underspent by nearly £600 million. The proposed national maths academy was due to cost just £6 million—1% of that total. People are disappointed by this cancellation. Can the Secretary of State explain whether he cancelled the academy because he does not value the role of our national academies, or because he does not think mathematical sciences are important?
Peter Kyle
I have just explained all of the ways we are helping, assisting, supporting and driving mathematical science. The hon. Member has just listed all of the ways his party has failed that sector by underspending in many parts of Government and failing to commit the spending to the project that he is now calling on this Government to support.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the recent announcement of new funding for research and development in the Budget gives the sector really good clarity about investment across the coming years and about the way forward that this Government wish to take?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He is quite right to highlight that, finally, science and technology in this country has a Government on its side and putting their money where their mouth is.
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
My Department is working incredibly closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and I are joined at the hip on these issues. That includes unprecedented investment in research and development to understand how better to diagnose disease. There is co-investment in initiatives such as health innovation networks, which have enabled 1.2 million patients to access proven innovations, and the digital centre of Government, which we have created, is partnering closely with the NHS to improve the deployment and innovation of technology.
Josh Newbury
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. My constituency of Cannock Chase has wide health inequalities, and particularly high levels of respiratory illness and bladder and brain cancer. In some parts of the country, NHS trusts are rapidly speeding up diagnostic waiting times by using highly accurate AI models, with the results checked by human clinicians. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are supporting such safe tech innovations to help fulfil our mission to build an NHS fit for the future?
Peter Kyle
I can indeed commit to that. The Government see the embrace of proven technologies and innovation as fundamental to the future survival of the NHS. I was incredibly happy to see that last autumn, the Royal Wolverhampton NHS trust began enrolling patients in a global-first trial of completely personalised cancer vaccines, as part of a £1 billion investment negotiated by my Department. That shows the way forward and how co-operation between Departments will deliver for patients and public service users across the country.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Early diagnosis saves lives. Randox in my constituency runs a number of NHS health checks from the Isle of Wight through to Lanarkshire. Will the Secretary of State encourage greater use of those checks, and will he visit Randox with me to see how we can further advance that technology?
Peter Kyle
I confirm that I have been working with the Health Secretary—indeed, we recently visited St Tommy’s across the road from here to see how new technology is being used in diagnostics. It is increasing the number of scans and improving the quality of those scans to diagnose disease early and prevent it from having the worst outcome. That is being rolled out across the country, and I am working closely with the Health Secretary to ensure that such innovations are put to good use for the country.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Last month, the Select Committee brought festive cheer by hearing how British science is advancing the eradication of diseases such as cervical cancer, HIV/AIDS and malaria, through innovative and exciting new treatments and diagnostics. We also heard about the challenges of driving innovation through the NHS. Newcastle company AMLo Biosciences said that adoption is much quicker in the US, and others criticised bureaucratic procurement processes and a culture of inertia. Successive Governments have struggled with this challenge, so what specific steps is the Secretary of State taking with the Health Secretary to ensure that British patients benefit from innovation?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for that question and for the work that my hon. Friend’s Committee is doing to highlight the incredibly important challenge that we face as a Government and a country. For the first time, the Health Secretary has adopted the spreading of innovation through the NHS as a personal mission as part of the role of the Secretary of State, and we co-chair the Office for Life Sciences. Together, our two Departments are not only seeking to harness the power of technology, but working together, under the leadership of the Health Secretary, to drive that innovation. Such innovation cannot be locked up in one innovative health trust; it must be put to use across the NHS for every patient from every part of the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What progress has been made on using AI algorithms to analyse medical images of things such as tumours, fractures or other medical conditions? That was a pithy question, I think, Mr Speaker.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. I have visited Huddersfield hospital, which is one of the first hospitals to fully integrate AI in its radiotherapy and scanning work. Having stood there and seen its power for early diagnosis through its ability to detect patterns at an incredibly early stage, I am left in no doubt that, had my mother been scanned at that hospital, she would still be alive today. She was scanned three times, but the progress of her lung cancer was missed and she died several weeks after collapsing, with it not having been detected. This is the power of technology. AI is a human power that will transform lives and we are determined to ensure—
Mr Speaker
Order. Secretary of State, please. I am sure you want me to get to the other questions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Many of the companies I have spoken to who are supporting technological innovation in the NHS and beyond talk about their frustration at the comparative difficulty of getting funding in the UK and say that the British Business Bank could do much more to de-risk investment and unlock innovation. What are the Government doing to reform funding and provide an oasis in what has become known as the funding valley of death?
Peter Kyle
The first thing that we have done is increase to record levels overall the Government’s investment in R&D. Pioneering work is also going on through Innovate UK, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency and the different funding bodies that are available to take different levels of risk when it comes to supporting, creating and upscaling innovation. The work that the Chancellor is doing to reform our pension system will unlock capital, because fundamentally we must get more domestic capital into the venture capital community so that we can get domestic innovation supported by domestic capital to upscale and solve the challenges that the hon. Member talked about.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
The Government have increased investment in R&D to record levels. We have also repaired the public finances, including the black hole left by the previous Administration. We have done so by protecting the smallest businesses through the impact of doubling the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that 865,000 employers will pay nothing in additional tax.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. However, universities, which are at the heart of the UK’s research ecosystem, face an additional £372 million in annual costs due to the rise in employer national insurance. That threatens their ability to fund cutting-edge research, recruit top talent and support early career researchers. Does he recognise the detrimental impact that will have on research in this country? Will he explore measures to ensure that our global competitiveness in science and innovation is not undermined?
Peter Kyle
We have found ways to get new investment into universities, which we are putting on a solid financial footing. This is just the start. We always knew that we could not fix all the problems that we inherited from that last Administration in six months, but we are finding ways to take that great start forward to get new investment into universities. I reassure the House that the war on universities by that Administration has ended.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
“Companies like ours will be less incentivised to grow”.
That is the conclusion of Paul Taylor, founder of British tech unicorn Thought Machine, which employs more than 500 people. Britain is now missing out on new jobs and investment as a direct result of Labour’s national insurance jobs tax. When the Chancellor started punishing our tech sector, the Secretary of State failed to stand up to her. Why?
Peter Kyle
We have put the public finances on a solid footing. Our economy is now stable in a way that has not been the case for 14 years. The Conservatives want all the benefits of the last Budget without saying how they will pay for any of it. Until they do, they will not be taken seriously by anyone, including the business that the hon. Gentleman referenced.
Alan Mak
The truth is that the Labour Government are failing our tech workers, because they do not care about our tech sector. Last September, Paul said that he was very keen to list Thought Machine in London instead of New York, and one of his preconditions before listing is being able to grow the business as much as possible. Why did the Secretary of State allow the Chancellor to make growth harder for Britain’s tech sector at the Budget?
Peter Kyle
I think the hon. Gentleman missed the investment summit that the Government held just before Christmas, at which a record £60 billion was invested into this country, £24 billion of which was AI-related. That is almost as much going directly into AI as was committed in total at the previous Government’s investment summit. This Government are unlocking investment; the previous Administration wrecked our economy and public services, and failed to secure faith in our economy for foreign companies to invest in this country.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
We have seen fear and lies spread about life in Britain, with those who have done little or nothing to combat child sexual abuse stretching every sinew to jump on the bandwagon. This Government are committed to justice for the victims and punishment for the perpetrators of abuse wherever it happens and whoever commits it, and I pay tribute to the work of the Prime Minister and, in particular, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), in that regard. The illegal content codes that Ofcom set out last month are the single biggest change to online safety for a generation.
Zöe Franklin
In 2023, the Lords Communications and Digital Committee found that 1.7 million households were without internet. Will the Secretary of State outline how the Government are working to ensure that no one is left behind by the forthcoming switchover to internet protocol television?
Peter Kyle
The hon. Lady asks an important question. Broadcast TV is legally protected until 2034. This Government are committed to ensuring audiences can access television in a way that suits them. Too many people are excluded from digital activity because they lack the basic skills. In the not-too-distant future, I will be launching the digital inclusion plan. I know that the hon. Lady takes cross-party working very seriously, so I hope she will meet me so I can brief her on that work and involve her ideas as we develop it.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Peter Kyle
I agree, of course. Technological innovation will be key to the move to net zero, and the UK will be at the forefront of that. SMRs are particularly exciting. I have met Rolls-Royce, which has a great advocate in my hon. Friend. I look forward to hearing more from him and seeing how we can support this exciting technology into the future.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, one that the Government are committed to. That is why we increased research and development spending to the highest of any Government in this country. It will have a direct impact on the issues he raises.
Mr Speaker
Before we begin PMQs, I am delighted to welcome to the Gallery the Speaker of the Lok Sabha of India.
Online Safety Act 2023: Implementation
Peter Kyle Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
Today, the Government have reached two significant milestones in the implementation of the Online Safety Act (“the Act”), marking an important step forward in creating a safer online environment for all UK citizens. Today, I am laying in Parliament Ofcom’s first draft codes of practice for the illegal content duties and draft regulations setting out the threshold conditions for category 1, 2A and 2B services under the Act.
Ofcom’s draft illegal content duties codes of practice:
The illegal content duties apply to all regulated user-to-user and search services under the Act, no matter their size or reach. These include new duties to have systems and processes in place to tackle illegal content and activity. Ofcom, as the independent regulator for this regime, is required to set out measures in codes of practice that providers can take to fulfil these statutory duties. Ofcom has now submitted to me the drafts of its first codes of practice for the illegal content duties to lay these in Parliament for scrutiny. If neither House objects to the draft codes, Ofcom must issue the codes and the illegal content duties will come into force 21 calendar days later. Once the codes have come into force, the statutory safety duties will begin to apply to service providers, and Ofcom will be able to enforce against non-compliance.
Ofcom has also published its guidance on how providers should carry out risk assessments for illegal content and activity. Providers now have three months to complete their illegal content risk assessment.
The completion of the risk assessments should coincide with the codes of practice coming into force if they pass the statutory laying period. Ofcom’s codes will set out steps service providers can take to address identified risks. The draft codes will drive significant improvements in online safety in several areas. They will ensure service providers put in place effective systems and processes to take down illegal content, including for content that amounts to terrorism, child sexual abuse material (CSAM), public order offences, assisting suicide, intimate image abuse content and other offences. They will make it materially harder for strangers to contact children online, to protect children from grooming. They will significantly expand the number of services that use automated tools to detect CSAM. They will make it significantly easier for the police and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to report fraud and scams to online service providers. And they will make it easier for users to report potentially illegal content.
The draft codes are a vital step in implementing the new regime. Ofcom fully intends to build on these foundations and has announced plans to launch a consultation in spring 2025 on additional measures for the codes. This includes consulting on how automated tools can be used to proactively detect illegal content, including the content most harmful to children, going beyond the automated detection measures that Ofcom have already included. Bringing in the codes will be a key milestone in creating a safer online environment for UK citizens as the duties begin to apply and become enforceable.
Categorisation thresholds:
Services which are ‘categorised’ under the Act will have additional duties placed on them. This is on top of the duties which all regulated user-to-user and search services must comply with to tackle illegal content and, where relevant, to protect children from content that is legal but nonetheless harmful to them. The additional duties will vary depending on whether a service is designated category 1—large user-to-user services—category 2A— large search services—or category 2B—smaller categorised user-to-user services.
In making these regulations, I have considered factors as required by the Act. Amendments made during the passage of the Act, changed the consideration for category 1 from the “level of risk of harm to adults from priority content that is harmful to adults disseminated by means of the service” to “how easily, quickly and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service.” This was a significant change and, while I understand that this approach has its critics who argue that the risk of harm is the more significant factor, this is the position under the Act.
Ofcom advice and the Secretary of State’s (Peter Kyle) decision on threshold conditions
The Act required Ofcom to carry out research within six months of Royal Assent, and to then provide the Secretary of State with advice on the threshold conditions for each of the three categories. This research included a call for evidence so that stakeholder feedback could be considered in Ofcom’s advice.
After considering Ofcom’s advice and subsequent clarificatory information in public letters, I have decided to set threshold conditions for categorisation in accordance with Ofcom’s recommendations. I am satisfied that Ofcom’s advice, which was published in March, is the culmination of an objective, evidence-based process. I have taken this decision in line with the factors set out in schedule 11 of the Act. I have been very clear to date, and want to reiterate, that my priority is the swift implementation of the Act’s duties to create a safer online environment for everyone. I am open to further research in the future and to update thresholds in force if necessary.
I appreciate that there may be some concerns that, at this time, threshold conditions have not been set to capture so-called “small but risky” services by reference to certain functionalities and characteristics or factors. My decision to proceed with the thresholds recommended by Ofcom, rather than to take the approach of discounting user number thresholds, reflects the fact that any threshold condition created by the Government should take into account the factors as set out in the Act, be evidence-based and avoid the risk of unintended consequences.
I also welcome Ofcom’s statement that it is keenly aware that the smallest online services can represent a significant risk to UK citizens, that it has established a dedicated “small but risky” supervision taskforce and that it will use the tools available under the Act to identify, manage and enforce against such services where there is a failure to comply with the duties that all regulated services will be subject to. This includes enforcement powers: to impose penalties on service providers of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue or £18 million—whichever is greater; to require services to take remedial action; and in certain cases, to apply to court for business disruption measures to be taken against service providers.
As Secretary of State, my priority is timely implementation of the Act to ensure that the additional duties are enforceable as soon as possible. Ofcom’s recently updated implementation roadmap sets out the expectation that it aims to publish the register of categorised services in summer 2025 and will launch transparency reporting within a few weeks of publication of the register. This timeline is contingent on the regulations for categorisation thresholds being approved by Parliament without delay.
Proportionality
Many of the additional duties for categorised services have proportionality as a relevant consideration. For example, in determining what is proportionate for the user empowerment content duty, the findings of the most recent user empowerment assessment are relevant which includes the incidence of relevant content on the service, in addition to the size and capacity of a provider. When producing its guidance and codes of practice Ofcom will have regard to the principle of proportionality. In line with Ofcom’s recommendations, we have made it clear in the regulations that services are not captured under category 1 if they use a content recommender system which only recommends to a user their own content.
Threshold conditions
Following Ofcom’s advice and having taken into account matters as required by the Act, I have therefore today laid draft regulations which are intended to give effect to the following threshold conditions for each category of service:
The Category 1 threshold conditions are met by a regulated user-to-user service where, in respect of the user-to-user part of that service, it:
has an average number of monthly active United Kingdom users that exceeds 34 million and uses a content recommender system, OR
has an average number of monthly active United Kingdom users that exceeds 7 million, uses a content recommender system and provides a functionality for users to forward or share regulated user-generated content on the service with other users of that service.
The Category 2A threshold conditions are met by a search engine of a regulated search service or a combined service where it:
has an average number of monthly active United Kingdom users that exceeds 7 million, and
is not a vertical search engine—a search engine which only enables a user to search selected websites or databases in relation to a specific topic, theme or genre of search content.
The Category 2B threshold conditions are met by a regulated user-to-user service where, in respect of the user-to-user part of that service, it:
has an average number of monthly active United Kingdom users that exceeds 3 million and provides a functionality for users to send direct messages to other users of the same service.
[HCWS312]