Tourism: Bedfordshire

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson]

I could not resist it.

Bedfordshire is a beautiful, historic place to live and spend time in. We are fortunate to have some absolutely fantastic local hospitality, leisure and tourism businesses. As its Member of Parliament, I am determined to put Mid Bedfordshire on the map as a place for people to visit.

If the Government are serious about their growth agenda, Bedfordshire represents a real opportunity. Unlocking Universal, delivering the waterway park and ensuring that we have the right promotion in place to take advantage of the opportunities presented by East West Rail and Luton airport would turbocharge our economy.

I hope the Minister will work with us to deliver this agenda. I would welcome him to Mid Bedfordshire to show him the opportunities and some of our beautiful attractions first hand.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I am pleased to be able to offer my Jurassic chairmanship. I call Sir Chris Bryant.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

Sir Roger, you are not Jurassic. You are a mere slip of a boy, in parliamentary terms anyway.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this debate. I think one of his first parliamentary questions was on this subject. He is obviously very determined to make sure that tourism and the expansion of the tourism offer in his constituency is a key part of securing economic development in his area. I guarantee that if he comes up with any good ideas that we can steal off him, we will be like the proverbial magpie—we will pick it up and run with it. If he ever wants to have a meeting with officials in my Department to discuss specific issues around tourism in Mid Bedfordshire—perhaps we might do that with all the Bedfordshire MPs—I would be more than happy to arrange that.

It is good to have an MP called Blake. The hon. Member might be the first MP in the history of Parliament to be called Blake. I noted the other day that “Blake’s 7” is back—Sir Roger, you can probably remember “Blake’s 7”.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I am afraid I do not.

[Chris Bryant]

You can remember some things still, Sir Roger. By the time “Blake’s 7” ended, it did not have seven people in it, and it did not have a character called Blake in it, which was a bit rum.

I agreed above all with a point that the hon. Member made in his very first paragraph. He talked about Bedfordshire not just being a place that people pass through. I am very conscious of that. My brother lives in St Albans and I am endlessly getting on trains that say the final destination is Bedford, but I never go to Bedford, because I get off at St Albans.

There is a key aspect to what we need to achieve in our tourism and visitor economy strategy over the next few years. It is all very well people coming for a day or half a day and going out with the kids or whatever, but we need to make sure that there is the right kind of accommodation and accommodation mix at different price points in a whole series of different places around the country. Matching the accommodation with the needs and desires of both domestic and international tourists is a key part of what we need to secure in our tourism strategy.

The hon. Member gave us the Cook’s tour, but when he was talking about Wrest Park, which is run by English Heritage, he did not mention that 194,693 people visited in 2023. It has a great Narnia event, which starts, I think, next week or at the end of this week, and that is why parts of it are closed at the moment. He also referred to Houghton House, Woburn Abbey and the safari park. Some 489,751 people visited the safari park, and that was in 2015, so it is likely that the numbers have gone up since then.

The hon. Member focused on what is in his constituency, but we should look at the whole county—of course, tourists and visitors do not say, “I wonder whose constituency I am going to visit today”; they think about the whole offer in an area, including transport links and whether they will be able to park. One of my ambitions in life is to have one parking app for the whole United Kingdom, so that people do not have to use a phone to download a new app every time they go to park somewhere. It is especially irritating when the local council has just changed the app to another app, and people cannot remember the passcode and all the rest of it. Those are the aspects of someone’s journey—every bit, end to end—that we need to think about when we try to create an effective tourism strategy for the United Kingdom.

I would add to the hon. Member’s list the John Bunyan museum in Bedford and, for that matter, the Panacea museum. That is something that politicians have been seeking forever: if only there were a panacea that could cure all ills—although the danger with a panacea is that it is a mirage, and does not really offer what it proposes.

Let me talk about some of the things we are already doing for the visitor economy across the whole United Kingdom. From representations that were made to me immediately after the Government came into office in July, I know that a lot of people in the visitor economy and hospitality industry were particularly worried about the cliff edge that they saw coming at the end of this year in relation to business rates. I am glad that we could take forward the 40% relief. I know that it is not 70%, but placing it on a permanent footing is important, because it allows hospitality businesses to make investments for the future and have a secure financial footing.

One issue in Bedfordshire and many other parts of the country is short-term lets, whether through Airbnb, individual people renting out a room or whatever it may be. In areas with heavy concentrations of visitors at particular times of the year, the art is to come up with a scheme so that we get the benefits of the visitor economy—all the footfall and added money that that brings to a local area—without the danger of ending up with a completely vacated town or village when the tourism period has ended. That is why, following the previous Government’s legislation on short-term lets, we will soon consult on precisely how to implement the legislation, so that we can, at the very least, have a clear understanding of what short-term lets there are across the whole country and then, if necessary, take further action.

The hon. Member rightly referred to local visitor economy partnerships and the fact that there is not one in Bedfordshire at the moment. That is an issue of concern. As he knows, the local visitor economy partnership programme was part of a new vision for England’s tourism management landscape and was recommended by the independent destination management organisations review. In February 2023, VisitEngland launched the LVEP accreditation programme, which will continue through 2024-25 and which seeks to accredit high-performing, strategic and financially resilient organisations that can lead visitor economy development in their areas, working with businesses and local authorities. As I understand it, VisitEngland is working closely with Experience Bedfordshire and other local stakeholders in Bedfordshire to support their progress in building capacity and moving towards local visitor economy partnership status. Over the coming months, I will ensure that I keep in touch with my officials about how that progresses. I am sure that if it does not progress to the hon. Member’s satisfaction, he will call for another of these debates and I will have to answer to him.

In the Budget, the Chancellor confirmed the Government’s support to deliver the East West Rail scheme in full, which is good news; the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred to it. It will strengthen the region’s thriving life science, technology and innovation sectors, but it will also facilitate journeys for tourists and locals throughout the Bedford area. East West Rail is set to bring billions of pounds-worth of growth to the Oxford-Cambridge region, along with tens of thousands of new homes and jobs. I note that the hon. Member was not quite so happy about the tens of thousands of new homes. For what it is worth, my personal view is that the most important thing when developing large numbers of new homes, which we all know this country needs, is to ensure that we have all the infrastructure to be able to cope with them. If there is going to be a significant expansion of the tourism industry, or the visitor economy industry in Bedfordshire, the people who are going to work in that industry will need houses to live in. All those things have to come together.

The hon. Member referred to the prospect of a major development with Universal UK, which is a new theme park. Obviously, I cannot enter into the specifics of the ongoing discussions—that would be unhelpful to everybody —but I am hopeful that we will get to the significant and dramatic change that it would make, not only to visitor numbers in Bedfordshire but to the whole of the United Kingdom.

That takes me to my final point. Of course we should be ambitious for the whole of the United Kingdom in our tourism strategy, but it would be counterproductive if every single person who came from overseas to this country—and we still do not have the numbers that we reached before covid—decided that they were going to visit only London and did not even get to Bedfordshire, let alone farther-flung parts of the United Kingdom. That is why, in all the work we do on behalf of VisitBritain and VisitEngland, we need to ensure that our tourism strategy is genuinely sustainable. It should take people to see not just the historic sites in the capital city of London, or, for that matter, Bath, Stratford, Oxford, Cambridge or Edinburgh, but the full diversity of what we have to offer in this country.

We are a country with extraordinary things to see. There are enormous adventures to take part in across the whole country. The hon. Member has highlighted some of those in his own constituency. I am keen to ensure that many more people come to the United Kingdom, including Bedfordshire, and, as he said, they do not just pass through but stay the night.

Question put and agreed to.

Tourism: Northumberland

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

I again welcome you to the Chair, Sir Roger, and it is good to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). He is actually named in my documents from the Department as “Joe Hexham”; that is probably how he will be presenting himself at the next general election as well, I should think—unless boundaries change in some bizarre, unhelpful way. It is good to see so many new MPs wanting to talk about tourism and the visitor economy, because it is so important to so many parts of the country. As part of the creative industries, it is important that the Government are saying that it is also part of our industrial future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham said in passing that this is about not just the legacy of the past—he listed some of the things in Northumberland from our historical past that are important—but what we do today. One of the things we need to change about our whole tourism strategy as a country is that there is a danger that international visitors think, “The United Kingdom never changes. It’s always got that Parliament building, castles, the monarchy—things like that. You can go next year or the year after.” Actually, we want people to think that now is the time to come to the United Kingdom: “We’re not going to put it off. We’re going to come now.” If they come now, they might come again next year because they want to see a different part of the United Kingdom.

I have a word of caution. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham said, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea if, when we as the UK are selling our tourism abroad, we specifically mention Northumberland?” I get it. I am a Welsh MP, and I have often said that it would be good if we started mentioning Wales a bit more in our tourism marketing around the world. The question is whether it works.

I have an anecdotal story, but it is true none the less: Charlotte Church, a young Welsh singer—at the time much younger—was asked to go and sing, for George Bush I think, in the White House. She sang very beautifully, and afterwards George Bush was introduced to her and asked where she was from. She said, “Wales.”. He said, “What state is that in?” To which she said, “Terrible.”. There was a complete meeting of minds.

That story makes an important point about our tourism strategy. I completely agree that it is embarrassing that so many international visitors conceive of coming to the UK as being only about visiting London—or, as I said in the other debate, perhaps Bath or Oxford and Cambridge as a day visit and then maybe Edinburgh. There is far more to see in the United Kingdom. The question is how we best effect that change.

We may be able to do several things. There is no point in my rehearsing the numbers of people who go to the north-east in compared with London, and the difference in spend; my hon. Friend did that perfectly. I want to change that, but that will require a five or 10-year strategy, which I hope we will be able to publish over the coming months. I would be interested to talk to people from different parts of the country about making sure that we put a strategy in place that will genuinely work.

My hon. Friend also talked about the difficulty of ensuring that local people are not shunted out by the tourist influx. One of the things I am keen to work on more is the question of short-term lets. If, as often happens on the coastline, large numbers of short-term lets are all full for two or three months and completely empty for the rest of the year, that does not seem like a win for the local community. That is why, building on what the previous Government did with their legislation on short-term lets, we hope to launch a consultation fairly soon on how we can develop a register of such lets, so that at least we know what is out there, and on how we could use that register to better effect to try to get the benefits of tourism, including visitors not just coming during the day, but staying overnight, without the downsides that sometimes come with that.

Several Members mentioned particular places in Northumberland. I think “Vera” got a look-in several times, which is inevitable—I do not know what Northumberland is going to do if “Vera” ever stops. Brenda is a wonderful actress, but I do not know whether she has another 50 years in her.

My favourite place, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), is Lindisfarne. We have a little painting of Lindisfarne in our downstairs toilet at home in Wales: it is a place of phenomenal beauty and extraordinary history. It is extremely well run and has thousands of visitors every year. I have swum in the sea at Cullercoats—in winter, too, which is quite an ambitious thing.

Both Bamburgh castle and Alnwick castle have been referred to. In fact, I think I am right in saying that Northumberland has more castles than any other county in England. Wales might beat everywhere else on the castle front, but that is Edward I for you. I think Alnwick castle is the second largest in England; it certainly has the second largest number of rooms. It is still the home of the Northumberlands and an extraordinary place to visit.

Tourism for music was not mentioned, but the north-east has a phenomenal music tradition. Sam Fender was on in Newcastle when Pink was on in Gateshead: I know that because I went to Pink. It was a phenomenal concert—the whole region was alive, with every single hotel room in the whole area taken—but people may wonder whether it is a good idea to have two massive concerts at the same time, how that can be managed to best effect and whether it is good for the local economy or whether it would be better to spread them out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) referred to having the best fish and chips. I have been in many debates in my years in Parliament, and I must have heard nearly every MP say that the best fish and chips come from such and such a place in their constituency. I warn her against that, because you end up eating an awful lot of fish and chips in the process. I am sure her frame can take it, but I would just say that what makes a good fish and chip shop is actually its range—and the best fish and chip shop equipment is provided by Preston and Thomas. It is no longer functioning in Cardiff, but it had the best range none the less. I know that because my father’s best man was either Preston or Thomas. I can’t remember which.

I turn to the destination development partnership pilots. Up in the north-east, as I saw when I visited not long ago, there is a real determination to seize the opportunity, not just in individual constituencies or local authority areas but across the whole region. I really praise Kim McGuinness: she is absolutely determined that the numbers are going to change. A key part of it is about trying to bring in a new centre—let us hope that it may become a national centre of excellence for hospitality and tourism—based in Newcastle, but working across the whole of the region. It would be good to get additional investment in that.

One thing that has often worried me—this relates to a point that the shadow Minister made—is that in many other countries around the world, people are so proud of tourism that they think of a job in the hospitality industry not as something you do if you really have to, because you have to pay for a course at university or are on a gap year or whatever, but as something people do for the whole of their life, because they are proud of the community they live in and want people to enjoy it. It is a proper career for a whole life.

To enable that here, we need to do several things. We need proper determination across the country that that is what we are going to do. We have to change the whole ethos around serving people in the hospitality industry. We have to enable the industry to work with the Government to develop more career pathways. Tourism must be a key part of the industrial strategy. All the different bits of it, from the moment somebody lands in this country to the moment they leave, need to be singing in the same way. We also have to reform the apprenticeship levy so that it works for small businesses and the creative industries in general. We have to bind together all of the creative industries: we have already talked about music, but lots of people travel for sport as well. It all needs to work together if we are really going to change the prosperity of this country as it derives from tourism.

That is why what is happening in the north-east is so important. I visited not long ago, and I expect to visit in the next fortnight as well. I am very keen to work with those on the ground who want to ensure that tourism becomes an even more significant part of the economy in the north-east.

I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). I have written down, “Welcome him and be nice.” To be fair, I am quite fond of him: we were on the Foreign Affairs Committee together. Where it is possible for us all to drive the economy forward together, there is no partisan advantage. I am very happy to work with him. I know he has my number and I have his, in more ways than one. I very much hope that we can work together.

The hon. Gentleman asked about a sector-wide plan. As I said, in the next few weeks I will make a speech about tourism in which I hope to lay out some of our ambitions. It may be that we want to do a much more substantial piece of work on our long-term and medium-term ambitions in tourism for the whole of the United Kingdom. We will be thinking about that over the next few weeks.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the issue of seasonal staffing. That is a legitimate point that relates to issues that other parts of the economy have had with seasonal workers coming in from other parts of the country. I was really struck, when I was talking to the French Tourism Minister a couple of weeks ago, by the fact that we have a seasonal workers deal with France so that British people can work in ski resorts there. It affects the best part of 100,000 people, who go over and work there every year. It may be that there are perfectly sensible arrangements that we can come to in that regard.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the additional support that we will provide. That sounds like the Conservative party asking for additional spending, but the problem with additional spending is that it normally requires additional taxation—this is one of the problems of opposition. My party has been in opposition in Parliament for more of my years than it has been in government. If I may make a suggestion to him, it is that you cannot ask for one without willing the other. If the Leader of the Opposition made a fatal flaw last week in her questions to the Prime Minister, it was not recognising that if you are going to ask for more money to be spent, you also have to will the ends and the means.

I fully understand the problems that the visitor and hospitality sector faces. It is tough running a pub or a restaurant, and it has been for many years. The margins are extremely narrow. The hon. Member for Cheltenham said that we had slashed business rate relief, or cut it—I don’t know that he used the word “slashed”—from 75% to 40%. He could have said that we took it from 0% to 40%, because it was not guaranteed beyond the end of the year. We have made it permanent, which is a good thing.

I fully understand the problems that the sector faces, but some of them relate to long-term stability and sustainability and trying to ensure that businesses have the staff they need. I hope that the north-east will be essential in developing that for the whole of the United Kingdom, perhaps in association with other countries around the world. We also need an NHS that functions, buses that turn up on time, a railway system that works, local authorities that mend the roads and a planning system that works and is properly resourced. The whole public sector needs to function in order for the private sector to function. That is why I am proud of the Budget: in the medium and long term, it will help us to secure our economic future.

As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham and all Members in this Chamber will agree, tourism is an essential part of our economic future. It is the fourth largest industry in the world. We have lost share in that over recent years, but even if we were to continue losing share, we could still grow it within the United Kingdom. I am absolutely determined to do that, but it cannot be based just on bringing more and more people to London. I would like more people to come to London, but it cannot just be about that. It has to be based on understanding the full panoply of what we have to offer across the whole of the United Kingdom. Sometimes that will be based on art forms, like being able to see where films or TV series were made or where musicians are from. I note that Framlingham castle is now apparently more famous for Ed Sheeran’s song “Castle on the Hill” than it is for Queen Mary discovering that she was about to be Queen, which was historically what it sold itself on.

I go right back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made at the very beginning. It is not just the legacy of the past that we need to celebrate in our tourism; it is what Britain is today. That is the best way to secure a long-term, secure economic future for our tourism industry in Northumberland and across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

As the Chairman I am not allowed to participate in the debate, but as the Minister comes from the land of song he might like to know that Brenda lives in Thanet and is the chairman of the Thanet male voice choir.

AI Seoul Summit

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)]

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on the AI Seoul summit, which the Government co-hosted with the Republic of Korea earlier this week.

The AI Seoul summit built on the legacy of the first AI safety summit, hosted by the UK at Bletchley Park in November 2023. At Bletchley, 28 countries and the European Union, representing the majority of the world’s population, signed the Bletchley declaration agreeing that, for the good of all, artificial intelligence should be designed, developed, deployed and used in a manner that is safe, human-centric, trustworthy and responsible. The same set of countries agreed to support the development of an international, independent and inclusive report to facilitate a shared science-based understanding of the risks associated with frontier AI.

At the same time, the UK announced the launch of our AI Safety Institute, the world’s first Government-backed organisation dedicated to advanced AI safety for the public good. World leaders, together with the leaders of the foremost frontier AI companies, agreed to the principle that states have a role in testing the most advanced models.

Since Bletchley, the UK has led by example with impressive progress on AI safety, both domestically and bilaterally. The AI Safety Institute has built up its capabilities for state-of-the-art safety testing. It has conducted its first pre-deployment testing for potential harmful capabilities on advanced AI systems, set out its approach to evaluations and published its first full results. That success is testament to the world-class technical talent that the institute has hired.

Earlier this week, the Secretary of State announced the launch of an office in San Francisco that will broaden the institute’s technical expertise and cement its position as a global authority on AI safety. The Secretary of State also announced a landmark agreement with the United States earlier this year that will enable our institutes to work together seamlessly on AI safety. We have also announced high-level partnerships with France, Singapore and Canada.

As AI continues to develop at an astonishing pace, we have redoubled our international efforts to make progress on AI safety. Earlier this week, just six months after the first AI safety summit, the Secretary of State was in the Republic of Korea for the AI Seoul summit, where the same countries came together again to build on the progress we made at Bletchley. Since the UK launched our AI Safety Institute six months ago, other countries have followed suit; the United States, Canada, Japan, Singapore, the Republic of Korea and the EU have all established state-backed organisations dedicated to frontier AI safety. On Tuesday, world leaders agreed to bring those institutes into a global network, showcasing the Bletchley effect in action. Coming together, the network will build “complementarity and interoperability” between their technical work and approaches to AI safety, to promote the safe, secure and trustworthy development of AI.

As part of the network, participants will share information about models, and their limitations, capabilities and risk. Participants will also monitor and share information about specific AI harms and safety incidents, where they occur. Collaboration with overseas counterparts via the network will be fundamental to making sure that innovation in AI can continue, with safety, security and trust at its core.

Tuesday’s meeting also marked an historic moment, as 16 leading companies signed the frontier AI safety commitments, pledging to improve AI safety and to refrain from releasing new models if the risks are too high. The companies signing the commitments are based right across the world, including in the US, the EU, China and the middle east. Unless they have already done so, leading AI developers will now publish safety frameworks on how they will measure the risks of their frontier AI models before the AI action summit, which is to be held in France in early 2025. The frameworks will outline when severe risks, unless adequately mitigated, would be “deemed intolerable” and what companies will do to ensure that thresholds are not surpassed. In the most extreme circumstances, the companies have also committed to

“not develop or deploy a model or system at all”

if mitigations cannot keep risks below the thresholds. To define those thresholds, companies will take input from trusted actors, including home Governments, as appropriate, before releasing them ahead of the AI action summit.

On Wednesday, Ministers from more than 28 nations, the EU and the UN came together for further in depth discussions about AI safety, culminating in the agreement of the Seoul ministerial statement, in which countries agreed, for the first time, to develop shared risk thresholds for frontier AI development and deployment. Countries agreed to set thresholds for when model capabilities could pose “severe risks” without appropriate mitigations. This could include: helping malicious actors to acquire or use chemical or biological weapons; and AI’s potential ability to evade human oversight. That move marks an important first step as part of a wider push to develop global standards to address specific AI risks. As with the company commitments, countries agreed to develop proposals alongside AI companies, civil society and academia for discussion ahead of the AI action summit.

In the statement, countries also pledged to boost international co-operation on the science of AI safety, by supporting future reports on AI risk. That follows the publication of the interim “International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI” last week. Launched at Bletchley, the report unites a diverse global team of AI experts, including an expert advisory panel from 30 leading AI nations from around the world, as well as representatives from the UN and the EU, to bring together the best existing scientific research on AI capabilities and risks. The report aims to give policymakers across the globe a single source of information to inform their approaches to AI safety. The report is fully independent, under its chair, Turing award winner, Yoshua Bengio, but Britain has played a critical role by providing the secretariat for the report, based in our AI Safety Institute. To pull together such a report in just six months is an extraordinary achievement for the international community; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, for example, are released every five to seven years.

Let me give the House a brief overview of the report’s findings. It recognises that advanced AI can be used to boost wellbeing, prosperity and new scientific breakthroughs, but notes that, as with all powerful technologies, current and future developments could cause harm. For example, malicious actors can use AI to spark large-scale disinformation campaigns, fraud and scams. Future advances in advanced AI could also pose wider risks, including labour market disruption and economic power imbalances and inequalities. The report also highlights that, although various methods exist for assessing the risk posed by advanced AI models, all have limitations. As is common with scientific syntheses, the report highlights a lack of universal agreement among AI experts on a range of topics, including the state of current AI capabilities and how these could evolve over time. The next iteration of the report will be published ahead of the AI action summit early next year.

Concluding the AI Seoul summit, countries discussed the importance of supporting AI innovation and inclusivity, which were at the core of the summit’s agenda. We recognised the transformative benefits of AI for the public sector, and committed to supporting an environment which nurtures easy access to AI-related resources for SMEs, start-ups and academia. We also welcomed the potential of AI to provide significant advances to resolve the world’s great challenges, such as climate change, global health, and food and energy security.

The Secretary of State and I are grateful for the dedication and leadership shown by the Republic of Korea in delivering a successful summit in Seoul, just six short months after the world came together in Bletchley Park. It was an important step forward but, just as at Bletchley, we are only just getting started. The rapid pace of AI development leaves us no time to rest on our laurels. We must match that speed with our own efforts if we are to grip the risks of this technology, and seize the limitless benefits it can bring to people in Britain and around the world.

The UK stands ready to work with France to ensure that the AI action summit continues the legacy that we began in Bletchley Park, and continued in Seoul, because this is not an opportunity we can afford to miss. The potential upsides of AI are simply immense, but we cannot forget that this is the most complex technology humanity has ever produced. As the Secretary of State said in Seoul, it is our responsibility to ensure that human wisdom keeps pace with human knowledge.

I commend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for all the work they have done on the issue, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Before we proceed, this concludes my last session in the Chair for this Parliament. I thank the House for the courtesy and understanding that I have received during my time as a Deputy Speaker. It has been hugely appreciated. Thank you all.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 8—Use of damages-based agreements in opt-out collective proceedings.

Government new clause 9—Mergers of energy network enterprises.

Government new clause 10—Power to make a reference after previously deciding not to do so.

Government new clause 11—Taking action in relation to regulated markets.

Government new clause 12—Meaning of “working day” in Parts 3 and 4 of EA 2002.

Government new clause 13—ADR fees regulations.

Government new clause 14—Power to require information about competition in connection with motor fuel.

Government new clause 15—Penalties for failure to comply with notices under section (Power to require information about competition in connection with motor fuel.

Government new clause 16—Procedure and appeals.

Government new clause 17—Statement of policy on penalties.

Government new clause 18—Offences etc.

Government new clause 19—Penalties under section (Penalties for failure to comply with notices under section (Power to require information about competition in connection with motor fuel)) and offences under section (Offences etc).

Government new clause 20—Information sharing.

Government new clause 21—Expiry of this Chapter.

Government new clause 22—Removal of limit on the tenure of a chair of the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

New clause 1—Meaning of “payment account” and related terms—

“(1) ‘Payment account’ means an account held in the name of one or more consumers through which consumers are able to—

(a) place funds;

(b) withdraw cash; and

(c) execute and receive payment transactions to and from third parties, including over any designated payment system.

(2) ‘Payment account’ also includes the following types of account—

(a) savings accounts;

(b) credit card accounts;

(c) current account mortgages; and

(d) e-money accounts.

(3) ‘Designated payment system’ has the same meaning as within the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013.

(4) ‘Relevant institution’ means—

(a) any bank which has permission under Part 4A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to carry out the regulated activity of accepting deposits (within the meaning of section 22 of that Act, taken with Schedule 2 and any order under section 22);

(b) any building society within the meaning of section 119 of the Building Societies Act 1986;

(c) any credit institution within the meaning of the Payment Services Regulations 2017;

(d) any authorised payment institution within the meaning of the Payment Service Regulations 2017; and

(e) any small payment institution within the meaning of the Payment Services Regulations 2017.

(5) ‘Discriminate’ means that a relevant institution acts in a way which, were that relevant institution a public authority, would constitute a breach of its obligations under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, in so far as those obligations relate to—

(a) Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

(b) Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

(c) Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

(d) Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights; and

(e) any of the Articles listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) when read with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

This new clause defines relevant terms for the purposes of NC2.

New clause 2—Rights of consumers in relation to payment accounts—

“(1) A relevant institution must not discriminate against a consumer when deciding—

(a) whether to offer a consumer a payment account;

(b) whether to alter, or vary in any way, the terms of an existing payment account in use by a consumer; or

(c) whether to terminate or otherwise restrict a consumer’s access to their payment account.

(2) A relevant institution, within 30 days of deciding to alter, vary, terminate, or otherwise restrict a consumer’s access to their payment account, or deciding not to offer a consumer a payment account, must provide the consumer with a written statement of reasons explaining their decision.

(3) A written statement of reasons under subsection (2) must clearly specify—

(a) the basis upon which such a decision was taken, including reference to any terms and conditions within the consumer’s contract upon which the relevant institution relies, or reference to any legal obligations placed upon the relevant institution;

(b) all evidence taken into account by the relevant institution in reaching its decision; and

(c) any other matters that had bearing on the relevant institution’s decision.”

This new clause would place a duty on banks, building societies and similar institutions not to discriminate against consumers when offering retail banking services.

New clause 3—Rights of redress—

“Where a relevant institution has acted in breach of its obligations under section [Rights of consumers in relation to payment accounts] (1), the consumer shall have a right to damages in respect of any—

(a) financial loss;

(b) emotional distress; and

(c) physical inconvenience and discomfort.”

This new clause would give consumers a right to redress if discriminated against under NC2.

New clause 4—Enforcement of rights of redress—

“(1) A consumer with a right to damages by virtue of section [Rights of redress](1) may bring a claim in civil proceedings to enforce that right.

(2) The Limitation Act 1980 applies to a claim under this section in England and Wales as if it were an action founded on simple contract.

(3) The Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1339 (N.I. 11)) applies to a claim under this section in Northern Ireland as if it were an action founded on simple contract.”

This new clause makes provision for the enforcement of redress under NC3.

New clause 24—Review of Competition Appeal Tribunal—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon the Secretary of State considers reasonable practicable after this Act has been passed, commission a review of all processes involving the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the review is conducted independently of the Digital Markets Unit and the CMA.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the Competition Appeals Tribunal processes.

New clause 25—Duty to treat consumer interests as paramount—

“(1) In applying the provisions of this Act, the CMA and the Courts have an overriding duty to treat consumer interests as paramount.

(2) The duty set out in subsection (1) includes a duty to—

(a) address consumer detriment, including the protection of vulnerable consumers;

(b) expedite investigations that give rise to consumer detriment; and

(c) narrow points of challenge in appeals to CMA decisions that engage consumer detriment.”

This new clause would impose a duty on the CMA and the Courts to treat consumer issues as paramount.

New clause 26—Proceedings before the Tribunal: claim for damages—

“(1) The Competition Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 47A, after subsection (2)(b) insert—

“(c) Part 4 of the Digital Markets Act 2023””

This new clause would allow claims for damages in respect of infringements of the provisions of Part 4 of this Bill.

New clause 29—Contract renewal: option to opt in—

“(1) Before a trader enters into a subscription contract with a consumer where section 247(2) applies, the trader must ask the consumer whether they wish to opt-in to an arrangement under which the contract renews automatically at one or more of the following times—

(a) after a period of six months and every six months thereafter, or

(b) if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.

(2) If the consumer does not opt-in to such an arrangement, the trader must provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date.

(3) If the consumer has not—

(a) opted into an arrangement under subsection (1), or

(b) given notification of the consumer’s intention to renew by the date specified under subsection (2),

the contract will lapse on the renewal date.”

This new clause would allow the consumer to opt-out of their subscription auto-renewing every six months, or if the period between payments is longer than six months, before every payment. If the consumer does not opt-in to auto-renewal, they would be required to notify the trader manually about renewing.

New clause 30—Contract renewal: variable rate contracts—

“(1) Before a trader enters into a subscription contract with a consumer where section 247(3) applies, the trader must ask the consumer whether they wish to opt into an arrangement under which the contract renews automatically on the date the consumer becomes liable for the first charge or the first higher charge.

(2) If the consumer does not opt into an arrangement under subsection (1), the trader must provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than five days before the renewal date.

(3) The trader must also ask the consumer whether they wish to opt into an arrangement under which the contract renews automatically—

(a) after a period of either six months from the first charge or higher charge and every six months thereafter, or

(b) if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.

(4) If the consumer does not opt into an arrangement under subsection (3), the trader must provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date.

(5) If the consumer has not—

(a) opted into an arrangement under subsection (1) or subsection (3), or

(b) given notification of the consumer’s intention to renew by the date specified under (as the case may be) subsection (2) or subsection (4),

the contract will lapse on the next renewal date.”

This new clause would introduce an option for the consumer to opt-out of their subscription auto-renewing after their free or discounted trial. Otherwise, they would have to notify the trader manually about the subscription continuing. It also introduces an option for the consumer to opt-out of their subscription auto-renewing.

New clause 31—Regulatory burdens arising from competition and consumer regulation—

“(1) The CMA must, at least once a year, publish a report setting out its assessment of the economic cost of regulatory burdens that have been created and removed over the previous year through the exercise by public bodies of—

(a) competition and consumer powers; and

(b) the following activities, as far as they relate to competition and consumer matters—

(i) the imposition of conduct requirements;

(ii) dispute resolution and public enforcement activities;

(iii) the monitoring of undertakings, and

(iv) the issuing of regulatory orders.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that public bodies provide the CMA with information the CMA considers is necessary for completion of the report.

(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the net economic cost of regulatory burdens set out in the report is zero or less in every year.

(4) In this section a “regulatory burden” means a burden as defined in section 1(3) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.”

This new clause places on Ministers a permanent duty to ensure that the net economic cost of burdens from competition and consumer regulation is zero or less each year.

Government amendment 69.

Amendment 207, in clause 141, page 89, line 13, at end insert—

“(c) the collective interests of consumers include avoiding any detriment that might be incurred by consumers if the United Kingdom does not reach a level of net zero carbon emissions by 2030.”

This amendment would mean that part of the test of whether a commercial practice had committed an infringement would be whether the commercial practice had failed to protect consumers from any detrimental effects arising from a failure to achieve net zero by 2030.

Government amendments 70 to 79, 81, 82 and 85.

Amendment 226, in clause 224, page 150, line 27, at end insert—

“(4A) Where a commercial practice has been found to be unfair under paragraph 32 of Schedule 18 of this Act, any body listed as a public designated enforcer in section 144(1) of this Act may require the removal of the relevant online marketing from the internet.”

This amendment allows enforcement bodies to remove the marketing of fake or counterfeit products from the internet.

Amendment 208, page 150, line 29, at end insert—

“(6) An established means used to encourage control of unfair commercial practices must include the following measures—

(a) investigation and determination on a timely basis—

(i) in accordance with a pre-determined process which has been published on the internet,

(ii) by people who are independent of any organisation undertaking commercial practices, and

(iii) with the outcome of any decision published.

(b) the appointment of a board to oversee the investigation and determination process, with the majority of the members of the board independent of any organisation undertaking commercial practices;

(c) provision for the suspension of a commercial practice during an investigation and prior to a determination being made;

(d) provision for guidance to be issued, by the CMA, the relevant weights and measures authority or, if the established means is an organisation, the established means itself, about the lawfulness of a commercial practice;

(e) publication of statistical and other information about the operation of, and compliance with, the established means to enable the CMA or weights and measures authority in question to assess on an annual basis the continuing appropriateness of using the established means.”

This amendment sets out conditions, including in relation to independence and transparency, for the means by which the control of unfair commercial practices will be encouraged.

Government amendments 86 to 93.

Amendment 210, in clause 251, page 166, line 24, leave out “six” and insert “twelve”.

This amendment would provide for traders to have to issue reminder notices to consumers about ongoing subscription contracts only every twelve months, rather than every six.

Amendment 211, page 166, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make reasonable provision for the content and timing of reminder notices.”

This amendment, together with Amendments 212 and 213, would remove the detailed provision about the content and timing of reminder notices from the face of the Bill and instead give the Secretary of State the power to make such provision by regulation.

Government amendment 94.

Amendment 212, page 167, line 1, leave out Clause 252.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 211.

Government amendments 95 to 98.

Amendment 214, in clause 253, page 168, line 7, leave out “in a single communication” and insert

“in a manner that is straightforward, timely and does not impose unreasonable cost on a consumer”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 215 to 218, would remove from the Bill the existing detailed provisions for ending a subscription contract, intending that they should be covered by provision made in secondary legislation under the provisions of clause 270(1)(c), and instead set principles for how a contract may be ended.

Amendment 215, page 168, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

See explanatory statement to Amendment 214.

Amendment 216, page 168, line 15, leave out subsection (4).

See explanatory statement to Amendment 214.

Amendment 217, page 168, line 23, leave out subsection (6).

See explanatory statement to Amendment 214.

Amendment 218, in clause 254, page 168, line 37, leave out subsections (3) to (5).

See explanatory statement to Amendment 214.

Government amendments 99 and 100.

Amendment 219, page 170, line 25, leave out clause 257.

This amendment, together with Amendments 220 to 222, would remove the provision for a mandatory cooling-off period for a subscription contract.

Amendment 220, page 171, line 19, leave out clause 258.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 219.

Amendment 221, page 172, line 18, leave out clause 259.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 219.

Government amendments 101 to 103.

Amendment 222, in clause 272, page 180, line 25, leave out subsection (5).

See explanatory statement to Amendment 219.

Government amendments 104, 105, 107, 109, 110, 112 to 147 and 150 to 152.

Amendment 223, in clause 317, page 221, line 35 leave out “subsection (2)” and insert “subsections (2) and (2B)”.

This amendment and Amendment 224 would provide for an implementation period of two years before the provision in the Bill relating to subscription contracts comes into force.

Government amendments 153 and 154.

Amendment 224, page 222, line 6, at end insert—

“(2B) Chapter 2 of Part 4 comes into force two years after the day on which this Act is passed.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 223.

Government new schedule 1—Mergers of energy network enterprises.

Government amendments 155 to 163.

Amendment 225, in schedule 18, page 343, line 42, at end insert—

“32 At any stage of a purchase process, presenting a price for a product which omits obligatory charges or fees (or an estimate thereof) which are payable by the majority of consumers, which are not revealed to the consumer until later in the purchase process.”

This amendment adds the practice of “drip-pricing”, a pricing technique in which traders advertise only part of a product’s price and reveal other obligatory charges later as the customer goes through the buying process, to the list of unfair commercial practices.

Amendment 227, page 343, line 42, at end insert—

“32 Marketing online products that are either—

(a) counterfeit; or

(b) dangerous.”

This amendment would add marketing counterfeit and dangerous online products to the list of banned practices.

Government amendments 164 to 170.

Amendment 228, in schedule 19, page 350, line 30, at end insert—

“Non-commercial society lotteries

13 (1) A contract under which a lottery ticket or tickets are purchased for one or more non-commercial society lotteries.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “non-commercial society” has the meaning given by section 19 of the Gambling Act 2005, and “lottery ticket” has the meaning given by section 253 of that Act.”

This amendment seeks to exclude lottery tickets purchased for non-commercial society lotteries from the scope of the provisions on subscription contracts.

Government amendment 171.

Amendment 213, in schedule 20, page 354, line 19, leave out paragraphs 28 to 38.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 211.

Government amendments 172 to 175.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

May I first echo the remarks about the excellent address by the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti)? I welcome him to his place—he did a fine job on his first outing in such a complex debate.

I, too, am delighted to bring the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill to the House on Report. May I express my gratitude to colleagues across the House for their contributions to Second Reading and Committee stages, and for their continued engagement throughout its passage? I thank in particular the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) for their constructive engagement and commitment to seeing the Bill delivered quickly so that its benefits can be realised. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for his excellent engagement—over the weekend in particular—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for his many important and relevant amendments.

The reforms to the competition and consumer regimes contained in parts 2 to 5 of the Bill will grow the economy and deliver better outcomes for consumers and bona fide businesses. Consumers will have more choice and protection, and pay lower prices. Businesses will operate on a fairer and more level playing field. The reforms will do that by enhancing the wider competition regime, strengthening the enforcement of consumer protection law, and putting in place new consumer rights and more transparency.

It is a simple fact that the way in which we buy products and services today very often involves a digital process. The opportunities that follow are vast—more accessibility, flexibility and choice for consumers—but there is also a greater risk of consumer harm, including, for example, consumers being trapped in a subscription contract that they no longer want or purchasing goods that may not be up to scratch because they unknowingly relied on a fake review. We must ensure that consumers and their cash are protected.

Swifter interventions to tackle bad business practices against consumers are expected to deliver a consumer benefit of £9.7 billion over 10 years, as UK consumers benefit from new rights, stronger law enforcement and more competition through merger control. Importantly, the reforms will also grow the economy by boosting competition, better placing the UK to succeed in export markets. It will allow the Competition and Markets Authority to more effectively deter, prevent, and, where necessary, enforce against monopolistic behaviours. That will ensure that the free market can operate effectively.

The Government amendments to parts 2 to 5 of the Bill will provide greater clarity, ensure coherence with related legislation, and make sure the Bill’s measures meet their intended aims. Almost all the amendments are technical in nature. I will address them across four categories: competition, consumer enforcement, consumer rights and cross-cutting provisions.

First, the competition measures in the Bill will give the CMA new powers to enable it to tackle anti-competitive activity swiftly and effectively, meaning that it can focus its work on the areas of greatest potential harm. The competition environment is complex and ever evolving. We must respond carefully but decisively to changes in the judicial and legislative landscape to provide certainty and to avoid any unintended detrimental consequences of wider developments.

New clause 8 amends the Competition Act 1998 so that the absolute bar on damages-based agreements being relied on in opt-out collective actions will not apply to third-party litigation funding agreements, which are the main source of funding for that type of action. That responds to a recent Supreme Court judgment, and effectively restores the previously held understanding of the status of litigation funding agreements under the 1998 Act. Accordingly, it will have retrospective effect.

In response to a recent Competition Appeal Tribunal judgment, we are specifying the circumstances in which a market investigation reference may be made in relation to an area that has already been the subject of a market study but was not referred for further investigation at that time. We are also bringing forward a series of amendments to ensure alignment between this Bill and the Energy Act 2023, which introduced the energy network merger regime, and to make minor corrections to provisions relating to that regime. Separately, we are repealing paragraph 8 of schedule 3 to the 1998 Act to remove a redundant reference to the treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community. To ensure that the implementation trials for market remedies introduced by the Bill are as effective as possible, we are introducing new powers for the Secretary of State to extend the scope of implementation trials in the markets regime to include regulatory conditions.

I will now address the new direct consumer enforcement model. That model will enable the CMA to act faster and take on more consumer cases on behalf of the public, resulting in a further estimated direct benefit to consumers of tens, or potentially hundreds, of millions of pounds. The Government have tabled a series of technical amendments to increase certainty in respect of the CMA’s operational duties. They include aligning the definition of “business” in part 3 of the Bill with that in part 4 of chapter 1 to ensure that any breaches of unfair trading prohibitions can be enforced through the regime; and making provision about information-sharing between public authorities so that enforcers can obtain the information that they need to take enforcement action under part 3 of the Bill.

On appeals, we are adding a requirement for the CMA to include information about applicable appeal rights in a final breach-of-directions enforcement notice, as well as empowering the appeal court to send issues back to the CMA for decision on certain notices. We are also empowering the Secretary of State to update through regulations the specified maximum amounts for fixed and daily penalties imposable by a court or the CMA when a business breaches a formal information request.

Moving on to consumer rights—I am sure this will interest many Members across the House—the purpose of the Bill is simple: to empower consumers to get the deal that is right for them, and to increase their confidence in the products they buy and the services they use. The new rights on subscription traps will give consumers more control over their spending. Such traps have been the subject of some debate during the passage of the Bill, and the Government are introducing amendments to remove unintended consequences.

Online Safety Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)]

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 182.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 349, and Government amendments (a) and (b).

Lords amendment 391, Government amendment (a), and Government consequential amendment (a).

Lords amendment 17, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Amendment (i) to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 17.

Lords amendment 20, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 22, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 81, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

Lords amendment 148, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 1, and amendments (a) and (b).

Lords amendments 2 to 16, 18, 19, 21, 23 to 80, 82 to 147, 149 to 181 and 183 to 188.

Lords amendment 189, and amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 190 to 216.

Lords amendment 217, and amendment (a).

Lords amendments 218 to 227.

Lords amendment 228, and amendment (a).

Lords amendments 229 and 230.

Lords amendment 231, and amendment (a).

Lords amendments 232 to 319.

Lords amendment 320, and amendment (a).

Lords amendment 321, and amendment (a).

Lords amendments 322 to 348, 350 to 390 and 392 to 424.

[Paul Scully]

As we know from proceedings in this place, the Online Safety Bill is incredibly important. I am delighted that it is returning to the Commons in great shape, having gone through extensive and thorough scrutiny in the Lords. The Bill is world-leading, and the legislative framework established by it will lead to the creation of a profoundly safer online environment in this country. It will kickstart change where that is sorely needed, and ensure that our children are better protected against pornography and other content that is harmful to them. The Bill will also guard children against perpetrators of abhorrent child sexual exploitation and abuse, and ensure that tech companies take responsibility for tackling such content on their platforms, or be held criminally accountable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Indeed, we will not be accepting those amendments, but I will cover more of that later on, after I have listened to the comments that I know my hon. Friend wants to make.

As a result of the amendment, we have also made a small change to clause 98—the emerging category 1 services list—to ensure that it makes operational sense. Prior to Baroness Morgan’s amendment, a service had to meet the functionality threshold for content and 75% of the user number threshold to be on the emerging services list. Under the amended cause, there is now a plausible scenario where a service could meet the category 1 threshold without meeting any condition based on user numbers, so we had to make the change to ensure that the clause worked in that scenario.

We have always been clear that the design of a service, its functionalities and its other features are key drivers of risk that impact on the risk of harm to children. Baroness Kidron’s amendments 17, 20, 22 and 81 seek to treat those aspects as sources of harm in and of themselves. Although we agree with the objective, we are concerned that they do not work within the legislative framework and risk legal confusion and delaying the Bill. We have worked closely with Baroness Kidron and other parliamentarians to identify alternative ways to make the role that design and functionalities play more explicit. I am grateful to colleagues in both Houses for being so generous with their time on this issue. In particular, I thank again my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam for his tireless work, which was crucial in enabling the creation of an alternative and mutually satisfactory package of amendments. We will disagree to Lords amendments 17, 20, 22 and 81 and replace them with amendments that make it explicit that providers are required to assess the impact that service design, functionalities and other features have on the risk of harm to children.

On Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) raised animal abuse on the internet and asked how we might address such harmful content. I am pleased that the changes we have since made to the Bill fully demonstrate the Government’s commitment to tackling criminal activity relating to animal torture online. It is a cause that Baroness Merron has championed passionately. Her amendment in the other place sought to require the Secretary of State to review certain offences and, depending on the review’s outcome, to list them as priority offences in schedule 7. To accelerate measures to tackle such content, the Government will remove clause 63—the review clause—and instead immediately list section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 as a priority offence. Officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have worked closely with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and are confident that the offence of unnecessary suffering will capture a broad swathe of behaviour. I hope the whole House will recognise our efforts and those of Baroness Merron and support the amendment.

You will be pleased to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I will conclude my remarks. I express my gratitude to my esteemed colleagues both here and in the other place for their continued and dedicated engagement with this complicated, complex Bill during the course of its parliamentary passage. I strongly believe that the Bill, in this form, strikes the right balance in providing the strongest possible protections for both adults and children online while protecting freedom of expression. The Government have listened carefully to the views of Members on both sides of the House, stakeholders and members of the public. The amendments we have made during the Bill’s progress through the Lords have further enhanced its robust and world-leading legislative framework. It is groundbreaking and will ensure the safety of generations to come. I ask Members of the House gathered here to support the Government’s position on the issues that I have spoken about today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Before I address the amendments at hand, let me first put on record my thanks for the incredible efforts of our colleagues in the other place. The Bill has gone on a huge journey. The Government have repeatedly delayed its passage, and even went to great effort to recommit parts of the Bill to Committee in an attempt to remove important provisions on legal but harmful content. For those reasons alone, it is somewhat of a miracle that we have arrived at this moment, with a Bill that I am glad to say is in a much better place than when we last debated it here. That is thanks to the tireless work of so many individuals, charities and organisations, which have come together to coalesce around important provisions that will have a positive impact on people’s lives online.

Today, we have the real privilege of being joined by Ian Russell, Stuart Stephens, Emilia Stevens, Hollie Dance and Lisa Kenevan, who have all been impacted by losing a child at the hands of online harm. I want to take a moment to give my most heartfelt thanks to them all, and to the other families who have shared their stories, insights and experiences with colleagues and me as the Bill progressed. Today, in our thoughts are Archie, Isaac, Olly, Molly and all the other children who were taken due to online harm. Today, their legacy stands before us. We would not be here without you, so thank you.

We also could not have arrived at this point without the determination of colleagues in the other place, notably Baroness Kidron. Colleagues will know that she has been an extremely passionate, determined and effective voice for children throughout, and the Bill is stronger today thanks to her efforts. More broadly, I hope that today’s debate will be a significant and poignant moment for everyone who has been fighting hard for more protections online for many years.

It is good to see the Minister in his place. This is a complex Bill, and has been the responsibility of many of his colleagues since its introduction to Parliament. That being said, it will come as no surprise that Labour is pleased with some of the significant concessions that the Government have made on the Bill. Many stem from amendments the Opposition sought to make early on in the Bill’s passage. Although his Department’s press release may try to claim a united front, let us be clear: the Bill has sadly fallen victory to Tory infighting from day one. The Conservatives truly cannot decide if they are the party of protecting children or of free speech, when they should be the party of both. Sadly, some colleagues on the Government Benches have tried to stop the Bill in its tracks entirely, but Labour has always supported the need for it. We have worked collaboratively with the Government and have long called for these important changes. It is a welcome relief that the Government have finally listened.

Let me also be clear that the Bill goes some way to regulate the online space in the past and present, but it makes no effort to future-proof or anticipate emerging harms. The Labour party has repeatedly warned the Government of our concerns that, thanks to the Bill’s focus on content rather than social media platforms’ business models, it may not go far enough. With that in mind, I echo calls from across the House. Will the Minister commit to a review of the legislation within five years of enactment, to ensure that it has met their objective of making the UK the safest place in the world to be online?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I welcome the return of the Online Safety Bill from its exhaustive consideration in the other place. As the Minister knows, this vital legislation kicked off several years ago under the leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), with the ambitious aim of making the UK the safest place in the world to go online. While other countries picked at the edges of that, we were the first place in the world to set ourselves such an ambitious task.

The legislation is mammoth in size and globally significant in scope. Its delivery has been long-winded and I am so pleased that we have got to where we are now. As one of the Ministers who carried the baton for this legislation for around 19 months, I understand the balance to be struck between freedom of speech campaigners, charities and the large pressures from the platforms to get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Thirteen Members wish to participate in the debate. The winding-up speeches will need to start shortly before 5 pm, and the Minister has indicated that he has quite a bit to say. I therefore suggest a self-denying ordinance of between seven and eight minutes following the speech from the Scottish National party spokesman. It is up to colleagues, because we have not imposed a mandatory time limit at this stage, but if Members are sensible and not greedy, everyone should get in with no difficulty.

Artificial Intelligence

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that, when done well, AI allows us to identify discrimination and seek to eliminate it, but when done badly, it cements it into the system in the worst possible way. That is partly why I say that transparency about the use of AI will be absolutely essential, even if we largely do not need new legislation. We need principles. When done right, in time this technology could end up costing us less money and delivering greater rewards, be that in the fields of discrimination or public services and everywhere in between.

There is a second-order point, which is that we need to understand where loopholes that the technology creates are not covered by existing bits of legislation. If we think back to the time we spent in his House debating upskirting, we did not do that because voyeurism was somehow legal; we did it because a loophole had been created by a new technology and a new set of circumstances, and it was right that we sought to close it. We urgently need to understand where those loopholes are now, thanks to artificial intelligence, and we need to understand more about where they will have the greatest effects.

In a similar vein, we need to understand, as I raised at Prime Minister’s questions a few weeks ago, which parts of the economy and regions of the country will be most affected, so that we can focus the immense Government skills programmes on the areas that will be most affected. This is not a predictable industry, such as when we came to the end of the coalmining industry, and we are not able to draw obvious lines on obvious maps. We need to understand the economy and how this impacts on local areas. To take just one example, we know that call centres—those things that keep us waiting for hours on hold—are going to get a lot better thanks to artificial intelligence, but there are parts of the country that are particularly seeing an increase in local call centre employees. This will be a boom for the many people working in them, but it is also a hump that we need to get over, and we need to focus skills investment in certain areas and certain communities.

I do believe that, long term, we should be profoundly optimistic that artificial intelligence will create more jobs than it destroys, just as in every previous industrial revolution, but there will be a hump, and the Government need to help as much as they can in working with businesses to provide such opportunities. We should be optimistic that the agency that allows people to be happier in their work—personal agency—will be enhanced by the use of artificial intelligence, because it will take away some of the less exciting aspects of many jobs, particularly at the lower-paid end of the economy, but not by any means solely. There is no shame in eliminating dull parts of jobs from the economy, and there is no nobility in protecting people from inevitable technological change. History tells us that if we do seek to protect people from that technological change, we will impoverish them in the process.

I want to point to the areas where the Government surely must understand that potentially new offences are to be created beyond the tactical risk I have described. We know that it is already illegal to hack the NHS, for instance. That is a tactical problem, even if it might be somewhat different, so I want to take a novel example. We know that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of whether someone is pregnant or likely to get pregnant. Warehouses, many of them run by large businesses, gather a huge amount of data about their employees. They gather temperature data and movement data, and they monitor a huge amount. They gather data that goes far beyond anything we had previously seen just a few years ago, and from that data, companies can infer a huge amount, and they might easily infer from that whether someone is pregnant.

If we do that, which we already do, should we now say that it will be illegal to collect such data because it opens up a potential risk? I do not think we should, and I do not think anyone would seriously say we should, but it is open to a level of discrimination. Should we say that such discrimination is illegal, which is the situation now—companies can gather data but it is what they do with it that matters—or should we say that it actually exposes people to risk and companies to a legal risk, and that it may take us backwards rather than forwards? Unsurprisingly, I think there is a middle ground that is the right option.

Suddenly, however, a question as mundane as collecting data about temperature and movements, ostensibly for employee welfare and to meet existing commitments, turns into a political decision: what information is too much and what analysis is too much? It brings us as politicians to questions that suddenly and much more quickly revert to ethics. There is a risk of huge and potentially dangerous information asymmetry. Some people say that there should be a right to a human review and a right to know what cannot be done. All these are ethical issues that come about because of the advent of artificial intelligence in the way that they have not done so previously. I commend to all Members the brilliant paper by Oxford University’s Professor Adams-Prassl on a blueprint for regulating algorithmic management, and I commend it to the Government as well.

AI raises ethical considerations that we have to address in this place in order to come up with the principles-based regulation that we need, rather than trying to play an endless game of whack-a-mole with a system that is going to go far faster than the minds of legislators around the world. We cannot regulate in every instance; we have to regulate horizontally. As I say, the key theme surely must be transparency. A number of Members of Parliament have confessed—if that is the right word—to using AI to write their speeches, but I hope that no more people have used AI to write their speeches than those who have already confessed. Transparency has been key in this place, and it should be key in financial services and everywhere else. For instance, AI-generated videos could already be forced to use watermarking technology that would make it obvious that they are not the real deal. As we come up to an election, I think that such use of existing technology will be important. We need to identify the gaps—the lacunae—both in legislation and in practice.

Artificial intelligence is here with us today and it will be here for a very long time, at the very least augmenting human intelligence. Our endless creativity is what makes us human, and what makes us to some extent immune from being displaced by technology, but we also need to bear in mind that, ultimately, it is by us that decisions will be made about how far AI can be used and what AI cannot be used for. People see a threat when they read some of the most hyperbolic headlines, but these are primarily not about new crimes; they are about using AI for old crimes, but doing them a heck of a lot better.

I end by saying that the real risk here is not the risk of things being done to us by people using AI. The real risk is if we do not seize every possible opportunity, because seizing every possible opportunity will allow us to fend off the worst of AI and to make the greatest progress. If every student knows that teachers are not using it, far more fake essays will be submitted via ChatGPT. Every lawyer and every teacher should be encouraged to use this technology to the maximum safe extent, not to hope that it simply goes away. We know that judges have already seen lawyers constructing cases using AI and that many of the references in those cases were simply fictional, and the same is true of school essays.

The greatest risk to progress in our public services comes from not using AI: it comes not from malevolent people, but from our thinking that we should not embrace this technology. We should ask not what AI can do to us; we should ask what we can do with AI, and how Government and business can get the skills they need to do that best. There is a risk that we continue to lock in the 95% of AI compute that sits with just seven companies, or that we promote monopolies or the discrimination that the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) mentioned. This is an opportunity to avert that, not reinforce it, and to cement not prejudice but diversity. It means that we have an opportunity to use game-changing technology for the maximum benefit of society, and the maximum number of people in that society. We need to enrich the dialogue between Government, the private sector and the third sector, to get the most out of that.

This is a matter for regulation, and for global regulation, as is so much of the modern regulatory landscape. There will be regional variations, but there should also be global norms and principles. Outside the European Union and United States, Britain has that unique position I described, and the Prime Minister’s summit this autumn will be a key opportunity—I hope all our invites are in the post, or at least in an email. I hope that will be an opportunity not just for the Prime Minister to show genuine global leadership, but also an opportunity to involve academia, parliamentarians and broader society in having that conversation, and allow the Government to seize the opportunity and regain some trust on this technology.

I urge the Minister to crack on, seize the day, and take the view that artificial intelligence will be with us for as long as we are around. It will make a huge difference to our world. Done right, it will make everything better; done badly, we will be far poorer for it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the AI Committee, Darren Jones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Gideon]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Clearly, that is the big part of this debate: we have to have transparency, as it is essential. The Government’s current plans, set out in the AI White Paper, do not place any new obligations on public bodies to be transparent about their use of AI; to make sure their AI tools meet accuracy and non-discrimination standards, as she rightly said; or to ensure that there are proper mechanisms in place for challenging or getting redress when AI decisions go wrong. What the White Paper proposes is a “test and learn” approach to regulation, but we must also be proactive. Technology is changing rapidly, while policy lags behind. Once AI is beyond our control, implementing safeguards becomes implausible. We should acknowledge that we cannot afford to wait to see how its use might cause harm and undermine trust in our institutions.

While still encouraging sensible innovation, we should also learn from international experiences. We must encourage transparency and put in place the proper protections to avoid damage. Let us consider the financial sector, where banks traditionally analyse credit ratings and histories when deciding who to lend money to. I have recently been working with groups such as Burnley Savings and Loans, which manually underwrites all loans and assesses the risk of each loan by studying the business models and repayment plans of its customers. Would it be right to use AI to make such decisions? If we enter a world where there is no scope for gut feeling, human empathy and intuition, do we risk impoverishing our society? We need to be careful and consider how we want to use AI, being ethical and thoughtful, and remaining in control, rather than rolling it out wherever possible. We must strike the right balance.

Research indicates that AI and automation are most useful when complemented by human roles. The media can be negative about AI’s impact, leading to a general fear that people will lose their jobs as a result of its growth. However, historically, new technology has also led to new careers that were not initially apparent. It has been suggested that the impact of AI on the workplace could rival that of the industrial revolution. So the Government must equip the workforce of the future through skills forecasting and promoting education in STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths.

Furthermore, we must remain competitive in AI on the global stage, ensuring agility and adaptability, in order to give future generations the best chances. In conjunction with the all-party group on youth affairs, the YMCA has conducted polling on how young people feel about the future and the potential impact of AI on their careers. The results are going to be announced next month. It found that AI could not only lead to a large amount of job displacement, but provide opportunities for those from non-traditional backgrounds. More information on skills and demand will help inform young people to identify their career choices and support industries and businesses in preparing for the impact of AI.

I am pleased that the Department for Education has already launched a consultation on AI education, which is open until the end of August. Following that, we should work hard to ensure that schools and universities can quickly adapt to AI’s challenges. Cross-departmental discussion is important, bringing together AI experts and educators, to ensure that the UK is at the cutting edge of developments with AI and to provide advice to adapt to younger generations.

AI is hugely powerful and possesses immense potential. ChatGPT has recently caught everybody’s attention, and it can create good stories and news articles, like the one I shared. But that technology has been used for years and, right now, we are not keeping up. We need to be quicker at adapting to change, monitoring closely and being alert to potential dangers, and stepping in when and where necessary, to ensure the safe and ethical development of AI for the future of our society and the welfare of future generations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Recalling a conversation that we had earlier in the day, I am tempted to call Robin Millar in the style of Winston Churchill.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I will keep my speech short and snappy, and not repeat anything that any other Member has said—I know that is unfashionable in this place. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) on introducing the debate. He was one of the very best Ministers I have ever come across in my role on the Front Bench, and I am sorry to see him on the Back Benches; he is well due promotion, I would say. I am sure that has just damned his prospects for all eternity.

As my party’s culture spokesperson, I am very keenly aware of the arts community’s concerns about AI and its risks to the arts. I have now been twice—like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure—to “ABBA Voyage”, once in my role on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and once as a guest of the wonderful Svana, its producer. As I am sure you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the show uses AI and motion capture technology combined with a set of massive, ultra-high-quality screens to create an utterly magnificent gig. It felt like the entire audience was getting to see ABBA in their prime; indeed, it was perhaps even better than it would have been originally, because we now have ultra-modern sound quality, dazzling light shows and a vast arena in which to enjoy the show. It was history, airbrushed to perfection and made contemporary. It seems to be a success, having sold over 1 million tickets so far and with talk of its touring the world. In fact, it was so good that towards the end, some of the audience started waving at Agnetha and Björn. They had become completely convinced that they were not in fact AI, but real people. There were tears as people looked at Agnetha, which says something about the power of technology to persuade us, does it not?

Soon, I will be going to see Nile Rodgers—that really is a very good gig, as I do not need to tell the other Front Benchers present. Again, I am going to be his guest. He is a legendary guitarist, songwriter and singer; he gave evidence to our Select Committee; and he has sold 500 million albums worldwide. Nile will be incredible —he always is—but he will also be 70 years of age. It will not be a 1970s early funk gig. The audience will include the mature, people in the prime of middle youth such as myself, and also the Glastonbury generation. It is easy to envisage an AI Nile Rodgers, produced by a record company and perhaps touring in competition with the very real Nile Rodgers, competing for ticket sales with the great man himself. Indeed, it is easy to envisage the young recording artists of today signing away their rights to their likenesses and vocals in perpetuity, with long-term consequences.

Many in the arts sphere feel safe from AI, as they suspect that human creativity at the artistic level cannot be replicated. I very much hope that they are right, but once that human creativity has been captured, it can be reproduced eternally, perhaps with higher production levels. It is not, I feel, the sole responsibility of artists, musicians and playwrights to be concerning themselves with radical developments in AI. They have work to do as it is, and surely the job to protect them is ours. We need to get on top of the copyright issues, and we need to protect future performers from having their rights sold away along with their very first contracts. We as parliamentarians must think deeply, listen and research widely. I have heard some heartening—sometimes lengthy —speeches that show there is, cross party, an awareness and a willingness to grasp this, and that is deeply encouraging.

However, the UK Government have much to work on in their White Paper. They have a lot to do when they look at this and listen to the submissions, and they must provide improvements. It allows public institutions and private companies to use new experimental AI on us, and then try to correct the flaws subsequently. It uses us, our communities and our industries as guinea pigs to try out untested code to see whether that makes matters better or worse. I think the risks are many for the arts community, which is concerned deeply about fakery, and there is an argument that the AI White Paper empowers such digital fakery.

In closing, it is absolutely key that we listen to experts in this field, as we should always do to inform our decision making, but in particular to those in the arts and music industry because they will be so deeply affected.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Minister.