Alan Mak MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 9 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Budget cut the venture capital trusts tax relief that allowed investors to back Britain’s fastest-growing companies. How can the Chancellor claim to support our entrepreneurs when she is cutting off the funding that they rely on?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Life Sciences: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The patent box and full capital expensing are Conservative policies introduced to back the life sciences sector, and they are absolutely vital to the country’s future long-term prosperity. Will the Secretary of State commit to protecting these policies at the Budget from a Chancellor desperate to fix the public finances with short-term cuts and fixes?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Regional Economic Growth: Pension Funds · Hansard source

  More

  Pension providers play a key role in helping Britain’s tech start-ups turn into world-leading scale-ups, but around £3 trillion in pension funds sits idle. That money should be used to support our tech sector. Will the Minister commit to accelerating the Mansion House reforms successfully introduced by the last Conservative Government?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Independent Lifeboats: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In my Havant constituency, we are fortunate to have both the Hayling Island RNLI lifeboat, funded by the RNLI, and the Hayling Island coastguard rescue team, funded through the Department for Transport. Together they do outstanding work in our community and around Hayling. Will my hon. Friend and the Minister join me in thanking the crews and support staff on Hayling Island? And will my hon. Friend explain why independent lifeboats should receive similar funding and support?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Technology Companies: Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to his place. When it comes to holding tech companies accountable for using copyrighted material on their platforms without consent, the Government’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 let down our creative industries. The Department’s new working groups on AI and copyright include just one British tech firm, alongside a host of foreign tech competitors. Will his Government now give our tech sector and creative industries the proper voice they deserve?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) on her well- deserved honour in the King’s birthday honours? I hope the whole House will agree that it is a fitting and well-deserved honour for her expertise and service to the House. Protecting children online should be a top priority for every Government, and that is why the Conservatives passed the Online Safety Act to give this Government all the sweeping powers they need to act, but when the Minister was asked in Parliament why implementation under Labour was so slow, she said that implementation must be “as proofed against judicial review as possible.” —[ Official Report, 26 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 405WH.] Why is she more concerned about protecting herself and the Government than about protecting children?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  It was my party that passed the Online Safety Act; it is the Minister’s party that is failing our children. Ian Russell, who set up the Molly Rose Foundation following the tragic death of his daughter, says that Britain is now “going backwards” when it comes to protecting our children online. The Government are being timid when they should be bold. Their priorities are wrong, and legal caution is trumping children’s safety. Why is the Minister still defending this Government’s track record of total failure?

• 14 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Labour has cancelled Britain’s new national supercomputer at the University of Edinburgh, damaging our research capability and economic growth. That project was fully funded by the Conservatives, and the university says that it will be a disaster if the cancellation is not reversed, so will the Government reinstate that supercomputer, or will it be another victim of the Chancellor’s failed economic experiment?

• 14 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  That project was fully funded, and the Secretary of State knows it. While Labour cancels our tech investment, our competitors—the US, Germany and Japan—are all increasing theirs. Next month, the Chancellor will cut the Department’s budget in real terms, so can the Secretary of State tell us today whether he will allow the Treasury to cancel more investment in Britain’s future, or will he finally speak up for Britain’s vital tech sector?

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for allowing time for an Opposition response. I begin by thanking hon. and right hon. Members across the House for their contributions to this Bill over many months, and I thank officials in the Department across several Governments and officials in Parliament. May I thank the entire team on our Benches, but in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for his extremely hard work and our senior researcher Sophie Thorley? The Conservatives left the Government with a data Bill that would have improved Britain’s position as a leading tech-enabled economy and society. However, in Labour’s hands, the Government have delivered only confusion and failure. A wide range of amendments have been tabled to Labour’s Bill, highlighting key issues that required both leadership and agility from the Government, but they have failed on each of those areas. On AI and copyright, they let down our content creators. On sex and gender, they let down women and girls. On social media safety, they let down our children. The last Conservative Government turned Britain into a leading tech power, and our original Bill built on those achievements. Labour’s Bill today takes the country backwards, and our country deserves so much better. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. AstraZeneca is investing more than £4 billion in Singapore, the US and Canada. It could have invested in our country too. What is Labour doing to bring back the deal that it destroyed?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Conservatives secured a £450 million investment from AstraZeneca to expand its Merseyside vaccine factory. When the Chancellor wrecked the deal, AstraZeneca tried to save it by increasing that investment to over £500 million. Why did Labour still walk away, handing jobs and investment to our competitors?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hansard will confirm that during questions to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology earlier today, the Secretary of State—who is in his place—said that no Conservative Ministers had met AstraZeneca representatives following the announcement of a £450 million investment to expand its Merseyside vaccine facility. The Secretary of State is wrong. Publicly available transparency data from the Treasury and the Secretary of State’s own Department confirm that meetings did take place between AstraZeneca and my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), the then Chancellor, and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). May I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what to do, and may I offer the Secretary of State the opportunity to apologise and correct the record for the House?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The last Conservative Government left Britain with a world-class creative industries sector. It is Labour’s dither and delay that is causing huge anxiety, as I will go on to say. Rather than solving a problem, Labour is the problem. One way to resolve that is to accept the Conservative proposal, tabled in the other place, to develop international technical standards for watermarks, which the Secretary of State referred to. We welcome the agreement by the Minister in the other place to take that work forward, and both Houses look forward to the outcome with great interest. As I have said, the creative industries sector is valuable. It is worth £124 billion to the UK economy and employs over 2.4 million people. They will all be damaged by Labour’s approach and they all deserve better, so why has an impact assessment not been published at the same time as the consultation? What has Labour got to hide?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I was going to say to the hon. Lady, half in jest and half in reality, that the Liberal Democrats will say whatever they need to say in any part of the country and on any issue. That is the reality.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I said to the Minister, and I will say it again for the hon. Lady: it is for the Government to bring forward their proposal. Once the consultation closes, we will respond. That is the proper order in this House.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Conservatives want Britain to be a science and technology superpower, and that means fully unlocking all the benefits of data. As a country, we must make the appropriate use of data more widespread. That would cut red tape, make research easier, create new jobs, deliver economic growth and enable people to access public services more efficiently. A data-enabled economy and society is good for everyone, which is why we introduced the groundbreaking Data Protection and Digital Information Bill before the last election and progressed it through all Commons stages, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) rightly said. We still believe in those reforms and call on the Government to build on them, but we also recognise the concerns around individual rights, privacy, AI and copyright that have been raised in relation to Labour’s Bill. When the previous Government left office last July, we had turned Britain into one of the world’s leading tech economies. We were home to more tech unicorns than any other European country, and more than France and Germany combined. Britain had become the world’s third largest AI ecosystem, with pioneering start-ups creating new jobs and innovative products. We led the way on developing safe AI through the world’s first AI safety summit and AI Safety Institute. Our original Bill complemented those achievements and would have accelerated Britain’s progress towards becoming a highly data-enabled economy and society. In particular, our proposals for a digital verification services framework are replicated in this Bill. It is also clear that this Bill has been informed by consultations carried out under the last Conservative Government on the governance of digital identities. Similarly, putting the national underground asset register on a statutory footing is a Conservative idea, and we welcome its inclusion in this Bill. More than 700 different organisations dig holes to install and maintain underground assets every year. Expanding and standardising the digital map of pipes and cables will help local councils, utility providers and others to better co-ordinate their activities, hopefully reducing the 60,000 accidental damage incidents that occur every year. However, the security of the register must be of the highest possible standard, given that the information is highly sensitive. The amendments tabled on register security by Viscount Camrose and Lord Markham in the other place should be taken seriously by the Government. While the asset register provisions will turn our aim of joined-up thinking into reality, this Labour Government’s approach to AI and copyright is a total failure, and no joined-up thinking has happened at all. Last December, the Government finally launched their consultation, just as the Christmas break started. Why did Labour wait six months when this area of policy moves so quickly, with AI firms, the creative industries and the public needing legal certainty and firm answers? When the consultation finally arrived, the creative industries sector was unanimous in describing Labour’s proposals as completely unfit for purpose. For the sector, Labour’s idea of imposing a requirement on creatives, such as journalists, songwriters and film makers, to proactively opt out of data mining is not the solution. Labour’s proposal could align the UK’s approach closely with the EU regime under the digital single market copyright directive, which has produced widespread uncertainty about what constitutes a valid reservation of rights. Labour’s approach to copyright and AI is the ultimate test of its credibility on tech and creative industries issues, and it has failed—the entire sector knows it. Rather than solving a problem, Labour is the problem.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  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.