Ben Spencer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is often said that Parliament is the conscience of the nation, but I believe that it is also its safeguard. There are people who will benefit from physician-assisted suicide, as implemented in this Bill, but there are also people who will be harmed: those with mental illness, those in care homes, those who feel a burden, those who are made to feel a burden, and those who are abused. The Bill’s safeguards are inadequate. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians—of which I am a member—and the Royal College of Pathologists, and countless doctors, professionals and charities, have all been ignored in pursuit of absolutist principle above understanding. It is a facile interpretation of autonomy to give it no bounds or to ignore its prerequisites. We must hear the concerns and act accordingly today, for who are we if not the champions of the vulnerable and the voice of the voiceless? The question before us today is this: do we believe that this harm to the vulnerable is worth it? I say it is not. I say we vote down this Bill.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Back again, and it feels a bit like groundhog day. I must confess that I am a Bill Murray fan, and I think “Groundhog Day” is a great movie. However, I realise that some Members on both sides of the House may not have been born when it was released, which makes me feel a little old, so I will explain a little of the plot. A weatherman set in his ways is sent to a town in Pennsylvania to report on groundhog day, and finds himself in a time loop in which he lives the same day over and over again. In due course, that leads to despair, but eventually he learns that this gives him the opportunity to learn from his mistakes—the time loops can be seen as a blessing or an opportunity, not a curse—and through this he grows, develops and changes. He then breaks out of the time loop to live happily ever after. We will be stuck in groundhog day on this Bill until the Government realise that the Lords amendments are not a nuisance, but an opportunity, and that they need to listen to the concerns and change course. The noble Lords in the House in which this Bill started have made clear the risk to creatives from AI companies taking their data, and the importance of fairness and transparency. We on the Opposition Benches and Members on both sides of the House have raised similar concerns, but we do not have the numbers yet. In Parliament, it is not sufficient to win the vote; it is also necessary to win the argument, and the Government have lost this argument. Copyright law is a toothless instrument if the lack of transparency about the use of creative content in AI models continues. The lack of transparency renders the enforcement of rights elusive, and the Government are apparently happy for this to persist on an open-ended basis. While the Government’s direction of travel remains uncertain, everyone loses out. Creatives continue to lose out when their work is exploited without payment. Firms in the AI industry, especially smaller ones, cannot get out of the starting blocks, let alone play their part in turbocharging our tech economy. The Government continue to risk the confidence of both these key industries, with the chilling effect on investment that this entails. Of course, we are sensitive to the constitutional principles, and noble Lords were very mindful of that topic in their speeches in the other place. The Minister is right that it is almost unprecedented for the other place to return to a Bill so many times. However, rather than use this as a reason to try to push through the Bill, the Government need to listen to that evidence of the strength of feeling. We all know that the Government will have to respond to these concerns, and their position will have to change. I would love to end this speech with a literary quote suited to the substance of the debate, and I envy the Minister’s ability always to bring flair to our discussions across the Dispatch Box. Instead, I will fall back on a political one from the 38th American President, Gerald Ford: “Compromise is the oil that makes governments go.” The Government should meet the Lords on the compromise they have offered, put oil in the engines of our creative and AI industries, and bring an end to this groundhog day.

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

  More

  As hon. Members know, the substance of this Bill began with the previous Government, in recognition of the need to streamline and harness the use of data to grow the economy and drive improvement in the delivery of public services. As I have said before, when the Bill started its life, most of us had no idea that it would become the vehicle for addressing some of the most important social and technological issues of our time. Although I welcome the huge benefits that the Bill will bring to the economy and public services when it comes into force, I fear that it will go down on the Government’s record as the Bill of missed opportunities. It is a missed opportunity to fix our flawed public data sets, which present a barrier to tracking and tackling inequalities in areas such as women’s health; a missed opportunity to commit to a review of protections for children in their use of social media platforms, and to taking action to increase those protections where the evidence shows there is good reason to do so; and a missed opportunity to provide much-needed certainty to two of our key growth industries, the creative and AI sectors, on how they can interact to promote their mutual growth and flourishing. It could be seen as somewhat dispiriting to be back at the Dispatch Box again, having the debate on copyright and AI with the Department’s ministerial team, but I see that there has been an upgrade since our last outing at the Dispatch Box. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his tone and his approach to this debate, particularly his recognition of previous mistakes made. As politicians, we do not say sorry often enough, or recognise mistakes or where we would have wanted things to go better. I appreciate the statements he has made from the Dispatch Box, but the fact that we are here is testament to the determination and sincere concern of Members of both Houses. Whatever Benches they sit on, they are deeply concerned that we must not miss this opportunity to find a solution to such a significant challenge. Our colleagues in the other place have spoken about their commitment to the primacy of this House, and their reticence to delay the passage of this Bill any further than is absolutely necessary. Their resolve demonstrates the importance of this issue to Members of both Houses and the stakeholders they represent. The Government have spoken repeatedly of their commitment to protecting the creative industries, but their actions are still yet to match their rhetoric. It appears that “reviews” have today been upgraded to “working groups.” Many excuses have been made for why the Government feel unable to act now. Baroness Kidron and other noble Lords have acted in good faith on the Government’s stated concerns, and have sought to address them in the latest iteration of their transparency amendment on copyright and AI. Lords amendment 49D would provide the Government with flexibility to put in place proportionate regulations on the transparency of AI enterprises by reference to their size. Importantly, it would allow a reasonable timeframe for the Government to complete their review of responses to their consultation, which concluded in February, before the Secretary of State is compelled to lay draft transparency regulations before Parliament. For the third time, an amendment on this topic received the overwhelming support of Members in the other place, and the debate at the last round showed that the strength of feeling is mirrored in this House. Amendment 49D is a balanced clause that would put in place a much-needed long-stop date to provide the certainty that creatives and the technology industries alike have been calling for. As the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) suggested, it is a backstop. The Government have run out of excuses for failing to act. Today we have an opportunity to achieve something relatively rare in our political climate: creating effective, balanced legislation based on cross-party compromise. It is important to public confidence in Government to show that we can put sound principles above politics when the overwhelming need arises. The Government have another opportunity today; let us make sure that it is not another missed one.

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of the Bill. To begin with, I need to make a couple of declarations. I have a family member who is a consultant psychiatrist. I am now a non-practising general adult psychiatrist with an endorsement and years in psychiatry, and I previously worked as a consultant psychiatrist. I took part in the 2018 Wessely review as a panel member on the tribunal working group, and I was on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee in the last Parliament. In a declaration of a more personal nature, this is an area that I feel passionately about. It is a great privilege to speak to this important piece of legislation and reforms going forward. The United Kingdom reforms its mental health legislation every 20 years or so. I did not want to correct the Secretary of State, but the first Mental Health Act was in 1959—I hope that was substantially before he was born, with reference to his earlier comments. The legislation has gone through various iterations from the original Lunacy Act and similar legislation in the 19th century. In the UK, we have always been at the forefront of reform to the law and to provisions and powers in this area. It is important in this Second Reading debate to focus on what the Mental Health Act is and what it does. Members have talked more broadly about the challenges of delivering mental health care currently, but it is important to reflect that the Mental Health Act is very specific and precise. It is about the regulation of detention—sometimes for assessment, sometimes for treatment—of people with mental disorder, and has a range of powers on aftercare and guardianship. It is focused on detention and assessment, or treatment, of people with mental disorder. We need that because there are times when people with severe mental illness become so unwell that they are unable to recognise their illness. Their illness puts their health at risk—predominantly through self-neglect or non-treatment. It puts their safety at risk, again through self-neglect, as well as through suicide. And, less commonly but critically, it puts them at risk of causing harm to others. The legal framework allows us to regulate compulsory treatment in that regard. It is absolutely critical that we have those powers so that, when people are so unwell that they do not recognise it and they lose agency, we can, as a compassionate society, take them into hospital and treat them, with a view to getting them back to themselves. I have used the 1983 Act countless times, applying it both to assessments and, as a section 12-approved doctor, to treatments, and I have used it as a responsible clinician. I suspect that I am one of the few Members of this House—certainly in this debate—who has had those roles and responsibilities. In terms of framing, it is important to reflect that one of the key changes in the 1983 Act, which is such an important piece of legislation, was that it was about restricting powers and ensuring that there were strong procedures for reviewing detentions. As a former health professional in this area, I am certain that all professionals working in it are mindful of the scope of powers that the Act provides. When applying restrictions, people do not use these powers in anger or without a great degree of thought and contemplation. The most intrusive intervention available to us in the health service is to detain and treat people in hospital or in secure hospital settings. Those powers are not taken lightly. A lot of concern was expressed at the start of the debate—and I am sure it will continue—about the way in which people have been treated in hospital. There have been some very high-profile scandals in which things have not worked well, to say the least, and care and treatment have been atrocious and abusive. However, people working in health and care in the UK are doing so because they want to see the best outcomes for their patients. Sometimes, they are limited in that because of the resources available. They do not use the Mental Health Act with a view to harming people, but with a view to helping them. Being detained under the Mental Health Act is not a prime facie harm; it is a treatment and a good thing. If someone needs to be detained and treated in hospital, they need to be detained and treated in hospital. If I became so unwell that I needed to be detained under the Act, I would want to be detained. Thankfully, I am not in that position today— [ Interruption. ] At least I believe that I am not, although the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), might have a different view on that. [ Laughter. ] Should I get to the point where I am so unwell that I cannot consider my own care, I would want the powers of the Mental Health Act to be used quickly, particularly if I were posing a risk to myself, my family and others, so that I can get better and back to living my life. I pay tribute to Baroness May of Maidenhead, who kicked this off, and to Professor Sir Simon Wessely—a good friend—Stephen Gilbert, Sir Mark Hedley and Rabbi Baroness Neuberger for their work in the 2018 review. There is a lot of good work in the Bill, from the greater focus on advance care planning and the more frequent detention reviews, which I recognise may bring a workforce burden, to the provisions on nominated persons. I will not go into the detail in this Second Reading speech, but I will focus on a few general points on which I think a bit more work needs to be undertaken. In some ways—I will have to message Sir Simon after this to ask his forgiveness—the Bill is a missed opportunity in that we have are not moving towards fusion law. For the benefit of those who are not all over the detail, at the moment the UK has two pieces of legislation regulating how to treat people in the absence of consent. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 came about from case law in the ’80s and ’90s and was codified in 2005. That Act broadly regulates physical health treatments for people who lack the capacity to consent—we have focused quite a lot on capacity in the recent debates on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The principles of the 2005 Act are autonomy and the functional capacity and best interests tests for people who lack capacity, meaning that we test someone’s capacity, and only if they lack capacity can we intervene in their best interests, sometimes by using deprivations of liberty. The Mental Health Act arose from a very different pathway. In its first days, it was more about the regulation of asylums. The Act is about status and risk. The gatekeeper conditions for the current Mental Health Act are that a patient has a mental disorder of a nature and a degree that requires assessment in hospital because of the risk to their health and to the safety of others. Capacity does not feature whatsoever. We have two pieces of legislation. One applies to the most severe mental disorders and deals with status and risk, and the other deals with autonomy and best interests. I strongly believe that the two need to be merged. We should use capacity and best interest frameworks to regulate treatment of mental disorder in the absence of consent—there are ways of doing that. I like the fact that we are starting to incorporate a bit more in the Bill.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to rise to speak on Lords amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Over the course of debating the Bill, it has become customary to thank those in the other place for the work they have done, particularly Baroness Owen for her work on deepfakes and others who have campaigned boldly in that area. I will begin by speaking to Lords amendment 49B. We have been clear that supporting the creative and AI sectors is not a zero-sum game; we need to support both sectors. Through their ham-fisted consultation on copyright and AI, the Government have raised great concern throughout the creative sector, and the resulting attempts to amend this Bill have been in response to the mess they have created. In Committee and on Report, we set out a series of amendments that focused on the outcome—not the process—for a solution in this area. Those amendments focused on ensuring that the position in law of copyright in this area was clear, on the need for proportionate and effective transparency, on removing barriers to start-ups, and on facilitating technological solutions via digital watermarking. In one of the many interventions on the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) mentioned the importance of implementing digital watermarking. He referred to it as a response to deepfakes, but it also has relevance to technical solutions, and it strikes me as quite odd that the Minister went on to cover broadly the same topics in his opening remarks, despite pointing out to my right hon. Friend that those topics were not relevant to the ongoing debate. That indicates how confused the treatment of this area in the Bill has become, and the need for clarity. I pay tribute to Viscount Camrose, Lord Parkinson, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), Baroness Kidron, and others in this House and in the other place, for their work on amendments to reach a resolution in this area. We had sympathy with earlier versions of those amendments, but also concerns about their workability and prescriptiveness. We have worked with Baroness Kidron to get to a position that we can now support; we believe that solutions need to incorporate the principles of transparency and proportionality. The amendment is not a perfect solution, but it is more reasonable than doing nothing. I find it astounding that the main criticism that the Minister has made of Lords amendment 49B is that it has a run-in period prior to implementation and that people are calling for things to happen now. That is an odd way of approaching legislating. As the Opposition, we are working with other parties, among others, to try to find a solution to get the Minister out of a hole. I hope that Members across the House support the amendment. Moving on to digital verification services, I welcome the Lords’ disagreement with amendments 32 and 52, and support their amendments 32B, 32C, 52B and 52C on sex data accuracy, which received the support of Members in the other place. As my noble Friend Viscount Camrose said in his speech, it was necessary to re-table amended versions of the clauses on data accuracy previously secured in the other place because our new clause 21 was not in scope for debate in the Lords. The Lords amendments are technical and complex, so if you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak briefly to new clause 21 to explain for the benefit of Members how things have evolved over time. Our new clause 21 would have compelled public authorities to correct the datasets they hold in relation to sex and to collect data on the protected characteristic of sex in accordance with the legal definition set out in the Supreme Court’s judgment: biological sex. It would also have allowed public authorities to collect data on acquired sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate where that is relevant and lawful. It would have imposed no new obligations on the correction of data held by public authorities—the obligation already exists under article 5(1)(d) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation—but would simply have put in place a timescale for correcting data on sex. We know from the findings of the Sullivan review that that correction is much needed and long overdue. To address a misconception, new clause 21 was silent on how sex is recorded in physical and digital forms of identity for those holding a gender recognition certificate. That is a sensitive issue for the 8,500 holders of GRCs in the UK, and we hope that much-needed clarity in this area will be given by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in its guidance due to be laid before Parliament next month. It will be up to the Secretary of State to make rules as to how that guidance is implemented in digital verification services. However, that issue, while important, does not affect the clear obligation that already exists in law to record data on sex accurately. Lords amendments 32C and 32B, and disagreement with amendment 32, would compel the Secretary of State to examine whether the public authorities that will act as data sources for the digital verification services system ascertain sex data reliably in accordance with biological sex and, where lawful and relevant, with sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate. That would prevent inaccurate sex data from being entrenched and proliferated in the digital verification services system. Lords amendments 52B and 52C, and disagreement with amendment 52, would give the Secretary of State the power to define in a data dictionary sex data as biological sex and, where relevant, sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate. That could then be applied across the digital verification services system, the register of births and deaths, and other circumstances where public authorities record personal data. The amendments are critical for correcting our compromised datasets on sex and would ensure that poor-quality and inaccurate data does not undermine digital verification services. To be clear, if our amendments do not make it into the Bill, self-ID will be brought forward through the back door, risking the protections that single-sex spaces offer to everyone. Self-ID is not and never has been the position in UK law. I do not understand why the Government are resisting these measures. Digital verification systems need to be trustworthy to deliver the benefits intended by the Bill. If they are not trustworthy, the system will fail. I therefore commend these vital and much-needed amendments to the House.

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

  More

  It is a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, and to speak to the new clauses and amendments. This is an ambitious piece of legislation, which will enable us to harness data—the currency of our digital age—and use it in a way that drives the economy and enhances the delivery of public services. Since its original inception under the Conservatives in the last Parliament, the Bill has also become the platform for tackling some of the most pressing social and technological issues of our time. Many of these are reflected in the amendments to the Bill, which are the subject of debate today. I start with new clause 20. How do we regulate the interaction of AI models with creative works? I pay tribute to the work of many Members on both sides of this House, and Members of the other place, who have passionately raised creatives’ concerns and the risks posed to their livelihoods by AI models. Conservative Members are clear that this is not a zero-sum game. Our fantastic creative and tech industries have the potential to turbocharge economic growth, and the last Government rightly supported them. The creative and technology sectors need and deserve certainty, which provides the foundation for investment and growth. New clause 20 would achieve certainty by requiring the Government to publish a series of plans on the transparency of AI models’ use of copyrighted works, removing market barriers for smaller AI market entrants and digital watermarking and, most important of all, a clear restatement of the application of copyright law to AI-modelling activities. I cannot help but have a sense of déjà vu in relation to Government new clause 17: we are glad that the Government have acted on several of the actions we called for in Committee, but once again they have chosen PR over effective policy. Amid all the spin, the Government have in effect announced a plan to respond to their own consultation—how innovative! What is starkly missing from the Government new clauses is a commitment to make it clear that copyright law applies to the use of creative content by AI models, which is the primary concern raised with me by industry representatives. The Government have created uncertainty about the application of copyright law to AI modelling through their ham-fisted consultation. So I offer the Minister another opportunity: will he formally confirm the application of copyright law to protect the use of creative works by AI, and will he provide legal certainty and send a strong signal to our creative industries that they will not be asked to pay the price for AI growth?

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

  More

  I say again that the position is that, following a careful look at the evidence regarding the desirability and validity of doing so—taking into account findings regarding the impact and implementation of the Online Safety Act and age verification and how one defines social media, particularly high-risk platforms—unless there is direct evidence to show that raising the age from 13 to 16 is unnecessary, which there may be, then we should raise it from 13 to 16. If that has not provided clarity, the hon. Gentleman is very welcome to intervene on me again and I will try and explain it a third time, but I think Members have got a grasp now. This new clause will also tackle some of the concerns at the heart of the campaign for Jools’ law, and I pay tribute to Ellen Roome for her work in this area. I am very sympathetic to the tragic circumstances leading to this campaign and welcome the additional powers granted to coroners in the Bill, but I know that they do not fully address Ellen Roome’s concerns. The Government need to explain how they can be sure that data will be retained in the context of these tragedies, so that a coroner will be able to make sure, even if there are delays, that it can be accessed. If the Minister could provide an answer to that in his winding-up speech, and detail any further work in the area, that would be welcome. On parental access to children’s data more broadly, there are difficult challenges in terms of article 8 rights on privacy and transparency, especially for children aged 16 to 17 as they approach adulthood. Our new clause addresses some of these concerns and would also put in place the groundwork to, de facto, raise the digital age of consent for inappropriate social media to 16 within 18 months, rendering the request for parental access to young teenage accounts obsolete. I urge colleagues across the House to support all our amendments today as a balanced, proportionate and effective response to a generational challenge. The Bill and the votes today are an opportunity for our Parliament, often referred to as the conscience of our country, to make clear our position on some of the most pressing social and technological issues of our time.

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this important debate. Digital platforms can both enhance and undermine democracy. Social media can increase awareness of elections and candidates, encouraging participation and voter turnout, but it can also lead to the abuse of democratically elected MPs, councillors and politicians. Even more worrying is the threat of electoral interference from malign international actors. I am grateful to Members from all parties who took part in what was an incredibly thoughtful and interesting debate on such an important issue. For reasons of time I cannot reflect on everyone’s speech, but I wish to pay particular heed to three Members who have spoken. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley for her incredibly powerful speech, and I am sorry about the abuse, attacks and threats she has experienced. Any attack or abuse to an MP is an attack on our democracy. We have brilliant representatives in this place. I am proud to be a Member of this, the greatest Parliament in the world, and there is a duty on us to stand up for our fellow colleagues, Members across the House, and elected representatives at all levels. I particularly thank her for mentioning Jo Cox and David Amess. I was elected after Jo Cox was murdered, but I did get to meet David Amess before he was murdered, and I still have a letter that he sent me when I was elected as a new MP. I know that he and Jo Cox are very much missed by us all. Sadly, what happened to them clearly drives home the importance of ensuring that we deal with these problems and get this right. Later in my speech I will pick up on one of the points that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley raised about disinformation and misinformation, as well as digital watermarking. She also raised important points about how social media operates. I have often thought that we need to think about anonymity and privacy separately in terms of people using a platform and its content. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who used her speech, in part, to make some comments regarding her resignation. Principles are not principles unless we act on them, and I hope she has the opportunity to serve in His Majesty’s Government again at some point in the future. There have been so many brilliant speeches, and I would like to reference everybody but cannot due to time. However, some remarks by the hon. Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid) jumped out at me, particularly the quote that she read out in this Chamber, and those vile comments. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that when she winds up the debate, and said what reassurance she can give the House that the issue is being dealt with appropriately by the digital online platforms. Protecting the integrity of our elections and stopping the influence of malign and foreign actors is a critical role for the Government, and it is the Government’s responsibility to work closely with the Electoral Commission, and others, to protect the integrity, security and effectiveness of UK referendums and elections. The Electoral Commission has a wide range of investigatory and civil sanctioning powers, and the Government are able to refer more serious matters to the police or the National Crime Agency. As outlined in the previous Government’s response to the report on Russia by the Intelligence and Security Committee, the UK’s adversaries adapt a whole-of-state approach to hybrid and malign activity. Therefore, tackling it requires a cross-Government, cross-society response. To respond effectively, the Government need to draw on the skills, resources and remits of different Departments, agencies and non-governmental organisations. Considering the current geopolitical landscape, it is essential that the Government keep all aspects of their approach to protecting democracy under review so that they can quickly adapt to any new threats that emerge. The UK is not alone in facing this issue; democracies across the western world are facing the same issue. Political parties are successfully harnessing the impact of social media to reach cohorts of voters who are normally uninterested or disillusioned. That is a good thing, but countries are facing interference from other states, including Russia and China, so how should Governments respond? The previous Government were resolute in defending our country from hostile state activity. The Elections Act 2022, which they brought forward, restricts third-party campaigning to UK-based groups and eligible overseas electors, so that only those with legitimate interests in UK elections can campaign at UK elections. It also contains new measures requiring digital imprints on online campaign material and greater transparency in political funding. The previous Government also passed the world-leading Online Safety Act, to which many Members have referred. Its provisions have only recently come into force and I hope this Government will continue to actively monitor what Ofcom is doing to ensure the Act is working appropriately. There are also threats from artificial intelligence and disinformation, particularly the ability of AI to create realistic videos and images impersonating trusted public figures, including political and religious leaders. The risks of that are clear for all to see. In Committee, we tabled an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that would have set up a technological standard on digital watermarks. In part, it was about helping to solve some of the issues around AI and copyright, but it was also about ascribing authenticity to what people are putting on social media. I suspect that, like me, many colleagues from across the House would like to have the ability to put a digital watermark on the material they put out, so that people can be sure that the content they are seeing is from the person who purports to have created it. The Government voted our amendment down, but I hope Ministers will work with us to support such measures going forward. To conclude, we must ensure that regulations are effective and up to date with the latest technology. We must ensure that the public are made aware of the risks of AI-generated content and deliberate misinformation, and we must tackle foreign interference in our elections. Digital platforms can enhance democracy and it is important that we do not lose sight of that. Like it or not, traditional media is no longer the primary news source for many people; Twitter, Facebook, TikTok and Snapchat are all part of the news ecosystem. If we, as politicians, want better participation in democracy— I believe that all of us want that—we cannot vacate social media, although if I am honest I am very jealous of the people who do not use it, or vacate the online space. Instead, we must ensure that it works for all of us.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Mauritius Treaty: Chagos Islands · Hansard source

  More

  19. When he plans to present to Parliament the proposed treaty with Mauritius on the sovereignty of the Chagos islands.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister can interpret that how he wishes. We must ensure that our creative industry is supported to thrive while harnessing the technological and economic benefits of growing our domestic AI capability. The amendments in this area from the other place touch broadly on a number of important principles, which we support. They include the application of copyright law to data mining and AI-generative activity, which is covered in clause 135; the need for high transparency in how AI models are trained and the materials used for that purpose; and the importance of identifying sound technical solutions so that copyrighted content can be identified by web crawlers and AI models excluded from training and generative activity. However, these matters and their solutions are complex from technological, legal and societal perspectives. We totally recognise the challenges of legislating in this area. Our international counterparts face the same challenges in trying to strike an effective balance between supporting our AI industries and supporting our creative sector. It is not a zero-sum game. There is clear scope for collaboration and mutual benefit if we get this approach right. As the shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), stated in the Chamber, creative industries are telling us that the Government’s solution—set out in their consultation as their preferred option—is “not fit for purpose”. We need to engage carefully with the feedback received from industry stakeholders to come up with the right solutions in this area. As the Minister mentioned, new clauses 17 to 20 recognise that putting together a specific plan in great detail on how to solve this problem needs to be done by chewing through the information from the ongoing consultation and through extensive engagement with the people who are actually going to do this stuff and the people who will be affected by it. In effect, the proposals are end-point clauses, about the world we want to see in the future, where our AI and creative sector can work together and we get all the benefits from both. It is where we want to get to. It is a bit less about putting together the journey plan of how we get there, with the exception of the fact that the Government need to crack on and sort this out— [ Interruption. ] Well, he’s the Minister. It comes with the job. New clause 17 is intended to require the Government to confirm the application of existing copyright law to creative content mined by AI web crawlers and models in the same way that it would apply to other offline content. The Opposition feel that there is no ambiguity about the application of copyright law in this context. However, the Government have consistently suggested, in their consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence and elsewhere, that the legal position is unclear. In effect, that has created ambiguity and given rise to significant concern and objection from the creative sector. It deters smaller AI enterprises and start-ups from developing their products. Running counter to that is the near existence of a possible future opt-out. I have heard evidence that AI companies are now thinking, “Let’s hang on before we buy licensed content, because we might get it for free anyway if this applies going forward.” If the aim was to give confidence to the AI sector, as was dealt with by the consultation, that has not happened either. Clarity is needed for both the creative and AI industries, but not in the form of a wholesale exemption from copyright law for development and generative activity undertaken by AI models. The Government should make a clarificatory statement about the existing application of copyright law in this area. That certainty is the foundation block of sound policy aimed at supporting the creative industries to harness the economic value of their work, so I commend new clause 17 to the Committee. New clause 18 requires the Government within three months of Royal Assent to lay before Parliament a plan to put forward proportionate and effective measures to ensure transparency in the use of copyright materials in training, development and generative activities of AI models, with emphasis on the proportionate and effective nature of the measures. At a high level, ensuring transparency in this area will help to ensure that information is available for rights holders to discern where and how their work has been used, and seek payment for the use of their work where appropriate. New clause 18 seeks to address the widespread concerns of creative rights holders that they do not know when their material is being used, which acts as a block to any form of enforcement of their rights or licensing going forward. However, the approach to transparency must be proportionate. In particular, transparency obligations should not be so onerous that they stifle the market for AI start-ups and smaller enterprises in their infancy, when these entities should form the lifeblood of our future technological economy. One could envisage a situation where, if we get the legislation on this wrong, the recording and storing of information that has created a model, in its extreme triviality, could in effect become a bigger dataset than the set used in the first place— hence the focus on the importance of proportionate and effective measures. The timing of the action to be taken by the Secretary of State under the new clause—within three months of Royal Assent—is intended to give the Secretary of State a proper opportunity to consider the feedback of the creative and AI industries and other stakeholders received under the recently concluded consultation on copyright and AI. I am ambitious for the Minister and the Government. I know he slightly deprecated his ability to get on and try to put something together, but I have faith in him to drive this forward. The feedback should help to formulate a plan that is both effective and workable, so I commend new clause 18 to the Committee. New clause 19 requires the Secretary of State within three months of Royal Assent to lay before Parliament a plan to reduce barriers to market entry for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises, specifically in relation to access to data to train their models. The Government’s now concluded consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence specifies that one of its key aims is to support wide access to high-quality material to drive the development of leading AI models in the UK. The AI opportunities action plan commissioned by the Government made a series of recommendations relating to the need to unlock public and private datasets to enable innovation by UK start-ups and researchers in order to attract international talent and capital. Although the imbalance in access to resources between established companies and start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises is in the nature of markets, failing to address that in this context risks reinforcing a situation where AI development activity remains the preserve of a relatively small number of established operators. I am thinking particularly of those that have been able to set up now, using datasets that have not had to comply with whatever provisions will eventually be put in place to regulate this area. The Prime Minister indicated in his response to the action plan that DSIT would look at how to take this policy area forward. New clause 19 calls on the Government to put their money where their mouth is, and come up with a proper plan to turbocharge not only growth in our AI sector, but diversity and competition among operators of all sizes, by coming up with a plan to reduce the barriers to market entry that the accessibility of data presents. Given the increasing adoption and use of AI by digital Government and the mechanisms of the state, it is critical for our national security and our national resilience to have a functioning domestic AI market that we can draw on for our use. The timescale for the Secretary of State to publish his report provides an opportunity for industry and stakeholder feedback to be taken into account when developing effective plans. For those reasons, I commend new clause 19 to the Committee. Finally, new clause 20 requires the publication of a technological standard. I hope that the previous three new clauses are relatively uncontroversial, and I particularly hope that this new clause is the most uncontroversial of all. It is based on an amendment that was moved by my noble Friend Viscount Camrose in the other place, but which was withdrawn on receipt of reassurances from the Minister. The new clause requires the Government to publish a technological standard for machine-readable watermarks for the purpose of identifying the licensed content when it is encountered by web crawlers and AI models. The development of such a standard would greatly enhance the ability of rights holders to protect their work, and to support enforcement of creative rights by creating a record of where and how content has been used. The development of a technological standard will be incredibly useful, even if the Government decide to take forward the flawed opt-out proposals and even if they are not ultimately adopted. This technological standard would be used in whatever situation we find ourselves in over the next few years in this industry. This proposal would provide web crawlers and AI models with clear signposting that the content is not available for training or generative activity. Where that is properly deployed and observed by AI models, it will reduce the need for rights holders to take action to seek compensation for infringement of their copyright. The new clause does not ask the Government to commit to a specific solution, and nor should it, but it requires them to commit to identifying such a solution within a reasonable period. Let the industry sort it out. One of the challenges that has been going through my mind when exploring this area is why, from a point of principle, the market has not fixed this in the first place, and why we are where we are now in trying to resolve these issues. The new clause will promote transparency and certainty for the creative and AI industries, and I commend it to the Committee.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister noted, the clause is a provision that was introduced in Committee in the other place, along with clause 28(3) and (4), and clause 45(6), which have now been removed from the Bill pursuant to our decisions in Committee. Clause 140 aims to ensure the accuracy of data underpinning digital forms of verifying identity, and more broadly. To a degree, it is ironic that we live in a world where we have to debate data dictionaries when it comes to the definition of sex, but I think the point about data dictionaries more generally, over and above the focus on sex data in this debate, is nevertheless sound. We are aware of the Government’s argument that the clauses inserted in the other place pertaining to data accuracy—in particular, clause 45(6)—are not compatible with certain provisions of the European convention on human rights and the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to the Committee on that, among other matters, but I do not think that his explanation gives any rationale for the removal of clause 140. We strongly disagree with the Government’s position for the reasons I set out last week, but I will not rehash those arguments now. Rather, I want to make a simple argument in favour of retaining the clause on data dictionaries that the Government intend to remove. Clause 140 grants the Secretary of State the power to make regulations establishing the definitions and associated metadata for core personal data attributes. The Secretary of State may require that those definitions are used for, among other things, personal data recorded by public authorities, under subsection (1)(d), and the digital verification service, under subsection (1)(a). My noble friend Lord Lucas compellingly stated the case in support of his data dictionary amendment in the other place, saying that “if we are to live in a data-rich world, we really need a set of well-understood, good definitions for the basic information we are collecting.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 28 January 2025; Vol. 843, c. 237-238.] It really is that simple: giving the Secretary of State the power to define those core personal data attributes so that a consistent approach can be taken across the board by public authorities and entities engaged in digital verification services. My question for the Minister is, therefore: what is the objection to the Secretary of State having that power to clarify the meanings of those essential terms, which we need to define data attributes? A clear definition of data attributes, and in particular the meaning of sex, is a foundational building block that will help to ensure that the data we collect can be harnessed for good-quality research on which sound public policy decisions can be based. In the other place, the DSIT Minister, the noble Lord Vallance of Balham, acknowledged the need for data to be “based in truth” and “consistent and clear”. However, he opposed this clause on the basis that the Government would prefer to consider the matter of data accuracy and consistency holistically, outside the scope of the Bill. In that regard, he pointed to ongoing research in the field, including the Sullivan review of data, stats and research on sex and gender, which was commissioned by the previous Conservative Government, and the findings of which this Government would like to take into account in developing their policies in the area. I welcome the fact that the Government intend to take a closer look at the importance of data accuracy, especially in relation to the collection of sex data, but there is no need to kick the can down the road. The clause compels the Secretary of State to do nothing—well, not in an active sense— [ Interruption. ] If only. It does not compel the Secretary of State in an active sense, but it does give him the important power to put definitions of core personal data attributes in place once the important Sullivan review and other studies have been published and considered. As we have mentioned a few times, the Bill has gone through many iterations and a long legislative period. We believe that this clause will be useful, if not essential, for resolving some of these issues. Getting those basic definitions right is essential. If we do not, there could be mistakes that could become entrenched in the records of public authorities. That could lead to skewed research findings on important societal matters, such as health disparities and outcomes across the sectors, as well as employment opportunities and equal pay. For those and many other good reasons, let us take this opportunity to get the basics right. In that regard, I encourage the Minister to heed the timeless words of Julie Andrews with which he opened Committee stage. As far as definitions for core data attributes are concerned, “Let’s start at the very beginning, A very good place to start.”

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. The national underground asset register is clearly important. The benefits of trusted partners having access to the information held in this critical infrastructure are plain to see, and I am glad that this provision is in the latest iteration of the Bill. The information the NUAR holds is critical infrastructure, and we need to think carefully about data security and access to this information, in terms of how it is held on the register and the security measures for people directly accessing the register and for third parties. I am unclear as to why the Government are against the amendment made in the Lords. If anything, it could be argued that it should go further in ensuring that sufficient security measures are in place for people accessing this information. It is reasonable that there should be a requirement to inform stakeholders about relevant cyber-security measures. I hear what the Minister says about the disclosure of security measures, but I do not think cyber-security advice and provisions are a particular area of national secrecy. There are many cyber-security standards that can be provided as guidance or as a bare minimum for people accessing this information. We support the continued inclusion of these measures. To go further, if anything, the Government should consider more broadly the different ways in which the information can be accessed. I do not know what the Minister can say from the Front Bench in response to the point about the proportionality of disclosures that can be made by the Government and the advice on the operation of the clause.

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

  More

  As a self-professed data geek— [ Interruption. ] The Minister looks quite surprised at that. Well, I am now self-professing myself as a data geek, and it is a real pleasure to wind up this important debate on behalf of the official Opposition. As the original architects of the Bill, the Opposition welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the potential of these Conservative-led policies to make people’s lives easier by being able to prove identity quickly when dealing with statutory agencies and service providers; to streamline and enhance public service delivery, such as by harmonising the information available to healthcare professionals across NHS settings; and to boost economic growth through the innovative use of smart data. In short, this Bill will bring into effect the previous Government’s ambition to harness and exploit data as the currency of the digital age. The staggering pace of recent technological advances presents not only enormous opportunity, but challenges that demand further scrutiny. Earlier, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), rightly pointed out some of the areas where the Government’s approach to the science and technology sector conflict with the outcomes that they want. We have had an extensive debate today with hon. Members covering a range of topics, some of which I shall refer to shortly. Perhaps it is ironically apt that the Data (Use and Access) Bill has had so many iterations and this recursive Second Reading, but I must pay tribute to those who have been working before us to get it to the state it is in today. Much of the Bill is technical and uncontroversial, but some of it still needs to be thrashed out and debated, and I look forward to taking it through in Committee. I would like at this point to pay tribute to Lord Markham and Viscount Camrose. I was particularly pleased to hear the Government’s response with regard to security around the underground assets register. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who I am sure is glad that he is not doing another Second Reading speech and hopefully not taking the Bill through Committee for this side, and of course to Baroness Owen for the incredible work that she has done. The tribute paid to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) was far better than anything I could put together from this Dispatch Box, and I thank him for his comments. By my count, we have had 15 or 16 Back-Bench speakers, and I would like to draw particular attention to the intervention from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who pointed out the wranglings that took place in the House of Lords regarding data that is used for scientific purposes. I am sure that the definition of public interest will be discussed in further detail in Committee. I also particularly liked the speech from the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). As I have said, much of this Bill—this big tome—is in some ways uncontroversial. Many Members focused on a few specific areas, but I was interested that he looked at the whole scope of the Bill, particularly around the civil liberties components and the GDPR issues, which is what much of the core of the Bill is about. There are a few points I would like to focus on, starting with data accuracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who is not in her place, remarked that to empower the public and businesses to take full advantage of the speed and simplicity offered by digital verification services, there must be a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of the data provided by public authorities. In the other place, the Minister acknowledged this concern, stating that, as far as the data underpinning digital identity is concerned, “we must have a single version of the truth”. —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2025; Vol. 842, c. 1620.] However, he did not support the amendment seeking to guarantee the accuracy of data held by public authorities for the purpose of digital verification services, and nor did the Secretary of State in his opening remarks today. While the reliability of the data that supports digital identity is fundamentally important across the board, an area of particular importance is the accurate recording of biological sex. This is vital for ensuring that services such as medical care are delivered properly and to protect female-only spaces. Biased data is worse than no data, and wrong data is worst of all. We call on the Government to ensure that data is robust and accurate as a matter of priority. We must ensure the digital infrastructure is in place to support the Bill’s aims. We welcome the inclusion of provisions for NHS data sharing, and I should declare an interest as a former doctor whose wife is a doctor. I have spoken many times of the importance of data sharing. We focus on AI, but we need to get the basics right. NHS data sharing, if implemented effectively, will enable the fast and seamless transfer of patient data between healthcare settings. It will lead to better clinical decision making and improved outcomes for patients, and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) will be able to see his patients more efficiently and more effectively. I pay tribute to the strength of his argument, and I hope he takes the mantle I had when my party was in government of pushing for this to happen as quickly as possible. To harness those benefits, the Government have acknowledged that healthcare settings’ IT systems will need to meet common standards to facilitate data sharing across platforms. The previous Government set out a bold plan for upgrading the nation’s digital infrastructure. This Government must continue and expedite that work to ensure the NHS has the tools it needs to implement the Bill’s reforms. Finally, on the important subject of AI and copyright, the powerful debate both in the other place and here highlights the challenges, the complexities and the importance of making sure we get this right, particularly on the Government’s proposal for a data mining opt-out, as mentioned in the consultation. Many Members have raised that point, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), for Bury North (Mr Frith), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). We cannot hold back the tide of change that AI has brought with it, nor can we put the genie back in the bottle, but we must do everything in our power to protect and promote our creative industries so that they can continue to thrive and grow, as they did with the support put in place by the previous Government during the pandemic. The Government’s consultation on AI and copyright remains under way. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State spoke about the overwhelming need for the Government to respond to the consultation as soon as possible. The Government must engage constructively with the industry and the official Opposition to identify solutions that turbocharge our developing AI industry while protecting and boosting the growth of our creative sector. All of us, both those who work in the creative sector and those who benefit from it, understand just how important it is for our national identity. Live music is one of my passions. It was the thing I missed most during the pandemic. The idea that we could end up causing harm to our creative industry fills me with horror. The Opposition want to make sure we get this right, not only for those whose livelihoods depend on the industry but for all of us. This is complicated and difficult. If it were not, there would already be an answer—the Europeans would have an answer. This is a difficult situation that we need to get through.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money) · Hansard source

  More

  Unfortunately, this debate and the circumstances of this money resolution are a manifest example of the concerns I have raised about this Bill and the process of taking it forwards. Many Members talk about debate, and it is important that this issue is debated; however, what is critical is scrutiny—ensuring that we can properly scrutinise the Bill, the work that is put into a very complicated area of law, and what would be, if the Bill were to pass, a manifest change in the relationship between the state and its citizens. This money resolution is in the name of a Treasury Minister, the response at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading was from a Justice Minister, and we have a Health Minister here today. We cannot say whether the Bill will be paid for by the Ministry of Justice, and what the liability will be. What is the health liability? How much will be in private hands, and how much will not? What about legal aid? There are all these spin-out costs from the Bill. As a parliamentarian, I like to scrutinise. I want to see impact assessments; I want to see what the spending that I am being asked to vote for looks like, yet we do not have that information. Members have said that the Bill will come back on Report, and the Government are in a hokey-cokey position: sort of in, sort of out—what’s it all about? I am sorry, but I do not think that is good enough for something of such importance to our constituents and for Parliament to get right.

• 6 Jan 2025 · NHS Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is important that patients have information and choice, and that they have the flexibility to move between different practices to suit their needs. My view is that the GP list system does not work. It does not make sense as it currently stands, and it limits the ability of patients to seek the care that they need in a timely manner. As he just mentioned, people get stuck in practices that are not performing or are not working for them, and they have no ability to move out of them. My right hon. Friend also mentions the role of the ICB/ICS system, which brings me to my final point. As a constituency MP, I find it incredibly frustrating that I have no direct control, power or hard influence, as opposed to soft influence, over the local ICS/ICB system. I can write letters and campaign, and I have spoken in debates in Parliament. I have led a debate on the Weybridge health centre, which is finally going to planning after the drama of multiple consultations. My only ability to direct what is happening on the ICB is through directly asking Ministers questions in Parliament, or by trying to get them to intervene. When the Health and Care Act 2022 was going through in the last Parliament, I raised with the then Minister my concerns about the accountability of our ICSs and ICBs. We have a real problem with what we MPs can do to ensure that our ICBs and ICSs are performing for people locally, because there is a disconnect in the link of accountability. I believe that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Ministers on the Front Bench absolutely want to see all our local NHS services performing at their very best. I totally believe that they are in it for the right reasons and want to see better performance, and I want to help them deliver that. But with all the enthusiasm and will in the world, are they going to take the same interest in my local area as I do? We MPs need the ability to cajole and to direct what our local NHS services are doing in order to deliver the best possible care for patients. After all, we are the locally elected representatives and, as we saw in this year’s election and will see in elections going forward, there are always 24 hours to save the NHS.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Prior to my election to Parliament, as a consultant psychiatrist with a PhD in decision-making capacity, I would have met both criteria to be a medical expert assessor under clause 9(3)(b), so I have a particular perspective as someone who, in different circumstances, might have been called upon to make these assessments. I strongly believe that we should respect and support the right to bodily autonomy for people with full decision-making capacity, subject to the caveat that it does not cause serious harm to others. I argued for this when I was on the working group of the independent review of the Mental Health Act 1983 and on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the Mental Health Bill, which, among other things, aims to prevent people from coming to harm when suffering from severe mental illness. These reforms were debated in the House of Lords this week, and they demonstrate how Parliament should legislate in complex areas that balance individual autonomy and risk. In contrast, as a private Member’s Bill, there is limited ability for scrutinising this Bill’s provisions. It has had no independent review, no pre-legislative scrutiny and no impact assessments. Many MPs support the principle of assisted dying yet have concerns about implementation, resource implications and safeguarding. That is why I, along with colleagues on both sides of the House, tabled a reasoned amendment calling for an independent review and consultation before a vote in Parliament, to provide a third way through. I thank the Members who supported the amendment, particularly the hon. Members for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), for their work and their extensive and careful consideration. Although the general debate on assisted dying may focus largely on the principles, legislation must address the limits to and the safeguards on consent. Should people be able to agree to a medically assisted death? If so, what restrictions, if any, should there be on people who can make this decision—age, capacity, terminal illness, intolerable suffering? And then, what safeguards are there to uphold these limits and to prevent abuse—assessments by two doctors, judicial scrutiny? Given that the main argument I see in favour of assisted dying is the exercise of personal autonomy, I believe the most substantive issues we need to wrestle with are the limits that we set. Why is this Bill limited to the terminally ill and not those who are suffering without that being terminal? What even comes within the scope of terminal illness? With the refusal of treatment and medication, conditions such as type 1 diabetes and HIV can be designated as terminal, despite being fully treatable. There are many questions, but in this Bill the most prominent problem is that, in a legal context, if the availability of assisted dying is limited only to those who are terminally ill, it is discriminatory either to those with or without terminal illness. Either their right to autonomy is greater than others’, or the value of their life is worth less. We must also ask whether autonomy can be exercised where there is no choice. If good palliative care is simply not available, can we really rely on this as a true and free decision? I would argue that we cannot, and that this Bill does not safeguard against coercion through state neglect.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. As was clear from his speech and his diligent, razor-sharp focus on targeting the delivery of gigabit broadband in different parts of his constituency, he is a true community champion. His constituents are lucky to have him. That is a theme of the debate. All Members have spoken about individual parts of their constituency where broadband is a challenge. That goes to show how important our digital backbone is in the United Kingdom. I will resist the temptation to mention parts of my constituency, such as Queen’s Road or Ellesmere Road in Weybridge, where we have done work to deliver gigabit broadband. The debate demonstrates how important the issue is. It is one that inevitably and invariably gets the attention of Members of Parliament, so that they advocate for their constituents and try to deliver it. Project Gigabit demonstrates simply that where there is a will, there is a way. Back in 2019, 7% of properties had what is defined as “gigabit access” or 1 gigabit per second. In April 2024—the last official stats we have—that had reached 81%. In fact, it is believed that the 85% target, due to be reached in ’25, has already been reached. That is a huge roll-out of gigabit broadband to households over the past five years of a Conservative Government. There are of course people who do not have gigabit broadband, and it is critical that we work to ensure that they can have that vital accessibility. That is absolutely not just about being able to watch this debate in HD—to listen to my dulcet tones and to see the spots on my face; it is about industry and connectivity, and the events of covid showed just how important that is. Look at the £5 billion investment allocated to the project; some data shows that that is probably a £60 billion contribution to the UK economy. How do we go about rolling out the delivery of gigabit broadband across the country? We as Conservatives know that the way to do it is to get industry involved and work with it. That is why 80% of the gigabit broadband target is linked to industry bringing it through, although we recognised that to get to the further 20% of roll-out, we needed to bring in subsidy and break down barriers. That is where we move from the initial phase of Project Gigabit, which was to do with industry delivering, to now, with the public subsidy we have seen over the past few years. A great concern, however, is future inequalities, in particular in delivery to rural areas versus urban areas. The great concern is that over the next six months to a year, there will be a reallocation of priority away from rural areas to urban areas.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Cancer Strategy for England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this important debate on what is clearly a difficult subject, given how much cancer affects people: as several hon. Members have said, it affects all of us, not just those who are directly affected. I listened carefully to the powerful speeches that he and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) made about the direct impact that they have experienced. I pay tribute to all the people who work in our NHS, the charity sector, the research sector and all parts of our community that are active in prevention and in supporting, treating and helping people through the journey with cancer. My speech cannot cover every cancer in the limited time I have, but I will focus on the major cancers, so to speak, in terms of prevalence and mortality rates. That is not to diminish the importance of the range of cancers: it is critical that we focus on rare cancers as well as the major ones. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham again for his speech and for sharing his personal experience. He did not mention the fact that he has raised more than £800,000 for cancer charities in his work following his diagnosis. It is important that we pay tribute to him for bringing forward this debate. I was deeply concerned by the story told by the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) about the impact on her constituent of the cessation of their treatment as a result of financial measures. I hope that the Minister can meet her or take up the case; I would be interested to hear how that decision was taken. I hope that the family and the individual affected are doing okay with their treatment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) made important points, to which I will return later, about childhood and teenage cancer. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), my constituency neighbour, raised the impact on his constituents in terms of seeking direct cancer care. As he knows, both of our constituencies are served by Ashford for broader cancer support. I would welcome the chance to meet him to discuss how we can help our constituents, particularly with journey times to access cancer care locally. It is important to focus on data, so I will refer to data from the NHS and from Cancer Research UK. I have a series of questions for the Minister; I know that a lot may not be in his portfolio, but if he cannot answer today I will be grateful for a written response. Fundamentally, the things that the state can do about cancer strategies break down into prevention, diagnosis, care and treatment, and research. All the major cancers have modifiable risk factors. Of the 44,000 bowel cancer cases a year, 54% are deemed to be preventable, with 11% linked to obesity, 28% linked to diet and fibre, 13% linked to processed meat and 5% linked to physical activity. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in the UK: of the 56,800 cases a year, about 8% are believed to be linked to or caused by obesity. Lung cancer is the third most common cancer: of the approximately 50,000 cases a year, about 80% are preventable and 72% are linked directly to smoking. Overall, tobacco is the largest preventable cause of cancer. Some 50,000 cancer cases per year are attributable to smoking. In the last Parliament, we introduced the Tobacco and Vapes Bill because we recognised the importance of reducing smoking. Can the Minister tell me when his Government plan to reintroduce that Bill, so that we can start to see its health benefits? Obesity is the UK’s second biggest cause of cancer, after smoking. It is believed to cause about one in 20 cases: 20,000 cases of cancer per year are attributable to obesity. We brought forward an obesity strategy. Will the Minister review it and bring forward an obesity strategy in this Parliament? On screening and treatment, while cancer outcomes continue to improve in comparison with the OECD, it is worth looking at the data in the Darzi report. One of the most interesting slides shows that over the past 14 years, we have improved relative to the gradient of cancer outcomes, but we started at a very low point. There are lots of questions to be asked about why we started at such a low point back in 2004. The NHS is still recovering from the disruption to cancer care caused by the covid pandemic, but thanks to the hard work of NHS staff, waits of more than 62 days declined between September 2022 and August 2024. Obviously there is still more work to be done. Community diagnostic centres and surgical hubs made a difference. They were backed by a £2.3 billion investment, the largest cash investment in MRI and CT scanning in the history of the NHS; those scans, tests and checks are now being delivered in 170 CDC sites. [ Official Report, 11 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 6WC.] (Correction) As the independent Health Foundation recently pointed out, surgical hubs have helped to build capacity and reduce waiting lists over the past few years. Although it was not mentioned in Lord Darzi’s report on NHS performance, I welcome the Government’s intention to expand surgical hubs. Will the Minister provide more details on how many new surgical hubs will be established? What plans have the Government to expand the CDC network further? There is clearly more work to be done to improve cancer waiting times and outcomes. The major conditions strategy developed under the last Government was designed to provide more impetus for improving cancer outcomes, alongside those for other major conditions. Developing the strategy involved significant consultation and engagement with cancer charities and professional bodies. Since the election, the Government have decided to scrap the strategy. Can the Minister explain why he made that decision? Given the time that cancer charities and organisations have put in, can the Minister explain how their contributions will be used to develop the 10-year plan for the NHS? Can he explain why, in the NHS consultation that is now being run, there are no cancer-specific questions? We heard earlier that eight people in 10 want a cancer strategy. Will he respond if similar results emerge from the consultation? The Government scrapped the children and young people cancer taskforce, and we have yet to hear an alternative approach to improve of outcomes in that area. Will the Minister provide clarity on the Government’s plans on children’s cancers and the reasons why they discontinued the children and young people cancer taskforce? Research is most relevant to some of the rarer cancers that are often not talked about. We very much welcome the protection of Government investment in R&D, with £20 billion allocated to 2025-26 and core research spending protected. That includes a £2 billion uplift for the National Institute for Health and Care Research. I should mention that my doctoral research fellowship was funded by the NIHR, although it was mental health research rather than cancer research. It is great that we support that fantastic institution. I am pleased that the Government have kept the current rate of research and development tax relief. However, the Minister will know that a lot of support and research is provided by or directly commissioned from charities, which are a critical part of the cancer care and treatment infrastructure. My understanding is that in yesterday’s Budget, public services were protected from the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions. Can the Minister explain what the impact of national insurance employer contributions will be on charities that provide care and treatment in this area? What conversations has he had with those charities, and what concerns have they raised with him? In the Darzi report and elsewhere, there is rightly a focus on the diagnostic pathway and on the time it takes to diagnose and treat someone following a query as to whether someone has cancer. When does the Minister expect the huge £22 billion injection in the NHS to produce outcomes? Or does he agree with the comments in Lord Darzi’s report that the NHS does not necessarily need more money for outcomes? It has had a lot of money from the former Conservative Government over the past few years. Does the Minister think that reform is the best way to ensure improvement?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It is with sadness that I rise to speak in this debate on the Budget of broken promises. During the election campaign, I heard from many constituents about how they felt regarding their disillusionment with our political system. They feel that Westminster seems to talk only about itself, does not represent them and at times treats them like fools. This Budget damages our democracy in the contempt with which it treats our voters. For the past few months, my constituents have been hearing from the Government that everything is going to be awful and this is going to be a punishment Budget, and they have been awaiting it with trepidation. They have heard that when the Labour party came into power, it discovered things it was not expecting, so it had to announce winter fuel payment cuts—despite the fact that it had been talking about doing so in this place for some time. Labour has said that it has to make difficult decisions but that it will stick to all its promises, but—hey!—it turns out that it can pull out various loopholes that it had carefully weaved into its manifesto. That is one of the reasons why over the past few weeks we have seen this incredible debate about what a “working person” is, which so far has been pure and utter sophistry. It appears that that is what so much of this Budget debate turns on, so what is a working person? Certainly, I would say I am a working person; people here are working people, for the most part. The majority of my constituents are working people, or had been until they started claiming a pension, and that needs to be respected. Since the Chancellor said that there would be no tax rises on working people, this question has led to a great degree of confusion as we go through the Budget. Is a business owner, or someone who works as a tradesman, not a working person? Ironically, Labour says it wants to fix the foundations of the country, but I wonder where it is going to get the tradespeople to do so. How about people who save for their future? Are they not working people? How about our pensioners? Have they not been working people? How about people who use the bus? Are they not working people? Thankfully, today I got an email from the TUC, which helped clarify who working people are. It pointed out that the TUC are the ones who represent working people. I think our constituents all know that unless they are a trade union member or someone who is dependent on the state, the Labour party does not think they are a working person, and it is coming for them. [ Interruption. ] Well, look at the tax rises. When Government Members start digesting the Budget—when they look at the impact of an extremely low growth rate over the next few years, the impact on farmers, who will struggle to pass on their farms, and the impact on small businesses, which we depend on for growth, investment and prosperity —they will regret what has been said today. I was sad that the south-east and Surrey were not really mentioned. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members laugh, but they would do well to consider that Surrey is the biggest net contributor to the Treasury outside London. The Chancellor would do well to listen to Surrey MPs about the investment that we need in local infrastructure so that we can continue to provide money to the economy for the ambitions of us all. In my constituency, that means confirmation of support for the Weybridge health centre rebuild, fixing our level crossings and motorways, and rebuilding the Magna Carta school. The Government had an opportunity with this Budget, and they have missed it. They have chosen duplicity over delivery, politics over pragmatism and sophistry over service.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. The Liberal Democrats clearly have a very formed view of the reforms that they want, so what number of Lords would be in the elected upper Chamber? [ Interruption. ]

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is generous in giving way. There is a fertile debate on this side of the House, and the Government should reflect on the fact that Opposition Members tend to think independently. Does he not think that the idea that a step-by-step process will work at all is for the birds?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I start my contribution today by thanking our colleagues in the House of Lords for their work and public service in their vital role scrutinising and editing the legislation that we put together in this place. Prior to my first election in 2019, I did not know that much in depth and detail about the workings of the House of Lords and its value to our parliamentary system. In the past five years, I have seen a House of Lords that has been effective, using the expertise that it draws upon, in holding up legislation and ensuring that it works and that we make good decisions, leading to good laws for our country going forward. It is important to recognise the contribution that Members of the House of Lords make and continue to make, and we thank them for that. It is important that we have a strong second Chamber, but that does not mean there is no need for reform. I very much support reform of the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made comments in his speech about unaccountability; in a sense, the fact that most Lords are appointed as life peers because of their expertise or the work they have done means that their accountability is what got them there in the first place, and the fact that they are unaccountable gives them a degree of freedom in ensuring that we make the best laws. I support the Government’s Bill to remove the 92 hereditary peers, all of whom are men and retain a role in legislating because of their birth. This is very much not a criticism of those peers. I have had the pleasure of working with many, and with one, Viscount Craigavon, particularly closely. Over the years he has done incredible work with the all-party parliamentary groups for Sweden and for Finland, of which I have been chair or vice-chair. Although I support the Bill, it takes a ham-fisted approach to reform. If it is going to be done, do it properly. The idea that it is going to stay narrow and that this will be a quick fix to move things forward is, given the scope and depth of the debate, for fantasists. On further reform, I absolutely do not support an elected upper Chamber, which I think would cause all sorts of problems, not least in terms of parliamentary supremacy. The life appointments add real value, as seen in the current and previous Parliament. There are people like Sir Patrick Vallance, who is now a Labour Minister and was previously chief scientific adviser. He is known for his work on covid and I look forward to seeing his work in the other place. Lord Harrington was brought in as a Minister in response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis, and he responded to the difficult challenges in that respect and helped to provide support. Lord Cameron was brought in as Foreign Secretary—my, do we not wish we had Lord Cameron as Foreign Secretary now? Most recently, the Labour Government brought in Baroness Poppy Gustafsson as an investment Minister, given their lack of business expertise and experience on the Front Bench. I thank the Baroness for helping to support the Labour Government with regard to the needs of business. We should consider the numbers in the House of Lords. We should look at how much people attend and participate. We should look at the funding. We should look at the retirement age, at the composition and at whether there should be a role for religious representation. As is set out in the reasoned amendment, which I shall support, measures to modernise and reform the House of Lords should be taken now. This is a missed opportunity, but I hope it will not turn out to have been, because once we have passed Second Reading and the Bill goes to Committee, we are going to see amendments tabled by, interestingly, Opposition Members, by the sounds of it, that will uphold the Government’s manifesto commitment, because they are being so timid in what they are trying to achieve. Rather than prioritising their need to be seen to be doing something, the Government need to start learning to do things right.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, Dame Caroline, to serve under your chairmanship and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. I am so pleased to speak in it. I support all our schools and I am proud to have a range of independent schools in the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency. I declare an interest: my children, like one in five children in my constituency, go to an independent school. I want to take the opportunity that we have today with a Treasury Minister responding to the debate, because Treasury Ministers are all over numbers and impacts. I am pleased to see that it would seem that, following the election, the Treasury has looked at Labour’s manifesto commitments and actually thought about them, to the extent that we are starting to get various leaks and stories that it will abandon them. I hope that the Treasury will do the same thing with this awful policy. I know that a Treasury Minister will not make a decision without an impact assessment and I am sure that the Exchequer Secretary will express his concerns about the absence of an impact assessment for this policy. However, while he is considering what the impact of the change—I hope he comes to the Dispatch Box to tell us the numbers around it—let me share some information from my constituency, where about 7,500 to 8,000 children attend independent schools. My schools tell me that about 5% to 10% of these pupils will move because of the imposition of a tax on education. That means there will be far more pressure on our local state school system and there will also be disruption for those children. It also means that the 10% to 15% of children with special educational needs who do not have EHCPs will start seeking them, which will mean more cost for the taxpayer and more transfers between schools, which would be a backwards policy. Most egregiously of all, the Government are going to do that halfway through the educational year, with no consideration for our constituents’ GCSE, A-level and baccalaureate exam results. Will the Minister think again and persuade the Secretary of State for Education to abandon this ridiculous policy?