Pete Wishart MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I am thrilled and excited by the prospect of being part of that work, and I look forward to joining the Minister, but I think that it must be as open as possible so that every single aspect of this can be harnessed and used as part of the Government’s work. What the Government amendments do not do, however—and this is a key issue—is pay attention to the transparency issues. The peers have rejected amendments that the Government have tabled previously. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the Government are bringing these amendments back to try to distract us and give us the impression that they listened to the House of Lords and were near to reaching a compromise, but nothing of the sort is the case, because the key issue is the transparency that the House of Lords, the creative sector and artists across the UK want to see. The existing law should be enforced to protect the wages of 2.4 million creative workers, and the Government must produce a “meaningful compromise” amendment. It is also entirely possible for the Government to take powers to introduce transparency via regulations, recognising the urgent need to prevent mass theft by AI firms at the earliest opportunity, and I do not know why they have not explored that option. The wages of those 2.4 million UK creators are at stake, as is the principle of the rule of law. The creative industries have made it clear that inaction on the Government’s part is giving “big tech” the freedom to break our laws and destroy jobs. Copyright is not an abstract concept; it is what secures our creative success. The Government will win in this House today, and they will probably win the whole debate—they will get their way. However, they have lost the battle. One good thing that has come out of this is the fact that people now understand that our copyright laws—our gold-standard copyright regime—underpins the success of the UK’s creative industries across the board. Some of the greatest artists in the world are from these islands, and they have achieved their success because of intellectual property rights and our copyright laws. To muck about with those as we have over the past few months undermines all that, and undermines the ability of those artists to continue to lead in their sectors. I hope that, even at this late stage, some sort of compromise can be found with transparency at the heart of it, and I appeal to the Minister to consider that seriously.

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

  More

  The Minister is being generous, as always, in giving way. I welcome the amendments—I think they are helpful and useful—but they miss out and exclude transparency, which is what this is all about. The Lords, the creative sector and artists around this country want a commitment that this Government will deal with issues of transparency. Why will the Minister not sit down and compromise with the House of Lords and ensure that we get a solution that works for everybody?

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

  More

  I was not going to say anything in this round of ping pong, but a couple of things in the debate have tempted me to my feet. The first thing I want to say is about the House of Lords. I have to say that I congratulate their lordships on their tenacity on this issue; I think we both expected and presumed that they would have backed down a long time ago, but they have decided not to, and I think that is because of what I have heard today. They are backing the sector. It has been left to the Lords to ensure that the voices of our artists and those in our creative industries and sectors are adequately articulated and presented to Ministers, so I congratulate them on that. I say that as somebody who is no great respecter of the House of Lords—I have this cute little notion that someone serving in a legislature should be elected to that legislature. The Lords have done an exemplary job in all this, and they are entirely entitled to bring forward this matter again and again until the ministerial team find some sort of compromise, which, between the two of them, they will surely be able to do. This is the territory we are in now; this is the fourth round of ping pong. It is no good us just sending it back to the Lords again and again. The Government can insist and get their way, of course: they are the Government, and this is the primary House in our Parliament, so they can do that if they want. But why would they not sit down and work out a way forward that takes on board everything the Lords want to achieve and secure and that meets the noble ambitions and lofty rhetoric we have heard from those on the Government Front Bench today and the last few times this has been debated? I cannot see anything wrong with the amendment. It sounds like the Minister is inventing reasons as to why it could not be agreed to. The example from the Digital Economy Act is spot on: we were adaptable and did things as the situation required in order to meet the challenge of the time—a huge challenge, when digitisation was coming into our creative arts. This is a bigger challenge and test. This is more existential than the Digital Economy Act of 20 years ago, and that is why we must act now. People cannot wait. Our cultural heritage is being scraped and hoovered up by large tech companies, and soon there will be nothing left of it. Millions of creative artists are waiting for the Government to engage—to sort it out, compromise and do something with those with an interest in all this. The Government are convincing no one thus far; the creative industries do not believe that they have their best interests at heart or that we will have enough time to secure what is left of our cultural heritage. The Government should do something—do not just send the Bill away again, although they probably will, and have it come back to us. Sit down, compromise and get something sorted out and, for the sake of our creative industries, find a solution that works for everybody. Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49F.

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

  More

  The Secretary of State can check back in Hansard . That is exactly what he said, and that is where the concern and anxiety comes in. The Government might get a technical victory today because of the invocation of financial issues, but the Bill will come back again from the House of Lords. They are not going to give up. Everybody is united with the House of Lords when it comes to these issues; everybody wants a solution now. Nobody agrees with the Government’s position—except the AI firms that seek to benefit from the unauthorised use of our cultural work—and the anger is growing. The more the public see of this, the more our constituents get increasingly concerned about how our artists are being treated. We only need to look at Sir Elton John’s reaction on Sunday—not just the choice of language about the Government Front Benchers, but that he feels so dismissed he is even threatening legal action. Surely the way forward is compromise and the Government going some way toward giving the creative sector what they want. Lords amendment 49D presents that approach. It respects the financial prerogatives of this Government, and it has taken on board everything that the Front Benchers have said. I urge the Government to reconsider their position and to engage seriously on the substance of the amendment, which would address copyright holders’ calls for transparency without imposing immediate enforcement costs. It would require AI developers to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information on how their works have been used and how they were accessed. Nothing could be fairer than that. The Government use words like “may” rather than “must”, thereby avoiding direct spending obligations. We must surely work together on the basis of what has been agreed between both Houses, and try to ensure that we get something that meets everybody’s concerns. That has to start with this Lords amendment. I urge the Government to accept it at this really late stage, and I encourage Labour Back Benchers, who have made fantastic contributions today and who have stood up to this Government, to vote against them. That will show exactly how strongly they feel about this issue. I encourage Labour colleagues to back the amendment.

• 22 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Can we have a statement about political advertising and what is and is not acceptable? A disgusting, racist advert has been released by Reform in the Hamilton by-election in which a speech by the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, is selectively edited to question his identity and loyalty. We may disagree profoundly with Anas Sarwar on a range of issues, but he is a proud Scot, who always tries to put the interests of his country first. We in Scotland are united against that sort of gutter politics. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is everything that we in Scotland are not?

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

  More

  In reference to the earlier exchange, it seems that if you remember the Minister’s 60th birthday, you were not really there—but I really was not there. [ Interruption. ] Did I? I knew there must have been some very good reason. Why I was not there is now in Hansard . There is profound disappointment within the creative sector today. Everyone in the sector really believed and hoped that the Minister would appear today with something in his back pocket that he would be able to bring out to give reassurance to the many artists and creators right across the country who are extremely anxious and concerned about the direction of the debate and conversations about the use of their work. They are really concerned that some of their precious work, into which they have put so much time, effort, blood, sweat and tears, will be scraped up, trawled through by a bot and ingested by one of the large American tech companies, and then reappear as some minor mirror of itself. No one has been satisfied with what has been said today, and the Minister has one last chance. I really hope that he can give something to the creative industries, or at least give them some sort of hope as we go forward into the next few months and years, because they are going into the next few months and years unprotected. They will have nothing that they can rely on, other than what is in the amendments, and I know for a fact that the Minister will ensure that they are voted down. Today has been a curious day, too, because financial privilege has been invoked for a particular amendment. In my almost quarter of a century in this House, I have never seen that before. I think I know why it has been done: it is to ensure that the House of Lords does not get another opportunity to bring this measure back. I say to the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is shaking his head, that the Lords are already designing it. After it goes back to the House of Lords, it will come back once again. I am sure it does not invoke any financial privilege, but it is ultimately disappointing that the Lords will not be able to present the same motion again, which was their intention. That amendment has received overwhelming support from everybody across the creative sector, and I had really hoped that the Government would support it today. The only reason we are here is the efforts of the Members of the House of Lords. I usually do not pay them much of a tribute or respect what they do, but they have played a blinder. In particular, Beeban Kidron—Baroness Kidron—has stuck to this agenda to ensure that these Lords amendments have been reinserted into the Bill. They have had to do it because the Government have not done so. The Government have done nothing to ensure that our creative sector is protected. The Government say that there should be more time for this, but we do not have time. We have to act now to protect the livelihoods of 2.4 million creators in the UK against exploitation by some of the richest companies in the world. As I have said countless times throughout this Bill’s passage, if we continue at this rate there will soon be nothing left to protect. The thing is that the Government should have acted earlier. They should have taken steps to protect creators’ rights as a matter of urgency. Instead, it has been left to others to scramble to find a way to ensure that we had these vital Lords amendments to a Bill that, as the Minister has said on several occasions, was not designed for them. The Government’s motions will in effect set a timeline of several years before any resolution is reached on copyright transparency. I listened very carefully, as I always do, to what the Minister had to say about transparency, but I still do not understand why this cannot be done immediately. All the Government have to do is tell inventors, creators and copyright holders that their work is going to be used or ingested by one of the web crawlers that are in operation. That is all they would have to do, and it could be done very easily. There is no great technical problem in introducing transparency as a priority, and it could possibly happen within a few weeks.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think that we are going to have quite a few debates like this in the next few years, so I say this ever so candidly: that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to resolve. The Secretary of State’s party is trying to become the party in government in Scotland next year, but his party does not have any imaginative solutions, so over the next year we will be testing his proposals and policies against what we are doing. If people in Scotland are attracted to the Secretary of State’s policies and proposals, they will vote Labour in, but I do not think that will happen, and I think, in his heart of hearts, he also believes that now. We only need to look at the last by-election result. So when we are elected to this House, let us deal with the things that matter to us, and nothing is more important than this issue. If we do not get this fixed, we will have serious issues and structural problems in our public services and our economy. I appeal to the House: let the Bill go through and then let us all work together to resolve the situation.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I wholeheartedly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) on introducing this vital and critical Bill this morning? I also commend him for the diplomatic and charming way that he always introduces these debates to the House. He was very generous in taking so many points of view this morning. Before I make my substantial points, I want to say a little bit about the tone of this House today. When it was the Conservatives sat on the Government Benches, we collected what they said about Scotland and all the issues to do with devolved government. We stowed them away and we used it against them. Now they are gone—utterly and totally gone. When Scottish Labour Members speak Scotland down, as they have this morning, we collect, collate and keep those comments to use back against them. I ever so gently suggest to my Scottish friends on the Labour Benches that they look at the by-election result last night. It was absolutely damning for the Labour party. Whatever Labour is doing through this new attack of line against the Scottish Government, it is singularly failing. It will fail Labour in the way that it failed the Conservatives. I caution Labour Members not to try to pit this House against the Scottish Parliament. It did not work for the Conservatives and it will not work for them. Today is about the Bill. We are in real trouble in Scotland, and that is why the Bill is critical. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Scotland is in the early stages of a population and demographic crisis that will get a lot worse unless we do something. We cannot leave things in the condition that they are in. With our falling birth rate, we have too few working-age people available to look after an ever-older population. We are in the early stages of population stagnation, and we already see the impact. We need only look at our health service, which has difficulties recruiting staff. In our social care sector, we are approaching something like a workforce crisis. I appeal to people to go and look not at the nuclear subs in Clydebank, but at rural areas of Scotland like mine. They will find that hospitality and tourism businesses are cutting back hours or closing because they do not have the staff to keep themselves properly functioning and organised.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) not only on this debate, but on his birthday—I hope he goes on to enjoy himself much more than sitting in Westminster Hall for the rest of the day. Of all the issues that the Government thought they would be confronting nine months after being elected, I do not think they thought they would be in some sort of spat with the creative industries, finding that they, almost as one voice, have real difficulties and issues with the Government initiative. First, we have to pay tribute to the wonderful campaign that has been mounted over the past few weeks and months from all our artists and creatives. When everybody from Thom Yorke to Rupert Murdoch, from Paul McCartney to the director general of the BBC is upset, there really are difficulties. The Government asked the creative industries what they thought of their proposals, particularly of their preferred opt-out plan, and like a finely tuned chorus, the creative sector came back as one and told them it does not like it one bit. Our constituents have been magnificent in the way that they have responded. For the 20-odd years I have been in Parliament I have tried to evangelise about the role of IP and the value of copyright, but one thing that has come out of this consultation is that, inadvertently, this Government’s clumsy attempt to martial this debate has made our constituents realise the value of copyright. They have got behind it and started to understand it and see that it is the basis of all the wonderful works they enjoy throughout their lives. They know it is our gold-standard copyright regime that gives our artists protection and renumeration and ensures that they are rewarded for producing all these wonderful works. One good thing that has come out of this is that the value of copyright has now started to be seen by all our constituents. The Government are sincere in trying to bridge the gap between artificial intelligence and the creative industries, and they want to satisfy all sectors, but we have to see what we are up against—just have a look at some of the big tech companies’ submissions to the consultation. Have a look at OpenAI’s submission—even the opt-out proposal is too far for it; it wants unfettered access to our cultural treasure trove, without any inhibitions or difficulty. The first thing that the Minister has to say to the big AI companies is that our creative heritage—everything we have built in the past few decades—is not there to be plundered and taken for nothing. We must make progress, and I really hope that the Government now decide that they will not pursue the opt-out proposal—it cannot work; there is no way that it could be a technical solution. We have seen that within the EU. The Government have to drop it. Look at this licensing system—the Minister has talked about it consistently in the past few weeks and months. Let us make sure that we unravel the idea of copyright from that of transparency; we have to make sure that those are separated. Let us use the Data (Use and Access) Bill—it is there in front of us, so why cannot we use it to make real progress on this issue?

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Labour Members that the petition actually reads: “Apply for the UK to join the European Union as a full member as soon as possible”. There are two key parts to it: “as a full member” and “as soon as possible”. It does not ask for a positive and good reset, but for the UK to rejoin the EU. That is the sort of territory that we must start to get back into, and that will come only from Labour Members. They have such a huge majority that if they all come together and ensure that we have a collective voice on that point, it will make a difference. I encourage Labour Members to pursue this issue and keep on taking it to their Government—to argue with passion and conviction that they want the UK to be back in the European Union. That is the only thing that will satisfy the petitioners, because that is what they want. As has been rightly said, the UK public are way ahead of the House on this issue; some 60% of them now want the UK to rejoin the European Union. We should look at what they want. If one of the parties—just one—were to say, “We are totally committed to full EU membership,” that would be immensely popular; it would go with the grain of public opinion throughout the United Kingdom. I say to Labour Members that economic growth has been pretty hard to find; they have not been able to do much in the past few months, and we have another reset coming up on Wednesday. When it comes to the economic conditions of this country, addressing Brexit and rejoining the single market would unlock massive investment for the United Kingdom and get us back on our feet again—that is where economic growth could come from. Labour Members have to look at this issue as a way to address some of the economic difficulties that they find themselves in. I am encouraged that we now have group of Labour Members of Parliament who are sincere in their desire to rejoin the European Union. That does not have to happen tomorrow or next year, but the Government have to say today that it is their intention to rejoin the European Union as a full member. That is what the petitioners are asking for, and, if I have it correctly, they want it to happen as soon as possible.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I have listened very carefully to all the speeches today. Some were fine; some were perhaps not so fine. And I have to say that I am not entirely sure where we are. I do not know what to make of this debate. I am really confused, and I hope the winding-up speeches will help me to get a better understanding of where the House is. I say that because I heard Labour say throughout last year’s general election campaign that the only important thing are the red lines. It was all about not joining the single market or the customs union, and that was about it. As the months passed, we started to hear about this reset, and I thought, “Okay, let’s examine this. What does it mean? What are we going to get from this reset?” We have found that it is not very much. For this Government, a “reset” is the EU doing this Government some sort of favour to mitigate some of the impacts of Brexit without the Government giving anything back in return. People have raised the issues of touring musicians and the youth mobility scheme, with both of which I am particularly associated. I do not know if I have mentioned it before, but I was a rock musician back in the day and toured Europe extensively. These two issues are related, because a negotiation started to happen within the EU. There was a sense that, in return for offering a youth mobility scheme to Europe, we would secure the rights for our artists to tour freely within the European Union once again, and that some sort of creative passport and visa would be given to our bands so they could once again have the pleasure of playing within the European Union. However, that was rejected out of hand. The Government were not interested, and these are their last words when it comes to a youth mobility scheme: “We do not have plans for a youth mobility agreement.” I say to Labour Members and colleagues in the Chamber today that I am encouraged by their enthusiasm for the European Union. I take heart from the fact they are starting to talk again about the single market and the customs union. And I say sincerely to them, “Go for it! Please, go for it! You’re our only hope.”

• 13 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This afternoon seems to be a bit of a Lib Dem fest because of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. There is nothing wrong with that; in fact, I very much approve of this new clause. To the hon. Member for Weald of Kent—I do not like to rebuke her, because that is not the sort of Member of Parliament I am, as you will know, Dame Siobhain—I say that so many people come through the health and care route because there is real need in the whole system. We need people to come and make sure that someone has those jobs. I challenge her to visit the NHS establishments in her constituency and find out the real difficulties that many health professional managers have in securing the staff they require. This new clause is a practical suggestion to deal with a real issue in our immigration system. It is unfair that those who come to do some of the most demanding and low-paid jobs in the UK are forced to pay that charge.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the hon. Gentleman and I will have the opportunity to discuss these issues in the future of this Parliament and I very much look forward to that. I did not hear anything at all from the Minister about anything to do with the quite stern rebuke to this Government from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in its written evidence. It is concerned that this measure drives a coach and horses through the UK Government’s commitments to certain sections of the various conventions. Is the Minister even slightly embarrassed about what has been presented to them? This is a nasty, pernicious move by this Government, and it is not particularly in the spirit of what they are trying to achieve with the Bill. It is a continuation of the ethos of the previous Conservative Government. It even introduces through the back door certain aspects of the Illegal Migration Act that we are very keen to move on from. I hope that the Government reconsider this measure, and I will certainly be testing the Committee with a vote on the new clause. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Dame Siobhain, we have to stop meeting like this. Amendment 20 is a rather simple amendment, and one that I hope the Minister takes seriously. Clause 53 has a massive and dramatic impact on Scottish legislation that has been passed under devolved powers by the Scottish Parliament. It says that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations that are consequential on the Bill. Those regulations could, “in particular, amend, repeal or revoke any enactment passed or made before, or in the same Session as” the Bill. The power granted to the Secretary of State is overly broad, affecting all legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament and Scottish statutory instruments over the past 25 years. Importantly, that includes enactments in or made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament as well as similar legislation passed by the Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is unreasonable that the Home Secretary could amend, repeal or revoke that body of law through regulations that bypass proper parliamentary scrutiny. Requiring consultations with Scottish Ministers before making those regulations is the bare minimum and could help to identify potential issues and prevent unintended consequences. The use of Henry VIII powers —or James VI powers, as we would prefer to call them in Scotland—is unconstrained and could have significant implications for the law in Scotland. For that reason, it is crucial that the Secretary of State consults with Scottish Ministers and with other devolved Administrations before moving forward with those regulations.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief, but a lot of the questions that were asked were relevant and deserve a response. First, it is not me that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh needs to debate and speak to about this; it is Scottish businesses, business organisations and the political consensus in Scotland. The hon. Member should sit down with Jackie Baillie, who raised visas as a live issue during the general election campaign. I do not know what happened to that ambition from Scottish Labour. It seems to me that it was totally slapped down by the bosses down here in the Home Office, who wanted absolutely nothing to do with it. We do not hear about it as much anymore, but it was a real ambition from Jackie Baillie and the Labour party to secure this provision for Scotland. We only need to look back at the last Labour Government to see what imagination can do and what effective Government can deliver. We had the Fresh Talent scheme—a fantastic scheme that gave us a competitive advantage when it came to university students.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not like having to correct the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, who is usually very diligent on these matters, but the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 is fully compliant with human rights legislation. That fact is included in the Act, as it is in practically every Act passed by the Scottish Parliament.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I commend you for the work you do. I think what you do is amazing, and I pay tribute to that. You are absolutely right to raise some of the issues about the age assessment procedures, and their almost quasi-scientific applications. You are right to reference the debate in the House of Lords, because I think it captured that quite well. Why do you think there is an increasing trend to try to label quite obvious children or teenagers as adults? We are keeping parts of NABA, so that will be a feature of the Bill. There are concerns about modern slavery and the impact on children with that. Are there any amendments that we could bring to the Bill that would help to deal with that and meet some of those concerns, so that we can get to a much better place with how we deal with children in our asylum system? Dame Rachel de Souza: Obviously, both of those issues are concerns of mine—age assessment and the modern slavery provisions not being allowed to be applied. On age assessment, it is important that we know how old children are. I have seen 14-year-olds in hostels with 25-year-olds, which is totally inappropriate. I have seen girls who say that they are not 18 be age assessed as 18 and put in adult institutions with adult men. We do not want people masquerading as children to be put in with younger children. We need to do everything we can to determine age. The technology around scientific age assessment is going to be difficult, not least because when you are dealing with an international population—as Lord Winston talked about—it is really difficult to be precise. Being precise matters. When children arrive in Kent, they get their new clothes, then if they are sick, they are put into a shipping container until they are not sick any more. They maybe then have to sleep a bit on a bench, and then they are age assessed. That age assessment is the most important thing about the rest of their journey here. If that goes wrong, that is it; if you get that wrong, they are an adult. It is a really important and tricky thing, and it is often not supported. There are things we can do—I always look for solutions. Maybe we ought to be saying, “This is obviously a child. This is obviously an adult.” But there is a group where there are questions and perhaps we should be thinking about housing people in that group and spending a bit more time to work out how old they are and try to get the evidence, rather than making these cut-and-dry decisions that will change people’s lives. As I said, I found a 14-year-old boy in Luton who was there for years with 25-year-olds and was really upset. On the modern slavery provisions, all I would say—I hope this is helpful—is that I have seen with my own eyes a 16-year-old Eritrean girl arriving at Kent with an older man who was her boyfriend. She obviously said, “It’s fine—I’m 16. We can come in.” She had lost her parents. It was obviously going to be trafficking. We need parts of the Bill to pick that up. That is real, so we need to be really careful about these things.

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

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane). He was spot on in reminding us that data has always existed in various forms throughout the centuries, whether in volumes or in little things that we can plug into a computer. The only difference now is that all that data is scraped and ingested into huge machines, which regurgitate it into some form that only they will decide. The hon. Gentleman was also spot on in reminding us about his work at Central FM, a very fine radio station. This hon. Member is always available for interviews at any time that Central FM comes a-calling. This is an alright Bill. It is good. It is quite fine. It is reasonable in its approach and intent. It is a good shot at trying to redefine our data regulation laws. It will do a good job of ensuring that our public services are more aligned and mainstream, and that access is available to all our constituents. However, it is a much better Bill because of some of the amendments made in the House of Lords. The amendments that were added at the later stages went further on child protection in online data and looked into deepfakes, which was particularly helpful, and I congratulate our colleagues down the corridor on bringing them forward. It is a much better Bill because of the amendments that were delivered by Baroness Kidron on copyright and transparency. They significantly improved the Bill to make it something worth defending and protecting. I hope that that will be the main mission as it continues to go through this House. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is unusual for me to congratulate our be-ermined unelected friends down the corridor, but this oiky Nat will doff his cap to their lords, their ladies, their barons and their earls, because they have done a good job at shaping the Bill. It is certainly a much better Bill than it was on Second Reading down the corridor. I have a few issues with the Bill. There are concerns about the security of some of this data. I am particularly worried about some of the relationships within the EU-UK partnership, and I just hope that whatever is proposed in the Bill does not drag us further away from the mainstream when it comes to the European Union. The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and I agree about most things when it comes to the creative sector, but we do not agree about the European Union and the benefits of this country leaving it. I am a passionate remainer, and I hope that at some point I will be able to take our country back into the European Union, as a proud member of the Scottish National party; my intention and ambition is that we go back into that fantastic union of nations that has done so much to enrich our culture and our lives.

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  I am one of the few Scots who are big fans of English devolution. I sort of believe that England can just about survive without the input of Scots like me. The right hon. Lady calls this reform “ambitious”, but it has all the ambition of a hesitant dormouse. Where is the grand Gordon Brown vision of a senate of the nations and regions and the abolition of the House of Lords? The only thing that seems to be going on down there is her stuffing that place full of even more Labour donors, cronies and failed MPs.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  I see the Minister nodding along. We find out about all the dynamic enterprises and cultural activity in Members’ constituencies but, more than that, we find out about our colleagues’ hidden talents. I was as surprised as anybody to hear that we have a veteran of the punk days at the Roxy, as well as singers and film writers. We have an abundance of talent in the House, so I feel a bit more confident now: I lost my colleagues in MP4 when they stood down at the last election, so I am actively recruiting, and my door is open to any aspiring musician who wants to perform in MP4. As usual in these debates, there has been a chorus of approval, support and satisfaction—as there should be—when it comes to the quality of the UK creative industries. We just do these things so well, and that quality has been ingrained in our cultural output. There is something that we do across the whole of these isles that just produces this conveyor belt of talent, imagination and creativity. We have successful creative industries because of the imagination of the people of this country. Is it not great that we can turn around and say that we could power our economy based on the creativity, invention and imagination of the people who inhabit these isles? But we need more than that to be successful. These things are mostly down to the creativity of the people who work in our creative industries, but we also need the right conditions: we need to provide the context and the environment for these creative industries to survive, develop and thrive. For the last 60 years, we have been quite good at doing that. We have intervened when necessary. We have had conversations and debates about investment, what sort of support should go into the creative industries and whether we get the balance right. Of course, there have been political debates about Budgets and national insurance contributions, but we have basically had the right conditions for art and creativity, and the industry that comes with them, to develop and thrive. We have those things because we have an IP system embedded in UK law that is the envy of the world. It is the bedrock of our creative industries and the foundation of our success. Part of that is our wonderful copyright regime, which, again, is the envy of the world. It makes sure that artists are properly compensated for the wonderful works they produce, and ensures that they get recognised for the works they deliver. We tamper with all of that at our peril. We have been here before. Back in the 2010s, when copyright exceptions were quite the fashion, the threat to so many of our creative industries was not from AI companies; it was from the internet service providers, the pirates and digitisation. Isn’t it funny that it is always the creative industries that are on the frontline when there are technical innovations? It is always the creative industries that seem to have to suffer because of what we are trying to achieve through technological innovation. Looking around the Chamber, I think that only the Minister and the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) are veterans of the Digital Economy Act 2017. That was probably the high point of the interest in copyright exceptions. Then, of course, the general philosophical debate was all around an unfettered internet that was to be free at the point of use for everybody. There was this absurd business model that we could somehow have all this high-quality content, and we would not have to pay for any of it. Of course, that was quickly knocked on its head, but we have its legacy with the arrival of the huge tech platforms, with tech brothers getting together and developing their own companies. We have massive tech companies that provide nothing other than platforms and that create very little of the content, and they are growing rich and fat off the creativity and invention of the people who actually provide that content—the artists and musicians themselves. The value gap between the musician, or the artist, and these big platforms and companies is something that we will have to address. However, I do not think that we have ever had such a threat as generative AI; that is what we are looking at now. It says in my notes that I should have a go at the Minister now for having already made up his mind, but I am actually a bit reassured by what he said, and I think all of us should be encouraged. I really did think that the Government had made up their mind; I thought that they were going to go down the opt-out route without qualification. All the things they have said up to this point certainly seemed to confirm that, and the Minister’s grumpy tone during the statement on these issues did not help matters much, particularly when he had a go at the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It is good to have that reassurance, but what we now have to do—I am looking at colleagues who have contributed to the debate and expressed their concerns—is encourage the Minister gently, through persuasion. He knows the view of the industry and the sector, and I think he knows that it is overwhelmingly negative. He will not be able to find anybody in any creative sector who is telling him that what he proposes with the opt-out will work or is good for the creative industries or even for AI. We have heard from several colleagues about this idea of a model breakdown, where AI starts to feed on itself. That is what we can expect, and I think the analogy with “Blade Runner” was fantastic. That is exactly where we will be going if we allow unfettered AI development to continue along the same lines. We have reached a really interesting point tonight. I think the Government are probably going to reconsider their position. They are going to take on board what Members have said—

• 13 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. Last week, the Scottish Parliament passed a motion calling for action on immigration to address the needs of Scotland’s employers, communities and public services, with a particular reference to rural visa pilots. As the Secretary of State knows, every sector in Scotland is crying out for Scottish solutions to distinct Scottish issues and problems. What is her response to that democratically passed motion other than not being interested?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I am a bit familiar with the hon. Gentleman’s electoral history—he was out of Parliament for quite a long time. It is good to see him back in his place, obviously, but he was booted out, which was basically down to his lack of interest, concern or care about what was happening in the rural community. If I were NFU England, I would be sure to put that in front of the Members of Parliament who represent rural constituencies in England. I have a couple of bits of advice for some of the UK farmers and their representatives. First of all, Jeremy Clarkson is not their friend. He represents the part of the rural community that is so far away from the real struggle that farmers face that he may as well be in an urban Labour constituency. Secondly, farmers must be very careful of what the Conservative party is offering. Let us remember that the Conservative party oversaw the cost of living crisis, the ending of thousands of farms, and who—to come to the point made by hon. Members—brought in the absurd and economically illiterate Brexit. The Tory hard Brexit increased farming costs, introduced unnecessary barriers to markets, allowed lower-quality competitors in the marketplace and has taken billions of pounds out of the rural economy. How the Tories were able to sell this chaotic Brexit pup to so many rural communities will go down as one of the worse pieces of mis-selling in British farming. There is a different way to do it. In Scotland, we do things differently. We are making sure that there will be a constant farm payment to farmers in Scotland. We have also put food production at the very heart of our farming policy. Today, in the Scottish Budget, as well as introducing a winter fuel payment, we will abolish the two-child benefit cap. On top of that, £660 million will be going to farmers. All the money that was kept for Government emergencies in the past few Budgets will be returned in full. That is how the Government can support farmers. It would be good to see this Labour Government doing a bit of that in the future.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  One word that the right hon. Lady has not mentioned is Brexit—the great Tory disaster of the last Parliament. How much does she estimate that Brexit cost farmers and the rural community?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support the many farmers in my constituency and the rural communities that farmers are the very heart of. I want to do something a little different in this debate and try to figure out what is behind some of the moves that the Labour party has put in place when it comes to farming. [Hon. Members: “What about Brexit?”] Believe me, I am coming to that, but I want to try to understand a little bit about the Government’s motives. What I think it comes down to is a clumsy attempt to try to define what working people are. It is clear that farmers do not fit that bill. Even though they work 12-hour days in backbreaking conditions, mainly outdoors, right into older age, they just do not seem to fit into that particular clique. Labour has always had an urban-centric view of our country. Everything it does in politics is viewed mainly through a metropolitan lens. Farmers have never really had a chance with this Labour Government. It should come as no surprise—I know why Labour Members shouted down the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—that someone as thoroughly unpleasant and John McTernan, Tony Blair’s former aide, would say something like farmers should receive the same as what Margaret Thatcher dished out to the miners. I think his view that we could do without our farming industry has just a little currency in the Labour party. Labour Members would do well to be honest about these things. For our comrades on the Government Benches, farmers are simply not “one of us”. The last time we had a whole cohort of Labour Members on the Government Benches, we would mercilessly tease them that there were “nae ferms in Scottish Labour.” Two things about that quite unjust slight: first, they did not respond—they did not seem to care, it was a matter of “Whatevs”; and secondly, it was patently untrue. There were lots of farms in Scottish Labour, and there are with the cohort down here. A great number of Scottish Labour MPs represent rural and farming constituencies. But the point remains the same: they just do not care about what happens to farmers. I think the general view is that Labour MPs do not rely on a rural farming vote—they could just about muddle through their elections without the support of the rural community. They see farming as just another business that they might find in one of their town or city centres. They understand nothing about how it is possible to be asset rich and resource poor, land values and the intimate nature of family farms, which are dependent on fixed assets to generate business and activity. The simple fact is that this Government do not understand the rural community, or how the generational continuity of farms works. And now, loads of new Labour MPs represent rural constituencies in England. Rural Labour Members of Parliament do not tend to last all that long—they may be in for one term, or possible two terms at most. That is generally because they are forced to accept and subsume the agenda put forward by their Government. My bit of advice to them is to start thinking about the farmers and their communities, start to think about their own electoral arithmetic and try to be on the side of farmers for a change.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q4. Today is the Scottish Budget, which contains provisions to reinstate the winter fuel payment for all Scottish pensioners—something that the Prime Minister famously took away from nearly all UK pensioners, supported by Scottish Labour Members of Parliament. But apparently Scottish Labour is now in favour of the winter fuel payment, so what is his advice to Labour MSPs? Is it to vote for the Budget, to ensure that Scottish pensioners get that single fuel payment, or is to stick with his view and vote that Budget down?