Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Automotive Manufacturing: Employment

   What I regret is the ZEV mandate, which is why I voted against it at the time. It puts shackles around our automotive industry, and it needs to be revisited so that our automotive sector has the freedom to get on, innovate and provide future solutions that consumers might actually want to buy. Even with the electric obsession, the promised gigafactory developments remain stalled or mired in uncertainty, commercial investment incentives have been vague at best and crucial supply chain support has failed to materialise in any meaningful way. Labour also pledged to spend on a national training programme to reskill workers for the green transition, yet we still await details of how, when and, crucially, where that will be delivered. The skills gap in the automotive industry is widening by the day. Thousands of jobs are at risk, not because there is no demand for people to work in that sector, but because we do not have a pipeline of trained, job-ready individuals. The industry has been crying out for a co-ordinated national effort to address this, and what it has received instead is a patchwork of pilot schemes and a lot of ministerial hot air. Contrast that with the pragmatic and targeted steps taken by the last Government, which launched the Advanced Propulsion Centre and the Faraday battery challenge—programmes that secured investment in cutting-edge technologies and laid the groundwork for the electric vehicle sector in particular. To attract global investment, we need to back British innovation and give investors confidence in our long-term industrial strategy. In government, the Conservatives also took real action to support jobs: the automotive transformation fund, which was backed by Conservative Ministers, delivered vital support to manufacturers, and let us not forget the commitment made to freeports, which are already starting to attract inward investment and create highly skilled jobs, including in areas directly linked to automotive logistics and component manufacture. Now, under Labour, we see dithering where there should be decision making. The industry does not need more consultations; it needs action. Businesses are ready to invest—yes, in electric, but also in synthetics and hydrogen. However, they need the certainty that they can get on and do that. They need clarity on planning reform, energy prices, trade policy and the Government’s commitment to industrial growth. The Government must address the ever-growing training deficit. They must launch a comprehensive industry-led training strategy that spans apprenticeships, technical colleges and adult reskilling programmes. It must be tailored to the needs of automotive employers, not devised in isolation by Whitehall, where the Government pick the winners and losers at odds with what consumers want to buy. The Government must do more to attract foreign direct investment into the automotive sector. That means tax incentives that are actually internationally competitive, a planning system that works at pace and a stable regulatory environment. Labour’s flirtation with regulatory overreach is already spooking the investors. The Government must ensure that the UK’s de-fossilisation transition is an opportunity for jobs and growth, not a burden on industry. I repeat: that means genuine technologically-neutral support, embracing other technologies beyond battery electric, such as synthetic fuels and hydrogen, as well as putting realistic deadlines around any transition. The automotive manufacturing sector is not asking for handouts; it is asking for clarity and leadership. The last Conservative Government took steps in that direction. Labour, in contrast, have offered slogans over substance, and pledges over performance. We cannot allow this Government’s inaction to cost Britain its place at the forefront of the global automotive industry. The time to act is now.

   Hansard source
2. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

   United States Film Tariff

   The film industry is enormously important to the Buckinghamshire economy. Pinewood Studios is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), but many of my constituents are supported in jobs not just at the studios themselves, but in the many supply-chain businesses that feed into them. Pinewood goes over and above most other businesses I know in providing opportunities for young people through its Futures Festival, which showcases every single career that can be had in the film industry. Much of that success is actually achieved on American money, because companies such as Disney and Amazon use Pinewood out of choice. Therefore, on top of what the Minister has said about working with the Trump Administration to try to avoid these tariffs, can he assure us that he is working with companies such as Disney and Amazon to ensure that those American brands are speaking up to say why they are choosing Pinewood and other UK studios?

   Hansard source
3. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Gareth Davies

   Draft Finance Act 2021 (Increase in Schedule 26 Penalty Percentages) Regulations 2025

   It is a great pleasure to be here, Mrs Harris. This is a relatively straightforward instrument, and I am grateful to the Minister for setting out its detail. Tackling the tax gap is critical, and I am pleased that, between 2010 and 2024—just to pick two years at random —the tax gap reduced from 6.2% to 4.8%. It is vital that we go further and do everything that we can to reduce that tax gap. The Finance Act 2021 introduced a new penalty regime for late submissions of returns and for late payment of tax. By revising minor parts of that Act, these regulations impose harsher penalties on the amount of tax outstanding for those paying VAT and those paying under Making Tax Digital for income tax self-assessment. As I said, we will not oppose the measure, but I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, what efforts is he making to improve HMRC customer services to help support taxpayers who are just seeking to do the right thing? Secondly, what communications will accompany the changes to further encourage compliance and bring down the tax gap even further, which is what we all want?

   Hansard source
4. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

   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?

   Hansard source
5. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

   I thank the Minister for making that statement at the Dispatch Box. As he knows, we need to have that formally, in writing, as a statement from the Government to make it absolutely clear, given that the consultation has muddied the waters.

   Hansard source
6. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

   I would therefore be grateful if the Minister said why there remains uncertainty among creatives about the application of copyright in this area. Is that not why we need to move this forward? I now turn to Government amendment 34 and others. I congratulate my noble Friend Baroness Owen on the tremendous work she has done in ensuring that clauses criminalising the creation of and request for sexually explicit deepfake images have made it into the Bill. I also thank the Government for the constructive approach they are now taking in this area.

   Hansard source
7. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

   I thank the Minister for his clarification and reiteration of that point, and again for his work with colleagues to take forward the issue, on which I think we are in unison across the House. New clause 21 is on directions to public authorities on recording of sex data. One does not need to be a doctor to know that data accuracy is critical, particularly when it comes to health, research or the provision of tailored services based on protected characteristics such as sex or age. The accuracy of data must be at the heart of this Bill, and nowhere has this been more high-profile or important than in the debate over the collection and use of sex and gender data. I thank the charity Sex Matters and the noble Lords Arbuthnot and Lucas for the work they have done to highlight the need for accurate data and its relevance for the digital verification system proposed in the Bill.

   Hansard source
8. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

   I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I will shortly come on to the impact on all people of the decision of the Supreme Court. Our new clause’s focus and scope are simple. The Supreme Court ruling made it clear that public bodies must collect data on biological sex to comply with their duties under the Equality Act. The new clause ensures that this data is recorded and used correctly in accordance with the law. This is about data accuracy, not ideology. New clause 21 is based in part on the work of Professor Alice Sullivan, who conducted a very important review, with deeply concerning findings on inaccurate data collection and the conflation of gender identity with biological sex data. She found people missed off health screening, risks to research integrity, inaccurate policing records and management through the criminal justice system, and many other concerns. These concerns present risks to everyone, irrespective of biological sex, gender identity or acquired gender. Trans people, like everyone else, need health screening based on their biological sex. Trans people need protecting from sexual predators, too, and they have the right to dignity and respect. The Sullivan report shows beyond doubt that the concerns of the last Government and the current Leader of the Opposition were entirely justified. The Government have had Professor Sullivan’s report since September last year, but the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has still not made a formal statement about it or addressed the concerns raised, which is even more surprising given its relevance to this Bill. The correction of public authority data on sex is necessary and urgent, but it is made even more critical by the implementation of the digital verification services in the Bill.

   Hansard source
9. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

   I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and for all the work that she and colleagues on both sides of the House are doing in this area. I hope that the findings of the Sullivan report are implemented as soon as possible, and part of that implementation would be made possible if Members across the House supported our new clause. For the digital verification services to be brought in, it is important that the data used to inform them is accurate and correct. Digital verification could be used to access single-sex services, so it needs to be correct, and if sex and gender data are conflated, as we know they are in many datasets, a failure to act will bring in self-ID by the back door. To be clear, that has never been the legal position in the UK, and it would conflict with the ruling of the Supreme Court. Our new clause 21 is simple and straightforward. It is about the accurate collection and use of sex data, and rules to ensure that data is of the right standard when used in digital verification services so that single-sex services are not undermined. New clause 19 is on the Secretary of State’s duty to review the age of consent for data processing under the UK GDPR. What can or should children be permitted to consent to when using or signing up to online platforms and social media? How do we ensure children are protected, and how do we prevent harms from the use of inappropriate social media itself, separate from the content provided? How do we help our children in a world where social media can import the school, the playground, the changing room, the influencer, the stranger, the groomer, the radical and the hostile state actor all into the family home? Our children are the first generation growing up in the digital world, and they are exposed to information and weaponised algorithms on a scale that simply did not exist for their parents. In government, we took measures to improve protections and regulate harmful content online, and I am delighted to see those measures now coming into force. However, there is increasing evidence that exposure to inappropriate social media platforms is causing harm, and children as young as 13 may not be able to regulate and process this exposure to such sites in a safe and proportionate way. I am sure every Member across the House will have been contacted by parents concerned about the impact of social media on their children, and we recognise that this is a challenging area to regulate. How do we define and target risky and inappropriate social media platforms, and ensure that education and health tech—or, indeed, closed direct messaging services—do not fall within scope? How effective are our provisions already, and can age verification be made to work for under-16s? What ids are available to use? What will the impact of the Online Safety Act 2023 be now that it is coming into force? What are the lessons from its implementation, and where does it need strengthening? Finally, how do we support parents and teachers in educating and guiding children so they are prepared to enter the digital world at whatever age they choose and are able to do so? The Government must take action to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place for our children, not through outright bans or blanket restrictions but with an evidence-based approach that takes into account the recent legal changes and need for effective enforcement, including age verification for under-16s. Too often in this place we focus on making more things illegal rather than on the reasons for lack of enforcement in the first place. There is no point in immediate restrictions if they cannot be implemented.

   Hansard source
10. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    There are a few issues with new clause 1. One is the scope in terms of the definition of networking services and ensuring platforms such as WhatsApp are not captured within it. Looking at new clause 19, there are challenges to implementing in this area. There is no point in clicking our fingers and saying, “Let’s change the age of digital consent,” without understanding the barriers to implementation, and without understanding whether age verification can work in this context. We do not want to create a system and have people just get around it quite simply. We need the Government to do the work in terms of setting it up so that we can move towards a position of raising the age from 13 to 16.

    Hansard source
11. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I have been very clear on this, and it is important in such a complex area to look at the detail and nuance of the challenges around—(Interruption.) Well, it is very easy to create a new clause where we click our fingers and say, “Let’s make this more illegal; let’s bring in x, y or z restriction.” As a responsible Opposition, we are looking at the detail and complexities around implementing something like this. [Interruption.] I have been asked a few questions and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) might want to listen to the rationale of our approach. One question is how to define social media. Direct messaging services such as WhatsApp and platforms such as YouTube fall in the scope of social media. There are obviously social media platforms that I think all of us are particularly concerned about, including Snapchat and TikTok, but by changing the age of digital consent we do not want to end up capturing lower-risk social media platforms that we recognise are clearly necessary or beneficial, such as education technology or health technology platforms. And that is before we start looking at whether age verification can work, particularly in the 13-to-16 age group.

    Hansard source
12. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    rose—

    Hansard source
13. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I think that was wishful thinking by the Minister in this debate. Our new clause says that we need to look at the desirability of raising the digital age of consent for data processing from 13 to 16 in terms of its impact particularly on issues such as the social and educational development of children, but also the viability of doing so in terms of the fallout and the shaking out of the Online Safety Act and with regard to age verification services. Should there then be no evidence to demonstrate that it is unnecessary, we would then raise the digital age of consent to 13 to 16. It might be the case that, over the next six months, the shaking out of the Online Safety Act demonstrates that this intervention is not necessary. Perhaps concerns around particular high-risk social media platforms will change as technology evolves. We are saying that the Government should do the work with a view to raising the age in 18 months unless there is evidence to prove the contrary. [Interruption.] I have made this crystal clear, and if the Minister would choose to look at the new clause, rather than chuckling away in the corner, he might see the strategy we are proposing.

    Hansard source
14. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    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.

    Hansard source
15. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    It has been a pleasure to hear the speeches of Members from across the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who spoke with passion about the protection of copyright in AI. I suspect that my right hon. Friend is looking forward to seeing the back of the Bill, and hoping that it does not return in a future iteration. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke of the importance of ensuring that data does not fall victim to hostile states and hostile state actors. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke with knowledge and authority about this important issue, and the challenges and practicalities involved in ensuring that we get it right for our children. I will return to the three themes that we have put forward. The Minister has repeatedly given assurances on the application of copyright with regard to AI training, but the Secretary of State created uncertainty by saying in the AI copyright consultation: “At present, the application of UK copyright law to the training of AI models is disputed.” When we create that level of uncertainty, we need at least an equal level of clarity to make amends, and that is partly what our new clause 20 calls for: among other things, a formal statement from the Intellectual Property Office or otherwise. I do not see why it is a challenge for the Government to put that forward and deliver.

    Hansard source
16. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    That is good to hear.

    Hansard source
17. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    For the fourth time, and as I have said, new clause 19 would effectively create a de facto position whereby there are restrictions on the use of inappropriate social media services by children. It seeks to tackle the challenges of implementation, age verification and the scope of social media. It says that there needs to be work to make sure that we can actually do so and that, when we can, we should move in that direction, unless there is overwhelming evidence that it is not needed, such as with the shaking out of the Online Safety Act. Finally, I return to new clause 21. Sadly, it has been widely misrepresented. The laws in this area are clear: the Equality Act puts in place obligations in relation to protected characteristics. The Supreme Court says that “sex” means biological sex, and that public authorities must collect data on protected characteristics to meet their duties under the Equality Act. The new clause would put that clear legal obligation into effect, and build in data minimisation principles to preserve privacy. There would be no outing of trans people through the new clause, but where public authorities collect and use sex data, it would need to be biological sex data.

    Hansard source
18. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    United States Film Tariff

    On Sunday, the President of the United States said: “WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!” Does the Minister agree that the key to making great movies is to ensure artistic freedom and expression and to grow the necessary skills? With that in mind, would he visit Tech Trowbridge in my constituency, which is doing a good job in upskilling young people in multimedia?

    Hansard source
19. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    India-Pakistan: Escalation

    Does the Minister agree that whether it is the Nile, the Indus or anywhere else, weaponising water is wrong and particularly affects the world’s poorest? Does he share my disappointment at the suspension of the 1960 Indus water treaty? Does he further share my concern that were India tempted to exploit that suspension, China might decide to interfere with the headwaters of the Brahmaputra?

    Hansard source
20. 7 May 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Havering Borough and Essex Devolution

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about a subject that is close to my constituents’ hearts as well. Does he agree that other Government institutions should follow the lead of Mr Speaker in flying, for example, the Middlesex flag on Middlesex Day to celebrate the heritage of my constituents, and that the heritage of Essex should be celebrated in a similar way? Will he also join me in encouraging the Prime Minister—or No. 10 Downing Street—to follow the example of his predecessor in flying both the Middlesex flag on Middlesex Day and the flags of the other historic counties on their relevant days in the coming months?

    Hansard source
21. 7 May 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    Before the hon. Lady moves on from Palantir, I think the House should know that it is an organisation with its origins in the American security state—the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency—and I cannot understand for the life of me why we are willing to commit the data of our citizens to an organisation like that.

    Hansard source
22. 7 May 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I am emphatically on the hon. Lady’s side in her intent to protect British creativity, but how does she respond to the implicit threat from artificial intelligence providers to this and other elements of the Bill to effectively deny AI to the UK if they find the regulations too difficult to deal with?

    Hansard source
23. 7 May 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    On this issue of Luddites, surely one of the problems for English language creators is that what they create is of more value because of the reach of the English language over others. Therefore, they are more likely to have their product scraped and have more damage done to them.

    Hansard source
24. 7 May 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    My right hon. Friend makes a formidably important point. The amendment highlights one of the extraordinary weaknesses of the Bill, which is that it in effect reverses GDPR on a large number of citizen protections. To reiterate the point he gently made, that enormous fine will not stop TikTok, because it operates under legal compulsion. Even though it paid £450 million, it will continue to commit the criminal offence for which it has just been convicted.

    Hansard source
25. 7 May 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and some very perceptive points. I remind him that previous attempts by the NHS to create a single data standard have all failed, because the GPs did not believe that the security levels were sufficient. It is not just the Information Commissioner; the GPs refused to co-operate, which highlights the powerful point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

    Hansard source
26. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People

    Thank you very much indeed, Dr Allin-Khan, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to participate. I acknowledge the powerful speeches made by all Members this afternoon and my deep respect for the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Nobody speaks with greater sincerity and authority on behalf of people who are marginalised and disadvantaged in our society. I pay tribute to her, to her work and to her contribution today. I want to say a quick word about the history, as mention has been made of the Conservatives’ time in office. I acknowledge that genuine mistakes were made in the design of the welfare system that we have now. The system is clearly not perfect, but it was very much not perfect before: in 2010 the system was extremely complex, with high rates of benefit dependency. The introduction of universal credit and PIP helped to rationalise and bring greater order to the system, and to reward work rather than welfare. Significant improvements were made in that regard, including improvements in the number of disabled people who were able to work and were supported in work. In the last year of our time in government, 300,000 more disabled people were in work than in the year before. There was genuine improvement. Nevertheless, not enough support was given to many welfare recipients; that was the consequence of our fiscal inheritance in 2010 but also of choices made by the coalition Government, which fell particularly hard on local authorities and the DWP. I acknowledge that point, which is often made by hon. Members. Then something else happened, particularly around 2017 or 2018 and even more so after covid. We saw a significant rise in the number of people in receipt of health and disability benefits, including in the higher categories of the universal credit health element. People were stuck on benefits, in many cases indefinitely and forever. What explains the imperative for reform, which the Government are responding to, is that the number of people on the higher rate of UC has increased by a third over the past five years. The PIP budget is growing by 50% in this Parliament alone. The fact is that the benefit bill is unsustainable. However, it is also true that the system can be inhumane and ungenerous. We have a paradox: a system that is bloated and unsustainable overall, leading to the large budgets we are facing, yet on the frontline, in people’s actual experience, the system is starved in terms of the consequence of the inadequacy of benefits for many people. This is a huge opportunity and an imperative for reform—genuine reform, not just the soundbite. I notice that we do not have any Reform MPs in Westminster Hall for this debate. We genuinely need real reform. In 2024, the Government I supported had plans to bring in further reforms to the benefit system; we did not have the opportunity to introduce those reforms, thanks to the public. Labour was elected with a huge majority that includes many Members here. To my regret and surprise, after 14 years of complaints about Government welfare reforms, the Labour party entered Government apparently without any plans to change the system. We have spent eight months waiting for reforms to be introduced, only to get what we have now: a crude and cruel set of cuts, without any reform to the system at all. It is purely in response to what the Chancellor has done to the British economy—induced a fiscal crisis and caused the Treasury to demand of the DWP that swingeing cuts be made to the welfare budget, without any opportunity to reform the system or to reduce demand for welfare. That is, of course, what we should be doing if we want to bring down the bills. There are also, of course, tax increases, including on employers, making it much harder for people to move from welfare into work, which I will not discuss today, and the removal of vital support from pensioners through the winter fuel payment cut.

    Hansard source
27. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People

    The hon. Gentleman will be gratified to know that we are not in government, so it is not for us to come forward with precise plans. At the end of the previous Parliament, we had a manifesto commitment to reduce benefit spending and reform disability benefits and UC. We are now in a position of policy formulation, so I am afraid I am not able to tell him exactly what we would do. My role is to challenge the Government on why they have taken so long to come forward with an absence of meaningful reform plans. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I want to see benefit spending reduced. I think we spend too much on welfare in this country, but that is because we have social breakdown and poverty. The answer to that is not simply to cut benefits without reforming the system, but to reduce the drivers of poverty. I recognise many of the problems with PIP, and I understand the imperative for change. Members have powerfully made the case that the system is currently inadequate, particularly for people with fluctuating conditions. We have heard powerful testimony about that in the Work and Pensions Committee—the Chairman and many other members are here. In fact, just this morning we heard powerful evidence from people talking about mental health. People who have a set of very complex, interconnected needs might not reach four points on any one measure, so could lose PIP under the Government’s proposal. I have read evidence from the MS Society that makes the same point: 48% of PIP recipients with MS do not reach four points in any one of the measures, so would be at risk. I am very concerned on behalf of those individuals. I am also concerned that we do not even know how many such people there are. Members made the point that it took a freedom of information request to get the figure of 1.3 million out of the Government. That is not the figure that was officially released. As the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) said, we are also unclear about the effect on passported benefits, which is a significant question for the Government to answer. Most of all, we do not know what the Government’s announced assessment review will come forward with, yet we are making the cuts before we understand how the method of assessing eligibility will be reformed. I implore the Minister to pause the measures set out in the Green Paper. We need a proper review not just of the assessment but of the way the whole system works. We absolutely need to bring down the benefits bill, but we do that by reducing demand for welfare, and many of the levers for that are of course outside the DWP. Nevertheless, we should redesign the system itself because of the many problems I have identified. As Members said, we should do that with claimants, not to them. People voted for change in 2024, but they are not getting it. The Prime Minister promises more of the same—to go “further and faster” on the course he is already on. I deeply regret what he is doing. I have very great respect for the Minister. Few people have spoken in Parliament with greater authority, conviction and expertise on the subject of welfare in recent times. I have great sympathy with him for having to defend this policy position, which I do not think he would have defended in opposition. I echo the points made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and the right hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. They said that Labour should be better than this, and I agree: we should all be better than this. My party will stand with Members who oppose the changes.

    Hansard source
28. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    Our nominal minimum age for social media usage in this country comes from a well-meaning piece of American legislation originally passed in 1998. The age did not have to be 13. Back in 1998 it was going to be 16, but it was changed to 13. With the birth of GDPR, the age did not have to be 13: the default was 16. Various countries, including Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland, selected 16, but we selected 13. That means that at the age of 13 people can sign up to social media, have their behaviour tracked for the purpose of targeting content and ads, start their own channel, have multiple IDs and make decisions about what details of their private life they share. Many people believe that, because of brain development, 13 is too young to make some of those decisions reliably, and that there are real downsides, risks and dangers from the combination of social media and the ready availability of a handheld electronic device. For children, there are addictive features, an effect on sleep, an ease of making unwanted content, rabbit holes to fall down and corrosive content that plays on the insecurity of adolescence. Objections to raising the age to 16 are normally centred around worries that pro-social applications will be hit and that there will be unintended consequences, such as children not being able to seek help if they in an abusive family, or to find information about contraception or whatever else they may need to know. Indeed, those were some of the reasons why, back in 1998, the age of 16 became 13, and those reasons came up again here in the debates over GDPR. As such, I worded new clause 12 to demonstrate how we could do it without losing anything, by having very broad categories of exemption. However, even with those exemptions, the Government would still be able to say—I am sure they will, and will say some of the same things about new clause 1 shortly—that new clause 12 is technically inadequate, worded badly and contains the wrong exemptions, and that there would be unintended consequences. New clause 19, though, which was tabled by the official Opposition, is almost impossible to argue against, because it contains the default position that these exemptions will change; under its provision, those changes would be subject to review, which would ensure that all those considerations were taken into account.

    Hansard source
29. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    The hon. Gentleman tempts me to broaden the debate, which I do not think you would encourage me to do at this late stage, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, he makes a very important point about self-regulation in this sector. The public, parents, and indeed children look to us to make sure we have their best interests at heart. The Online Safety Act may only say that age minima should be enforced “consistently” rather than well, but I do not think the will of this Parliament was that it would be okay to enforce a minimum age limit consistently badly. What we meant was that if the law says right now that the age minimum is 13, or if it is 16 in the future—or whatever other age it might be—companies should take reasonable steps to enforce it. There is more checking than there used to be, but it is still very limited. The recent 5Rights report on Instagram’s teen accounts said that all its avatars were able to get into social media with only self-reported birth dates and no additional checks. That means that many thousands of children under the nominal age of 13 are on social media, and that there are many more thousands who are just over 13 but who the platform thinks are 15, 16 or 17, or perhaps 18 or 19. That, of course, affects the content that is served to them. Either Ofcom or the ICO could tighten up the rules on the minimum age, but amendment 9 would require that to happen in order for companies to be compliant with the ICO regulation. The technology does exist, although it is harder to implement at the age 13 than at 18—of course, the recent Ofcom changes are all about those under the age of 18—but it is possible, and that technology will develop further. Ultimately, this is about backing parents who have a balance to strike: they want to make sure that their children are fully part of their friendship groups and can access all those opportunities, but also want to protect them from harm. Parents have a reasonable expectation that their children will be protected from wholly inappropriate content.

    Hansard source
30. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
31. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    Very quickly, I want the Minister to confirm that the Ofcom children’s codes, to which he has referred, are all about the 18 age threshold. They are a very welcome move to filter out wholly inappropriate content that is designed for over-18s and other very harmful content, but they do not do anything for the initial threshold—the age minimum—at age 13.

    Hansard source
32. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    United States Film Tariff

    There is no doubt that this speculation will cause huge worry to those working in British film production, but, as the Minister says, it highlights once again the importance of bolstering the British screen sector. We recommended steps to deliver that in a recent Select Committee report, yet within days of publishing it, his Department had already asked for an extension to the time in which it would respond. This weekend we heard rumours that the whole Department is up for the chop under his Government—I am not sure if that is before or after he has sacrificed our creative industries on the altar of AI. The Minister is a brilliant communicator, and I know that deep in his heart he cares passionately about this issue, but when will he show some grit and action on behalf of our world-leading creative industries, in particular our screen sector?

    Hansard source
33. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I rise to support new clauses 2 to 5 in the name of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins); to pay tribute to Baroness Kidron, who has driven forward these amendments in the other place; and to speak in favour of new clause 20 in the name of the official Opposition. I am beginning to sound a bit like a broken record on this matter, but our creative industries are such a phenomenal UK success story. They are our economic superpower and are worth more than automotive, aerospace and life sciences added together, comprising almost 10% of UK registered businesses and creating nearly 2.5 million jobs. More than that, our creative industries have so much intrinsic value; they underpin our culture and our sense of community. Intellectual property showcases our nation around the world and supports our tourism sector. As a form of soft power, there is simply nothing like it—yet these social and economic benefits are all being put at risk by the suggested wholesale transfer of copyright to AI companies. The choice presented to us always seems, wittingly or unwittingly, to pit our innovative AI sector against our world-class creative industries and, indeed, our media sector. It is worth noting that news media is often overlooked in these debates, but newspapers, magazines and news websites license print and content online. In turn, that helps to support high-quality and independent journalism, which is so vital to underpinning our democratic life. That is essential considering recent news that the global average press freedom score has fallen to an all-time low. I want to push back against the false choice that we always seem to be presented with that, somehow, our creative industries are Luddites and are not in favour of AI. I have seen time and again how our creators have been characterised by big tech and its lobbyists as somehow resistant to technological progress, which is of course nonsensical.

    Hansard source
34. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I thank the Minister for that reassurance. I did take part in a Westminster Hall debate on this matter a couple of weeks ago, but one of his colleagues was responding. I made the same point then. Quite often in the media or more generally, AI seems to be pitted against our creative industries, which should not be the case, because we know that our creative industries embrace technology virtually more than any other sector. They want to use AI responsibly. They do not want to be replaced by it. The question before us is how lawmakers can ensure that AI is used ethically without this large-scale theft of IP. We are today discussing amendments that go somewhere towards providing an answer to that question.

    Hansard source
35. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    My right hon. Friend makes a very good observation, but the fact is that so much content has already been scraped. Crawlers are all over the intellectual property of so many of our creators, writers and publishers—so much so that we are almost in a position where we are shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. Nevertheless, we need to do what we can legislatively to get to a better place on this issue. New clause 2 would simply require anyone operating web crawlers for training and developing AI models to comply with copyright law. It is self-evident and incontrovertible that AI developers looking to deploy their systems in the UK should comply with UK law, but they often claim that copyright is not very clear. I would argue that it is perfectly clear; it is just that sometimes they do not like it. It is a failure to abide by the law that is creating lawsuits around the world. The new clause would require all those marketing their AI models in the UK to abide by our gold-standard copyright regime, which is the basis that underpins our thriving creative industries. New clause 3 would require web crawler operations and AI developers to disclose the who, what, why, and when crawlers are being used. It also requires them to use different crawlers for different purposes and to ensure that rights holders are not punished for blocking them. A joint hearing of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee heard how publishers are being targeted by thousands of web crawlers with the intention of scraping content to sell to AI developers. We heard that many, if not most, web crawlers are not abiding by current opt-out protocols—robots.txt, for example. To put it another way, some developers of large language models are buying data scraped by third-party tech companies, in contravention of robots.txt protocols, to evade accusations of foul play. All this does is undermine existing licensing and divert revenues that should be returning to our creative industries and news media sector. New clause 3 would provide transparency over who is scraping copyrighted works and give creators the ability to assert and enforce their rights. New clause 4 would require AI developers to be transparent about what data is going into their AI models. Transparency is fundamental to this debate. It is what we should all be focusing on. We are already behind the drag curve on this. California has introduced transparency requirements, and no one can say that the developers are fleeing silicon valley just yet. New clause 20, tabled by the official Opposition, also addresses transparency. It would protect the AI sector from legal action by enabling both sides to come to the table and get a fair deal. A core part of this new clause is the requirement on the Secretary of State to commit to a plan to help support creators where their copyright has been used in AI by requiring a degree of transparency. New clause 5 would provide the means by which we could enforce the rules. It would give the Information Commissioner the power to investigate, assess and sanction bad actors. It would also entitle rights holders to recover damages for any losses suffered, and to injunctive relief. Part of the reason why rights holders are so concerned is that the vast majority of creators do not have deep enough pockets to take on AI developers. How can they take on billion-dollar big tech companies when those companies have the best lawyers that money can buy, who can bog cases down in legislation and red tape? Rights holders need a way of enforcing their rights that is accessible, practical and fair. The Government’s AI and copyright consultation says that it wants to ensure “a clear legal basis for AI training with copyright material”. That is what the new clauses that I have spoken to would deliver. Together they refute the tech sector’s claims of legal uncertainty, while providing transparency and enforcement capabilities for creators. Ultimately, transparency is the main barrier to greater collaboration between AI developers and creators. Notwithstanding some of the unambitious Government amendments, the Opposition’s amendments would provide the long-overdue redress to protect our creative industries by requiring transparency and a widening of the scope of those who are subject to copyright laws. The amendments would protect our professional creators and journalists, preserve the pipeline of young people looking to make a career in these sectors themselves, and cement the UK as a genuine creative industries superpower, maintaining our advantage in the field of monetising intellectual property. One day we may make a commercial advantage out of the fact that we are the place where companies can set up ethical AI companies—we could be the envy of the world.

    Hansard source
36. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

    Hansard source
37. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
38. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Havering Borough and Essex Devolution

    Order. I think the hon. Gentleman means the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton.

    Hansard source
39. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Grooming Gangs

    4. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help protect girls from sex-based violence by grooming gangs.

    Hansard source
40. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Grooming Gangs

    In previous Parliaments, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee held inquiries on Rochdale, Rotherham and other towns where sex grooming was taking place. We now know that this is a nationwide problem. We heard from Baroness Casey—then Dame Louise Casey—that there was a problem with Pakistani men and their culture, and that the victims were predominantly white girls in council care. We have evidence that council staff, councillors, social workers and possibly the police have been complicit, or have at least turned a blind eye to the issue, so local inquiries will not be good enough. Will the Minister call for a national, judge-led inquiry, in which witnesses are required to give evidence under oath, so that those who turned a blind eye can be brought to justice?

    Hansard source