Westminster Hall
Wednesday 8th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 months ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:31
09:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. To see you in the chair this morning. For what I hope will be an interesting and constructive debate about the future of Gibraltar. I'm delighted to be joined by the chair of the all party group, of which I serve as the vice chairman and as a result of a discussion between myself, the Gibraltar government representative who is in the audience today. We thought. It would be useful to have a fact finding trip to Gibraltar to. So that when the future of the.
Of the Rock and the, uh, the. The treaty was up for discussion that we could do so from an informed position. Um, 2 or 3 people who were hoping to go on the trip were unable to. But I was delighted that Baroness Butler-sloss, the crossbench peer, accompanied me and we were also joined for a part of the uh. 1 or 2 of the meetings by Lord James Wharton from from the upper House. So, um, with following discussions with the Gibraltar office here in London, we put together a programme which I think, uh, can say was pretty comprehensive and gave us a good overview of the views of the, uh, the local population, the business community, and of course, the politicians in Gibraltar.
We had a. A meeting with His Excellency the governor, which was just a courtesy call, really, but it's always a pleasure to, uh, to meet up with him and other senior diplomats to hear, uh, how they approach the issues. And so we're therefore, we're indeed independent, but it's always a pleasure to, uh, to meet up with him and other senior diplomats to hear, uh, how they approach the issues. Uh, so, um, we arrived, we, we went, uh, I should point out that we went at our.
Own expense from our own resources. And so we're therefore, we're indeed independent, but it's always a pleasure to, uh, to meet up with him and other senior diplomats to hear, uh, how they approach the issues. Uh, so we arrived, we, we went, uh, I should point out that we went at our. Own expense from our own resources. And so we're therefore, we're indeed independent of the government of Gibraltar. Um, we were delighted for our first meeting after we'd seen the governor to go to the airport and, uh, be joined by the Chief Minister.
Who, who, um, delighted in, uh, giving us a tour of the, the airport. He's clearly, uh, devoted a great deal of time and effort to, uh, the. Arrangements that are necessary to ensure that all sides, uh, are content. And importantly, that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is, is maintained. And we all know of the long history of Spanish claims, uh, on the rock, but that is definitely, uh, not in any way part of the treaty. Sovereignty is absolute. And I can see the, the minister nodding at that.
And no doubt later on he'll confirm that, uh, as I say, we, uh, we went to the airport and the, uh, I think the important thing was that, uh. The concerns about sort of Spanish officials operating within, uh, the, on the rock and so on were to some extent, uh, assuaged. And I was delighted that, uh, we were able to receive, um. Reassurance, not just from the chief minister, but from his senior officials who were, who accompanied us on the, on the tour of the, the airport.
Um, I, there have been, I know, uh, certain concerns as. About as I, as I mentioned, officials and Spanish police and the like operating within, uh, British territory. Um, but I think the arrangements that have been made are to a great extent. Our fears can be assuaged. I think Sir John, uh, following our visit to the, the airport, we. I'm just having a look. What did we do next?It was such a comprehensive, uh, visit.
It, um, we, uh. Visited the commander of the British base and, uh, he gave us an assurance that, uh, though the was cooperation with the Spanish authorities, which is only beneficial, I think it's fair to say from both sides that, uh, there would be no, um. Uh, what shall we say, interference, in the operations of the base and the military are very content with the arrangements that have been made. The, uh, and it. Was interesting as well that, uh, the American Navy had been in port only a day or two before our visit.
And it was encouraging, I think, particularly in view of the, um. What the, the world situation at the moment. And, uh, some of the noises that come from the American administration that at a, at a purely operational level, uh, work and cooperation is continuing. Uh. The one. I think that we could say that where we did hear some, uh, discontent was we walked along the main street and called in to see a number of retailers purely at random, uh, and there was, were some concerns.
As we know, the retail sector is struggling. Um, in many countries. Uh, and it was no exception. One of the shops that we went into, interestingly enough, dealt in ceramics, and he imported most of his products from the UK. And he pointed out that the costs were rising so much in the UK because of various impositions on the ceramics sector that it was both becoming unprofitable to operate. And with the proposed taxation arrangements within Gibraltar that were going to affect the retailers that, uh, he was in fact going to cease operations in the not too distant future, which after I think it was about 25 years that he'd been, uh, in business.
Of the Rock and the, uh, the. The treaty was up for discussion that we could do so from an informed position. Um, 2 or 3 people who were hoping to go on the trip were unable to. But I was delighted that Baroness Butler-sloss, the crossbench peer, accompanied me and we were also joined for a part of the uh. 1 or 2 of the meetings by Lord James Wharton from from the upper House. So, um, with following discussions with the Gibraltar office here in London, we put together a programme which I think, uh, can say was pretty comprehensive and gave us a good overview of the views of the, uh, the local population, the business community, and of course, the politicians in Gibraltar.
We had a. A meeting with His Excellency the governor, which was just a courtesy call, really, but it's always a pleasure to, uh, to meet up with him and other senior diplomats to hear, uh, how they approach the issues. And so we're therefore, we're indeed independent, but it's always a pleasure to, uh, to meet up with him and other senior diplomats to hear, uh, how they approach the issues. Uh, so, um, we arrived, we, we went, uh, I should point out that we went at our.
Own expense from our own resources. And so we're therefore, we're indeed independent, but it's always a pleasure to, uh, to meet up with him and other senior diplomats to hear, uh, how they approach the issues. Uh, so we arrived, we, we went, uh, I should point out that we went at our. Own expense from our own resources. And so we're therefore, we're indeed independent of the government of Gibraltar. Um, we were delighted for our first meeting after we'd seen the governor to go to the airport and, uh, be joined by the Chief Minister.
Who, who, um, delighted in, uh, giving us a tour of the, the airport. He's clearly, uh, devoted a great deal of time and effort to, uh, the. Arrangements that are necessary to ensure that all sides, uh, are content. And importantly, that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is, is maintained. And we all know of the long history of Spanish claims, uh, on the rock, but that is definitely, uh, not in any way part of the treaty. Sovereignty is absolute. And I can see the, the minister nodding at that.
And no doubt later on he'll confirm that, uh, as I say, we, uh, we went to the airport and the, uh, I think the important thing was that, uh. The concerns about sort of Spanish officials operating within, uh, the, on the rock and so on were to some extent, uh, assuaged. And I was delighted that, uh, we were able to receive, um. Reassurance, not just from the chief minister, but from his senior officials who were, who accompanied us on the, on the tour of the, the airport.
Um, I, there have been, I know, uh, certain concerns as. About as I, as I mentioned, officials and Spanish police and the like operating within, uh, British territory. Um, but I think the arrangements that have been made are to a great extent. Our fears can be assuaged. I think Sir John, uh, following our visit to the, the airport, we. I'm just having a look. What did we do next?It was such a comprehensive, uh, visit.
It, um, we, uh. Visited the commander of the British base and, uh, he gave us an assurance that, uh, though the was cooperation with the Spanish authorities, which is only beneficial, I think it's fair to say from both sides that, uh, there would be no, um. Uh, what shall we say, interference, in the operations of the base and the military are very content with the arrangements that have been made. The, uh, and it. Was interesting as well that, uh, the American Navy had been in port only a day or two before our visit.
And it was encouraging, I think, particularly in view of the, um. What the, the world situation at the moment. And, uh, some of the noises that come from the American administration that at a, at a purely operational level, uh, work and cooperation is continuing. Uh. The one. I think that we could say that where we did hear some, uh, discontent was we walked along the main street and called in to see a number of retailers purely at random, uh, and there was, were some concerns.
As we know, the retail sector is struggling. Um, in many countries. Uh, and it was no exception. One of the shops that we went into, interestingly enough, dealt in ceramics, and he imported most of his products from the UK. And he pointed out that the costs were rising so much in the UK because of various impositions on the ceramics sector that it was both becoming unprofitable to operate. And with the proposed taxation arrangements within Gibraltar that were going to affect the retailers that, uh, he was in fact going to cease operations in the not too distant future, which after I think it was about 25 years that he'd been, uh, in business.
14:30
14:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, miss McVeigh. And it's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair today. Now, I think we'll all agree that AI is a transformational technology that has the potential to bring many benefits to our society. But in order to fully realize these, we will require the government to look at radical changes to taxation, to welfare and our industrial strategy. Everyone in the UK needs to benefit from a managed AI transition that puts workers and human dignity at its heart.
It must make the world fairer, not more unequal, and it should give UK citizens a meaningful say in decisions that will affect their lives. Now, evidence from the new contract a pro worker AI campaign organisation reveals that the public is deeply suspicious about AI. Around 6 in 10 people expect the gains to flow to wealthy investors and big corporations. Just 7% think they will be shared fairly across our society. And understandably, 7 in 10 workers are worried about the impact that AI will have on their jobs.
Even the Foreign Secretary has recently. About AI. Around 6 in 10 people expect the gains to flow to wealthy investors and big corporations. Just 7% think they will be shared fairly across our society, and understandably, 7 in 10 workers are worried about the impact that AI will have on their jobs. Even the Foreign Secretary has recently said that AI poses a Hiroshima style threat to humanity. Without global rules being put in place now, in today's digital age, a cartel of technology giants Google, meta, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple wield extraordinary influence over our lives online.
These platforms have become so embedded in daily life that meaningful participation in society depends on using their services. Similarly, digital infrastructure that facilitates our work and public services is now an essential layer of the economy. But in turn, this gives oligarchs like Elon Musk enormous power to distort public discourse. We have effectively subcontracted our right to information to a handful of big tech gatekeepers. Now, like a socialist government's approach to energy or water, I will.
It must make the world fairer, not more unequal, and it should give UK citizens a meaningful say in decisions that will affect their lives. Now, evidence from the new contract a pro worker AI campaign organisation reveals that the public is deeply suspicious about AI. Around 6 in 10 people expect the gains to flow to wealthy investors and big corporations. Just 7% think they will be shared fairly across our society. And understandably, 7 in 10 workers are worried about the impact that AI will have on their jobs.
Even the Foreign Secretary has recently. About AI. Around 6 in 10 people expect the gains to flow to wealthy investors and big corporations. Just 7% think they will be shared fairly across our society, and understandably, 7 in 10 workers are worried about the impact that AI will have on their jobs. Even the Foreign Secretary has recently said that AI poses a Hiroshima style threat to humanity. Without global rules being put in place now, in today's digital age, a cartel of technology giants Google, meta, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple wield extraordinary influence over our lives online.
These platforms have become so embedded in daily life that meaningful participation in society depends on using their services. Similarly, digital infrastructure that facilitates our work and public services is now an essential layer of the economy. But in turn, this gives oligarchs like Elon Musk enormous power to distort public discourse. We have effectively subcontracted our right to information to a handful of big tech gatekeepers. Now, like a socialist government's approach to energy or water, I will.
14:32
14:33
14:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank the honourable member for his intervention, and I will deal with the issue of AI sovereignty a bit later in the speech. As I was saying, miss McVeigh, like a socialist government's approach to energy or water, we should ensure the public have a stake in the development of this technology to ensure the value it creates is captured and shared for the good of society as a whole. Now, previous waves of technological change have brought huge economic disruptions with it, but the human and social costs that followed weren't inevitable.
These were the product of political choices. As governments left workers and communities to absorb these shocks alone. I will.
These were the product of political choices. As governments left workers and communities to absorb these shocks alone. I will.
14:34
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Friend for giving way. The last time we saw a change of this potential scale was when we moved from a manufacturing economy to more of a service economy, and at that time, we know that there were trade offs and some people were left behind. Some cities, some towns and villages were left behind, including Doncaster and the Isle of Axholme. I just wonder if he agrees with me that on this occasion we can plan forward for this. We know it's coming and therefore we need to be thinking about jobs.
We need to be able to think about access for younger people and their skills in the future, and ensuring that actually the benefits are right the way across the country and not just clustered in one place.
We need to be able to think about access for younger people and their skills in the future, and ensuring that actually the benefits are right the way across the country and not just clustered in one place.
14:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend's point about no place left behind as a result of the AI revolution. I will go on to develop that a bit later. We can already see, in fact, the first signs of AI impacting on work here, where we have record numbers of numbers of young people not in employment, education and training, because many entry level jobs have disappeared.
14:35
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Madam chair, first of all, can I congratulate the honourable?I spoke to him before. He knows where I'm coming from. My concern is the young people of today looking for the job that my, my, my children, my grandchildren who will prepare themselves for it. Um, I understand that we really must equip young people. I think maybe that's one of the things we should be trying to do in the Belfast Telegraph. Just in the last few days it referred to this may be the first time in a century to score where young people will score lower on tests for memory, focus on reading than their parents.
Is it not time for government to acknowledge the challenges, to ensure that the prospects for employment for young people are in place at the Gentlemans objective is that then it's the right way to go. Thank you.
Is it not time for government to acknowledge the challenges, to ensure that the prospects for employment for young people are in place at the Gentlemans objective is that then it's the right way to go. Thank you.
14:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yes, I thank the honourable member for his contribution. Young people and their future employment prospects are so intrinsically linked to the debate about the future of AI, and we have to get that right for those people to have a future. And he's right to make that point. We also need the government, though, to introduce a raft of measures, I believe, to manage AI driven changes to work. Now, I think these should include an employment levy on companies that replace large numbers of workers with AI training, subsidies for displaced workers, redeployment programmes to move workers from sectors with skill shortages, and a job subsidy scheme for workers and companies.
At the sharp end of this industrial change, along with, of course, stronger Social Security support for those who face unemployment. Now we know that left to the market, firms will often reach for the crudest form of automation, stripping out roles and degrading the work that remains. The alternative is that we start to advance the case for dignified work, and recognise that this will mean having meaningful worker involvement in every step of the process, involving workers in adoption is often what turns a promising tool into a productive one.
That's why I agree with the TUC that the government should strengthen the Employment Rights Act to give workers a real say in these decisions. A duty on employers to disclose their use of AI, and a right for the workforce to be consulted and negotiate over how it is being introduced. Now, one of the biggest challenges of AI is to ensure that everyone gets a fair share of the gains. Those AI and big tech corporations in the US stand to shortly become some of the wealthiest and most powerful private actors in our history.
This wealth was built on public research, public investment, as well as all of our shared written inheritance that has trained the models that they use. But our tax system taxes, income from work far more heavily than income from capital. This gives firms a direct tax incentive to automate a worker out of a job, rather than to employ them, and could see AI facilitate a further shift of national income away from labour and towards capital, eroding the tax base that funds our public services that we all need and want.
At the sharp end of this industrial change, along with, of course, stronger Social Security support for those who face unemployment. Now we know that left to the market, firms will often reach for the crudest form of automation, stripping out roles and degrading the work that remains. The alternative is that we start to advance the case for dignified work, and recognise that this will mean having meaningful worker involvement in every step of the process, involving workers in adoption is often what turns a promising tool into a productive one.
That's why I agree with the TUC that the government should strengthen the Employment Rights Act to give workers a real say in these decisions. A duty on employers to disclose their use of AI, and a right for the workforce to be consulted and negotiate over how it is being introduced. Now, one of the biggest challenges of AI is to ensure that everyone gets a fair share of the gains. Those AI and big tech corporations in the US stand to shortly become some of the wealthiest and most powerful private actors in our history.
This wealth was built on public research, public investment, as well as all of our shared written inheritance that has trained the models that they use. But our tax system taxes, income from work far more heavily than income from capital. This gives firms a direct tax incentive to automate a worker out of a job, rather than to employ them, and could see AI facilitate a further shift of national income away from labour and towards capital, eroding the tax base that funds our public services that we all need and want.
14:37
14:38
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Just sitting there thinking of the. Focusing completely on employment and big tech companies. Does he agree?We need to go a step back. Back to school, back to teachers, back to training where the teachers need to prepare their pupils for the future with AI and what it means. And does he feel that that's something not for the Minister to do, but maybe for the minister in another department?
14:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank the honourable member for his second intervention this afternoon. Let's see if he can make it a hat trick before I finish. I mean, the. The the reality is that AI is here. Now we have to deal with how it impacts on today's workers and future workers as well. So this isn't one generation against another, obviously. And I know he understands that. That's why the government could seek to equalize the tax treatment and actively explore widening the digital services tax to include AI companies, which it's currently excludes, and to raise the current level of tax from 2% to the European average.
We cannot allow machines to be made artificially cheaper than it is to employ people. It's important also to look at the issue of AI sovereignty. As was mentioned earlier by honourable member, the UK is growing increasingly dependent on US tech owning little of the data infrastructure and AI models on which the future economy will increasingly rely. This repeats a pattern of recent decades in other sectors in which essential national infrastructure, as passed into overseas ownership and money, has flowed offshore, leaving British people with less and less control over the essentials of a good life.
Now, this dependence not only creates security risks, as has been mentioned, but prevents the UK from capturing and distributing any AI windfall. That's why we need to give UK companies a meaningful chance to compete, and the Competition and Markets Authority could use existing powers to take on the concentration in the cloud market that underpins the AI companies business models. A progressive, sovereign AI programme should involve an industrial strategy that seeks to expand public investment in the sector and impose strict conditions on private access to public assets, alongside active support for models such as cooperatives, public interest companies and other democratic ownership models.
So the gains of AI can be captured and shared throughout the UK. And of course, at the heart of this debate is the role of the public. Big decisions about how AI, such as where data centres are built and how AI is deployed in public services, are being taken with little democratic input. The I will.
We cannot allow machines to be made artificially cheaper than it is to employ people. It's important also to look at the issue of AI sovereignty. As was mentioned earlier by honourable member, the UK is growing increasingly dependent on US tech owning little of the data infrastructure and AI models on which the future economy will increasingly rely. This repeats a pattern of recent decades in other sectors in which essential national infrastructure, as passed into overseas ownership and money, has flowed offshore, leaving British people with less and less control over the essentials of a good life.
Now, this dependence not only creates security risks, as has been mentioned, but prevents the UK from capturing and distributing any AI windfall. That's why we need to give UK companies a meaningful chance to compete, and the Competition and Markets Authority could use existing powers to take on the concentration in the cloud market that underpins the AI companies business models. A progressive, sovereign AI programme should involve an industrial strategy that seeks to expand public investment in the sector and impose strict conditions on private access to public assets, alongside active support for models such as cooperatives, public interest companies and other democratic ownership models.
So the gains of AI can be captured and shared throughout the UK. And of course, at the heart of this debate is the role of the public. Big decisions about how AI, such as where data centres are built and how AI is deployed in public services, are being taken with little democratic input. The I will.
14:40
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Fund for giving way and thank you, chair. I want to apologize in advance that I need to go to a select committee so I won't be able to attend the full debate. But my honourable friend is, as usual, right about everything, and I just wanted to ask whether he agrees with me that the resistance, in many cases, to the construction of data centres by the public is not just a concern about impacts on the environment, but also underlying that is a public skepticism of the breathlessness of politicians about economic growth driven by digital technology.
When we have an economy that has a completely unsustainable food system, isn't delivering genuinely affordable homes, has rubbish public transport in many parts of the country and isn't delivering the basics.
When we have an economy that has a completely unsustainable food system, isn't delivering genuinely affordable homes, has rubbish public transport in many parts of the country and isn't delivering the basics.
14:41
14:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my hon. Member friend rather for his contribution. I mean, the fact is that one data centre, even a modest one, uses the same amount of electricity as 100,000 homes. The bigger the data centre, the more electricity it uses. Very few of them run off renewables. So that's another issue that we need to address. And the communities that host the infrastructure see the costs in water, energy and land without getting any of the benefits that we've discussed.
Now, these big debates are why the government must embed ongoing public and democratic oversight of the AI transition and legislate for community benefit, where infrastructure is built, including a share of the value created locally. In conclusion, Madam Chair, we must ensure that the AI revolution doesn't lead to more power in the hands of a few who can determine our future. Governments must build independent, publicly funded alternatives to ensure AI is developed for the common good, and only public investment can support AI that prioritises social and environmental challenges.
What we need is an AI for the people strategy that starts to recognise the challenges we face and has the ideas to meet those challenges head on.
Now, these big debates are why the government must embed ongoing public and democratic oversight of the AI transition and legislate for community benefit, where infrastructure is built, including a share of the value created locally. In conclusion, Madam Chair, we must ensure that the AI revolution doesn't lead to more power in the hands of a few who can determine our future. Governments must build independent, publicly funded alternatives to ensure AI is developed for the common good, and only public investment can support AI that prioritises social and environmental challenges.
What we need is an AI for the people strategy that starts to recognise the challenges we face and has the ideas to meet those challenges head on.
14:43
14:43
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I, I rise in support of much of what the mover of this motion has said. He's done a service to this chamber and indeed to Parliament more generally by highlighting the threats that AI will bring. Now, um, perhaps I can set the scene by reminding members present of the fact that it took 25 years for Parliament and successive governments to recognise that the internet must be regulated. It is extraordinary, that fact. When I was in the IT industry back in the 80s and 90s, I became aware of the concept of the internet before it was widely spoken about, of course, and even then I knew the harm it might do.
And in 2000 the. The. At the beginning of the new millennium I was privileged to be able to speak at the Spalding Gentlemen's Society. Now, I don't imagine you're familiar with this morning's gentleman's society. Madam chairman, uh, but let it suffice to say it's a learned society of the old school. It now doesn't make women. Uh, you'll be pleased to know, um, uh, and they have a lecture programme on all kinds of manner of things, and I was pleased to be invited to give the first lecture of the millennium.
And in that lecture, I warned of what the internet might do. And most of the audience, by the way, were disbelieved. Actually, what I said, it was a very civilised meeting. It wasn't raucous in any way, but they couldn't quite come to terms with what I predicted. What I predicted then has come to pass. What has occurred is the distortion of public discourse, the enabling of widespread fraud and the provision of the means for every imaginable form of harm from hard core pornography available to children to internet gambling addictions, to suicide sites and much, much more.
And now the prospect of AI will make this still more thrilling, as the recognition of what is real and what is invented is increasingly blurred. It will become more and more difficult for people to navigate the inevitable vicissitudes which pervade every life. Imagine a future where the certainty which was once a secure certainty of what really exists, is so. Uh, is so undermined that people can no longer go anywhere and believe what they're told. No, uh, no place to go, uh, to establish that certainty, which is the basis on which all of us gauge, uh, reality, the basis of which all of us are able to live reasonably productive lives.
I see a well-being being affected by that detrimentally. And unless the government takes very urgent and extremely serious action, I think that will happen far more quickly than anyone here at the moment envisages. I happily give way.
And in 2000 the. The. At the beginning of the new millennium I was privileged to be able to speak at the Spalding Gentlemen's Society. Now, I don't imagine you're familiar with this morning's gentleman's society. Madam chairman, uh, but let it suffice to say it's a learned society of the old school. It now doesn't make women. Uh, you'll be pleased to know, um, uh, and they have a lecture programme on all kinds of manner of things, and I was pleased to be invited to give the first lecture of the millennium.
And in that lecture, I warned of what the internet might do. And most of the audience, by the way, were disbelieved. Actually, what I said, it was a very civilised meeting. It wasn't raucous in any way, but they couldn't quite come to terms with what I predicted. What I predicted then has come to pass. What has occurred is the distortion of public discourse, the enabling of widespread fraud and the provision of the means for every imaginable form of harm from hard core pornography available to children to internet gambling addictions, to suicide sites and much, much more.
And now the prospect of AI will make this still more thrilling, as the recognition of what is real and what is invented is increasingly blurred. It will become more and more difficult for people to navigate the inevitable vicissitudes which pervade every life. Imagine a future where the certainty which was once a secure certainty of what really exists, is so. Uh, is so undermined that people can no longer go anywhere and believe what they're told. No, uh, no place to go, uh, to establish that certainty, which is the basis on which all of us gauge, uh, reality, the basis of which all of us are able to live reasonably productive lives.
I see a well-being being affected by that detrimentally. And unless the government takes very urgent and extremely serious action, I think that will happen far more quickly than anyone here at the moment envisages. I happily give way.
14:46
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
For giving way. Would he agree with me that one of the primary obligations of any government is to keep its citizens and the people living in its country safe from all avoidable harms?And AI is a major potential cause of harm that is avoidable. Would you agree with me that the government cannot wait 25 years to catch up?
14:47
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Well, I absolutely agree, and that's why I. I began by describing what has occurred over the last quarter of a century and the misunderstanding, which was a pervasive one. I mean, it affected all political parties and governments of all kinds. That novelty and the fascination with novelty is a very dangerous thing. By the way, Madam Chairman, the novelty. Was, uh, more important than the certainty that I've just outlined. So I think the hon. Gentleman is right to issue this clarion call for action.
Let me go into a little more detail. So he's right, for example, that we have allowed a handful of multinational corporates who have, uh, displayed a carelessness to the effects of what they do to wield immense power, more power than national governments. It's increasingly difficult for governments to pull levers that affect these people because they they exist beyond the purview of, of this House or any, uh, or any government minister. They have shown by their example that carelessness, uh, and. Only when, uh, they've been prevented from doing harm have they cease to do so.
And I am delighted that the government is now moving to take steps to prevent children from accessing social media and telephones. I'd like to go much further, actually, and I hope the government will go much further. I called for the ban on phones in schools, along with many other members of this House, a long time ago. But AI makes all that more serious because AI, with the ability to, as I said, distort the very nature of reality available through that technology, will be immensely difficult to control, and yet we must try to do so.
Legislation is not always the only means of doing this, but it certainly must play a part. As Donald Grantham set out in his remarks, I'm about to echo described the internet as the empire of imbeciles and what's happened over time is that it's been impossible to distinguish experts from idiots and every barroom bigot now has an audience of millions. Uh, most people, uh, are a sense of proportion, a sense of proportion. My, my, my, my parents were working class people who left school at 14, but they had a very good sense of what really mattered.
We've now elevated trivia to, uh, to an extraordinary degree. So that and as a result, uh, that sense of proportion, which was once taken as read, can no longer be said to be, uh. I'm happily give way.
Let me go into a little more detail. So he's right, for example, that we have allowed a handful of multinational corporates who have, uh, displayed a carelessness to the effects of what they do to wield immense power, more power than national governments. It's increasingly difficult for governments to pull levers that affect these people because they they exist beyond the purview of, of this House or any, uh, or any government minister. They have shown by their example that carelessness, uh, and. Only when, uh, they've been prevented from doing harm have they cease to do so.
And I am delighted that the government is now moving to take steps to prevent children from accessing social media and telephones. I'd like to go much further, actually, and I hope the government will go much further. I called for the ban on phones in schools, along with many other members of this House, a long time ago. But AI makes all that more serious because AI, with the ability to, as I said, distort the very nature of reality available through that technology, will be immensely difficult to control, and yet we must try to do so.
Legislation is not always the only means of doing this, but it certainly must play a part. As Donald Grantham set out in his remarks, I'm about to echo described the internet as the empire of imbeciles and what's happened over time is that it's been impossible to distinguish experts from idiots and every barroom bigot now has an audience of millions. Uh, most people, uh, are a sense of proportion, a sense of proportion. My, my, my, my parents were working class people who left school at 14, but they had a very good sense of what really mattered.
We've now elevated trivia to, uh, to an extraordinary degree. So that and as a result, uh, that sense of proportion, which was once taken as read, can no longer be said to be, uh. I'm happily give way.
14:50
14:50
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
The, uh, honourable gentleman for giving way in relation to that point about proportionality, I noticed note that the debate has quite rightly raised a lot of the concerns relating to AI at the moment. But on a more positive note, in relation to public services in my Camborne-redruth and Hayle constituency. North Korea Integrated Neighbourhood Team, which covers one of the most deprived regions in the UK, is using brave AI to identify frailer, um, vulnerable patients earlier and helping to prevent avoidable hospital admissions. Given both the opportunities and the risks of AI, which he is talking about in great detail, particularly in relation to healthcare.
Does the honourable member agree that the right approach is proportionate regulation so that we don't stifle innovation, but we importantly maintain that public trust and public safety?
Does the honourable member agree that the right approach is proportionate regulation so that we don't stifle innovation, but we importantly maintain that public trust and public safety?
14:51
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Well, I know that. I know from my dealings on gentleman that he's a good and effective member of Parliament who takes a very responsible view of these things. But I simply say to him, we mustn't let the virtues that he described blind us to the vices, which is what happened with the internet, you know, because when I made that speech back in 2000, people said to me, oh, but I can I can reunite with my my family in Australia. And I said, well, if they really reunite with you, they wouldn't have gone to Australia in the first place.
But, um, uh, and do you remember that thing?Friends reunited as though you want to get in touch with people you're a primary school with. I mean, they look so different. That's frightening in itself. Uh, and why do you want to revisit your your ancient past history?That's all. That's all an aside, I think he's right. Of course it's true. Uh, there will be advantages that can be brought, particularly in the research field, as he's described it.
Um, but I just fear that that will, uh, obscure, uh, some of the points that the honourable gentleman made in the eyes of those who have the power to make a difference. And I hope that doesn't apply to this minister, I'm sure is far more, uh, clear sighted than that suggest. Um, so in summary then, um, Parliament government, uh, need. To act quickly and decisively to deal with the points that the honourable gentleman has made. And I've attempted imperfectly to amplify, uh.
It is very it's critically important to understand that innovation may matter, but ethics matter more. The science and technology are morally neutral. They have no implicit ethic. And. And that what really counts is not what's new, but what's true.
But, um, uh, and do you remember that thing?Friends reunited as though you want to get in touch with people you're a primary school with. I mean, they look so different. That's frightening in itself. Uh, and why do you want to revisit your your ancient past history?That's all. That's all an aside, I think he's right. Of course it's true. Uh, there will be advantages that can be brought, particularly in the research field, as he's described it.
Um, but I just fear that that will, uh, obscure, uh, some of the points that the honourable gentleman made in the eyes of those who have the power to make a difference. And I hope that doesn't apply to this minister, I'm sure is far more, uh, clear sighted than that suggest. Um, so in summary then, um, Parliament government, uh, need. To act quickly and decisively to deal with the points that the honourable gentleman has made. And I've attempted imperfectly to amplify, uh.
It is very it's critically important to understand that innovation may matter, but ethics matter more. The science and technology are morally neutral. They have no implicit ethic. And. And that what really counts is not what's new, but what's true.
14:53
14:53
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mrs. McBain. It's a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I'm very grateful to my honourable friend for Paul for bringing it. And I agree with many of his remarks and indeed of other speakers as well, and particularly agree with the remarks by my friend for Paul about the new contract initiative. The UK's AI sector has, of course, grown 23 times faster than the rest of our economy. I believe we do have to ensure continued investment and the realization of productivity gains from appropriate use.
But we do also have to secure greater domestic control and resilience, and mitigate near and later term risks from inappropriate use. If we are truly to become an innovation nation. So I believe we do have to change our approach towards AI, and I want to spend the time that I have setting out the case for doing that. Above all, we have to seek sovereignty like we actually mean it. Mrs. McVey. Yes, supporting UK niche like photonics and quantum is key to sovereignty and to boosting growth.
From Southampton to Sheffield and Belfast to Birmingham. But we have to recognise how crucial access to frontier models is for our sovereignty as well. The recent debacle with fable five and mythos five only serves to underline this. Now the sovereign AI fund needs to have a clearer rationale. It should be developing UK companies and partnerships and public stakes have got to genuinely put our people and our places first. We also have to work more concertedly with allies to develop joint sovereign capability.
AI development needs to be part of an economic security reset with the EU, in my view, and we need to be able to participate in the European Scale up Fund. Mr. Charles, Chief executive, interestingly recently claimed that the EU has got two years at most to build its own AI or become permanently structurally dependent on the US or China. Well, the UK has got to be included in that EU level debate before it is too late. Delivering stronger sovereign control and resilience also means the government putting its money where its mouth is and supporting UK, AI and UK partnership AI in procurement.
All departments, in my view, should be assessed publicly on this and the CMMi should be engaged. Now on the issue of how we ensure more advanced market commitments to support our sovereignty, I believe we can learn from other countries on this. Look at France recently dropped Palantir from its intelligence services. I realize, of course, changes cause disruption, but we cannot work purely on the basis of cost or short term capability any more. We have got to make assessments now on the basis of control and resilience as well.
Given their significance for our national interest in public services, we must move beyond no lo and performative adoption to appropriate and transparent adoption that puts people and places first. And of course, it is critical that the UK can deploy sufficient compute to support those aspirations. I really hope that the AI Energy Council can develop plans for a line delivery of renewable energy and data centre projects, and fix difficult issues like how demand modulation can unblock additional capacity. I genuinely believe that there can be a win win here, but for that to be achieved, as well as greater adoption, I agree with what others have said.
We have got to face up to public concern about the risks. We only need to look at what is happening in Scotland right now to see that. So first, unemployment, half of UK workers feel they will lose their job to AI. Now, from what I can see of the evidence, there's very mixed evidence actually about this so far beyond the field of software development. But much as I was pleased to see the early Careers Jobs Alliance and the AI Adoption Insights Agreement from the government, we have to go further.
I believe that lessons should be learned from the consultation on the social media ban. Growing up in the online world, I'd like to see government launch a starting work in a world of AI consultation so we can involve young people who are worried about this, gather their good ideas and show the government engaging with this crucial issue. And I agree, we should be doing far more in our schools and colleges to prepare our children on this. I'm happy to take an intervention.
But we do also have to secure greater domestic control and resilience, and mitigate near and later term risks from inappropriate use. If we are truly to become an innovation nation. So I believe we do have to change our approach towards AI, and I want to spend the time that I have setting out the case for doing that. Above all, we have to seek sovereignty like we actually mean it. Mrs. McVey. Yes, supporting UK niche like photonics and quantum is key to sovereignty and to boosting growth.
From Southampton to Sheffield and Belfast to Birmingham. But we have to recognise how crucial access to frontier models is for our sovereignty as well. The recent debacle with fable five and mythos five only serves to underline this. Now the sovereign AI fund needs to have a clearer rationale. It should be developing UK companies and partnerships and public stakes have got to genuinely put our people and our places first. We also have to work more concertedly with allies to develop joint sovereign capability.
AI development needs to be part of an economic security reset with the EU, in my view, and we need to be able to participate in the European Scale up Fund. Mr. Charles, Chief executive, interestingly recently claimed that the EU has got two years at most to build its own AI or become permanently structurally dependent on the US or China. Well, the UK has got to be included in that EU level debate before it is too late. Delivering stronger sovereign control and resilience also means the government putting its money where its mouth is and supporting UK, AI and UK partnership AI in procurement.
All departments, in my view, should be assessed publicly on this and the CMMi should be engaged. Now on the issue of how we ensure more advanced market commitments to support our sovereignty, I believe we can learn from other countries on this. Look at France recently dropped Palantir from its intelligence services. I realize, of course, changes cause disruption, but we cannot work purely on the basis of cost or short term capability any more. We have got to make assessments now on the basis of control and resilience as well.
Given their significance for our national interest in public services, we must move beyond no lo and performative adoption to appropriate and transparent adoption that puts people and places first. And of course, it is critical that the UK can deploy sufficient compute to support those aspirations. I really hope that the AI Energy Council can develop plans for a line delivery of renewable energy and data centre projects, and fix difficult issues like how demand modulation can unblock additional capacity. I genuinely believe that there can be a win win here, but for that to be achieved, as well as greater adoption, I agree with what others have said.
We have got to face up to public concern about the risks. We only need to look at what is happening in Scotland right now to see that. So first, unemployment, half of UK workers feel they will lose their job to AI. Now, from what I can see of the evidence, there's very mixed evidence actually about this so far beyond the field of software development. But much as I was pleased to see the early Careers Jobs Alliance and the AI Adoption Insights Agreement from the government, we have to go further.
I believe that lessons should be learned from the consultation on the social media ban. Growing up in the online world, I'd like to see government launch a starting work in a world of AI consultation so we can involve young people who are worried about this, gather their good ideas and show the government engaging with this crucial issue. And I agree, we should be doing far more in our schools and colleges to prepare our children on this. I'm happy to take an intervention.
14:57
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
In way AI is increasingly being used to make cutting edge assistive technology for people with Sen, but the industry is a bit of a wild west and access for young people in areas like Yeovil is uneven. So will the honourable member join me in urging the government to publish guidance for schools on best practices for AI, assistive technology for send?
14:58
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Well, I think the honourable member raises a really important point, and actually it's part of a broader picture. My understanding is only something like half of all schools actually have an appropriate AI policy. Um, and simply saying to students, don't use AI or having an unorganized approach to it, or simply taking company's word for it without a broader set of guidance and frameworks for deployment is not going to be supporting our children and young people saying, just don't use AI. When we know children and young people are using, it is not fair to them, and it's going to do a disservice to our economy as well in the future.
So I believe our children and young people need to understand how AI works and the risks as well, of cognitive offloading and negative impacts on social interaction from inappropriate use. I also do want to see us encouraging international discussion in the OECD and UN about taxation, taxation of permanent establishment capital gains and the cost of human labour compared with tokens. This does not need to have an immediate impact. We could set a threshold of employment impact to trigger a token tax, for example, but we cannot run away from this debate, especially given how much services dominate our economy.
Second, we have to engage with concerns about the safety of frontier models. As I said many months ago, alongside the centre for Countering Digital Hate, just regulating applications. So after harm has been done is unacceptable. Grok should not have been able to produce 3 million non-consensual images in the first place. New York, California, Illinois and the EU have moved towards approaches requiring mandatory assessment of frontier models. We should too, and place AC on a statutory footing as a first step, and we should use our presidency of the G20 next year to reinvigorate global attempts at coordination, which started with the Bletchley conference, but which, to my mind, have effectively stalled since.
On this we can work with EU countries, but also with nations from India to Brazil. Thirdly and finally, Mrs. McVey. While AI can replace huge productivity gains, we have to recognise unscrupulous and inappropriate use is already imposing huge costs to from ubiquitous slop. Yes, I'm happy to.
So I believe our children and young people need to understand how AI works and the risks as well, of cognitive offloading and negative impacts on social interaction from inappropriate use. I also do want to see us encouraging international discussion in the OECD and UN about taxation, taxation of permanent establishment capital gains and the cost of human labour compared with tokens. This does not need to have an immediate impact. We could set a threshold of employment impact to trigger a token tax, for example, but we cannot run away from this debate, especially given how much services dominate our economy.
Second, we have to engage with concerns about the safety of frontier models. As I said many months ago, alongside the centre for Countering Digital Hate, just regulating applications. So after harm has been done is unacceptable. Grok should not have been able to produce 3 million non-consensual images in the first place. New York, California, Illinois and the EU have moved towards approaches requiring mandatory assessment of frontier models. We should too, and place AC on a statutory footing as a first step, and we should use our presidency of the G20 next year to reinvigorate global attempts at coordination, which started with the Bletchley conference, but which, to my mind, have effectively stalled since.
On this we can work with EU countries, but also with nations from India to Brazil. Thirdly and finally, Mrs. McVey. While AI can replace huge productivity gains, we have to recognise unscrupulous and inappropriate use is already imposing huge costs to from ubiquitous slop. Yes, I'm happy to.
15:00
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I'm interested in the honourable lady's right, hon. Comment on productivity. Productivity is one of the prevailing macroeconomic challenges facing this government and previous ones. And productivity stalling has been a problem across Western economies for a while, it's true that AI might help, but it also could harm. Let me give. Let me explain what I mean. Skills are critical to building productivity. Equipping people with skills. Dependence on AI may actually undermine people's confidence and their skills over time.
15:01
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, Mrs. McVey, and I absolutely agree. And that phenomenon of so-called cognitive offloading, of the lack of scaffolding in skills is a genuine concern. Equally, of course, we see how rapidly AI can assess and indeed how accurately AI can assess, for example, tumor scans working with human beings to deliver the highest possible quality of health care. And I agree with my hon. Friend about the potential there. So we need to have a sensible approach to this.
I was going to mention as additional harms very, very quickly, the fact that we're now seeing ubiquitous slop on the internet, AI enabled fraud and cyber attacks, and the impact of AI summaries on local media use as well. So I want to see the CMA using its powers for competition focused action on strategic market status services. I want the government to adopt a maximalist approach to the watch this space white paper, and I want us to stop treating bots as separate, because AI is increasingly going to be integral to our interface with the internet, as well as to so much else.
So we need to adopt a safety by design approach to online regulation, and that needs to recognise the increasing ubiquity of AI. Thank you very much.
I was going to mention as additional harms very, very quickly, the fact that we're now seeing ubiquitous slop on the internet, AI enabled fraud and cyber attacks, and the impact of AI summaries on local media use as well. So I want to see the CMA using its powers for competition focused action on strategic market status services. I want the government to adopt a maximalist approach to the watch this space white paper, and I want us to stop treating bots as separate, because AI is increasingly going to be integral to our interface with the internet, as well as to so much else.
So we need to adopt a safety by design approach to online regulation, and that needs to recognise the increasing ubiquity of AI. Thank you very much.
15:02
15:02
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you very much, Mr. McVey, and I commend the honourable gentleman for bringing this important subject to us today. And the two are friends and allies who have just spoken as well. This is in danger of turning into one of those rare debates in Parliament, where you learn something from everybody else who speaks, and we all come away better, better informed and and equipped. This is an enormous subject, and it's only a 90 minute debate. It obviously won't be the last time we discussed these matters.
And I freely confess to not being an expert on the subject. Like many colleagues, I'm trying to educate myself more, to understand better the implications, the upside on productivity, the implications also for energy and water, but then also the effect on all manner of things in the public and private sphere. A healthcare in education, in international relations, and in foreign and security policy and so on. So I am no expert here, but here is one thing I have learned, Mr. McVey, is that on.
The question of the societal effect of AI at this moment in time, no one knows. Now, a lot of people have a story to tell, but no one really, really knows. And that is one of the reasons why I think we have to keep coming back and back and back to these subjects as our understanding iterates and evolves on the.
And I freely confess to not being an expert on the subject. Like many colleagues, I'm trying to educate myself more, to understand better the implications, the upside on productivity, the implications also for energy and water, but then also the effect on all manner of things in the public and private sphere. A healthcare in education, in international relations, and in foreign and security policy and so on. So I am no expert here, but here is one thing I have learned, Mr. McVey, is that on.
The question of the societal effect of AI at this moment in time, no one knows. Now, a lot of people have a story to tell, but no one really, really knows. And that is one of the reasons why I think we have to keep coming back and back and back to these subjects as our understanding iterates and evolves on the.
15:03
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
He says no. One knows, but we've gone through history and approached technologies or situations that we've never experienced before, and we've managed to do scenario planning, risk assessments, and prepared as best as possible for scenarios that may be plausible or possible. Does he agree with me that when it comes to AI, we have been absolutely asleep at the wheel and this has not happened.
15:03
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
So I do agree. I do agree with large parts of what he says. Um, the time frames are shorter obviously this time than they were for say, the industrial revolution or the printing press or any of those other massive changes that we've seen in the past. I'm not sure that any of those things at the time, it was actually. So when Gutenberg did the printing press, I'm not sure it was foreseeable to even the most far sighted, omniscient individual. What are the effects of that would be.
That doesn't mean we don't try to scenario plan and to think about different, different outcomes that might come about and to try and mitigate them. I think labour market effects are probably actually the thing that as politicians, we we worry about most. Um, and then along with that, all the other implications of things like income distribution and intergenerational fairness and so many other, so many other aspects. And of course, people already say there's a big impact of AI on, on job markets, particularly the graduates job market.
I honestly don't know if that is true or not. It strikes me also that it's quite an easy thing to say if your company isn't doing that well this year and you're not employing graduates to the same extent as you used to, it's a great thing. So we're investing in AI. I don't see how a professional services firm with the current technology deployment could do without a whole, uh, you know, would be able to substitute quite in that way. It is true that in the future, you know, there is a scenario in which you get mass unemployment.
Um, but it's also true that when we've had previous huge upheavals, labour markets have adapted over time. And sometimes it's that gap that makes the difference. But Labour has found itself in found its way to to different sectors of course. And he's excellent speech. Uh, one of the things there are lots of things about AI we don't know and its impact. But one of the things history teaches us is that if you hand vast amounts of power and wealth to a handful of individuals or corporations, or even to the Chinese Communist Party, it's not just corporations.
It can be states as well. The outcome usually isn't good for the vast majority of people. I think that we can all agree on. We don't need to kind of know whether AI is going to be beneficial or hostile or super AI. What we can see is when you allow a small group of people to define what reality is, what is knowledge, that in itself?Well, we've all read 1984.
That doesn't mean we don't try to scenario plan and to think about different, different outcomes that might come about and to try and mitigate them. I think labour market effects are probably actually the thing that as politicians, we we worry about most. Um, and then along with that, all the other implications of things like income distribution and intergenerational fairness and so many other, so many other aspects. And of course, people already say there's a big impact of AI on, on job markets, particularly the graduates job market.
I honestly don't know if that is true or not. It strikes me also that it's quite an easy thing to say if your company isn't doing that well this year and you're not employing graduates to the same extent as you used to, it's a great thing. So we're investing in AI. I don't see how a professional services firm with the current technology deployment could do without a whole, uh, you know, would be able to substitute quite in that way. It is true that in the future, you know, there is a scenario in which you get mass unemployment.
Um, but it's also true that when we've had previous huge upheavals, labour markets have adapted over time. And sometimes it's that gap that makes the difference. But Labour has found itself in found its way to to different sectors of course. And he's excellent speech. Uh, one of the things there are lots of things about AI we don't know and its impact. But one of the things history teaches us is that if you hand vast amounts of power and wealth to a handful of individuals or corporations, or even to the Chinese Communist Party, it's not just corporations.
It can be states as well. The outcome usually isn't good for the vast majority of people. I think that we can all agree on. We don't need to kind of know whether AI is going to be beneficial or hostile or super AI. What we can see is when you allow a small group of people to define what reality is, what is knowledge, that in itself?Well, we've all read 1984.
15:06
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Well, I do agree. And actually, of course. It's not a left v right argument. I mean, this is why the antitrust regime of the United States exists, for example, is precisely so as not to so as not to concentrate power. And indeed, in the list of companies that we had earlier, they were all American. We didn't mention ByteDance or Huawei, which we could easily have done. And sovereign capability, as the Right Honourable Lady was saying, is obviously important.
Um, I was just going to say on labour markets, though, there is also a risk that people kind of grasp. He didn't do this, actually. I thought the honourable gentleman was going to keep saying universal basic income, universal basic income. And he didn't. But a lot of people do. That is something that's a policy prescription. Those people tended to believe in years ago before they'd heard of AI. And now they're sort of fits this.
I don't know what these outcomes and therefore mitigations are going to need to be, but we need to keep an open mind. I think I'd better press on because I know we've got a number of colleagues, a number of colleagues to get through, um, in terms of generative AI and its effect on information integrity that my right hon. Friend referred to. I mean, bear in mind that so far, this massive growth that we've had in fraud, as well as the massive growth in mis and disinformation, that's all been done.
I mean, people talk about deepfakes. It's all done with cheap fakes. It's done with rubbish, which can still take in large numbers of people. Just imagine what happens when it is that much more convincing. And when that when that core, you know, the email I'm stranded in Bermuda or whatever it is, and I need you to send me £100 overnight. Imagine when that is actually a video of your child saying it to you. Um, and then on, then you move and then you realise that those things seem relatively benign when people start talking to you about AI and super and superintelligence, where you could have the machines actually kind of taking control of the situation.
And ultimately, some people describe this as a, as an existential threat to, to humanity. So I don't know what all the answers are, but I do think that as politicians, as a House of Commons, we need to make sure that our architecture is equipped to to be thinking about all of these questions as they evolve. And I don't think our select committee structure today is. I don't think having a committee d sits the committee, which covers technology, is a suitable way of addressing these matters, and I also don't think it's appropriate to expect every other select committee to develop that expertise.
And somehow we need to meld the two. We need to have some form of, um, super select committee, um, supports, uh, team or something like that, which can work with all the other teams across, across the piece. What I want to finish on, uh, Madam Chairman, is two is two specifics that I think we can do right now because there is a ticking bomb specifically as regards children. So in education now, if you ask the typical year nine, how many of your friends use AI to help them do their homework, that child just laughs at you and says all of them.
So the idea that we've got some sort of, you know, issue where we have to encourage children to use AI is just nonsense. It's also crazy to suppose that you can just say to them, don't do it, and they will comply. What instead, we need to do. And by the way, every child in the country learns computing at school. In primary school, we need to make sure that that curriculum evolves so that children get to understand how the thing works, how it generates its its content.
Why, therefore, it might hallucinate, why it tries to sort of flatter you as the questioner, and why you cannot fully rely upon it. And something else, um, there is a real danger and there's got fancy terms like cognitive, what do you call it?Cognitive offloading. But it basically means relying on this machine to do the work for me. And one way that we can mitigate that effect with school children is to make sure that when it comes to the end of the year and you've got to do your exam, you will do that exam with a piece of paper and a pen in exam conditions.
And there is a, I'm afraid, a move across the exam boards right now to try and move more and more exams digitally. Of course, they'll tell you these computers are attached to the internet and you can't do this, that or the other. But this is the safest thing to do. And of course, you have exceptions for children with special educational need or disability, which means they need to use a keyboard or exceptions for computer science. But in general, children at school doing their public exams should be doing them on pen and paper.
And that then will make sure that happens lower down the school as well. It will also make sure that children continue to learn. I know this may sound like a stupid thing to say, but there are already people who say, why is my child learning to write with a pen?Because by the time they honestly. Because by the time they grow up, nobody will be doing that. And finally, chatbots. We are about to make the same mistake with chatbots as we did with social media.
Now, and I'm talking here about the kind of what they call anthropomorphization, where this machine, this computer program develops a personality of its own and develops a relationship with you. Now, I welcome the development of an age appropriate design code for chatbots, but it's not enough. The regulatory regime we have in this country with Ofcom and the ICO, relies on there being evidence of harm. The evidence will not come. Mr. McVeigh, before the harm. And so we need to change that system.
So we adopt a precautionary principle when it comes to protecting children.
Um, I was just going to say on labour markets, though, there is also a risk that people kind of grasp. He didn't do this, actually. I thought the honourable gentleman was going to keep saying universal basic income, universal basic income. And he didn't. But a lot of people do. That is something that's a policy prescription. Those people tended to believe in years ago before they'd heard of AI. And now they're sort of fits this.
I don't know what these outcomes and therefore mitigations are going to need to be, but we need to keep an open mind. I think I'd better press on because I know we've got a number of colleagues, a number of colleagues to get through, um, in terms of generative AI and its effect on information integrity that my right hon. Friend referred to. I mean, bear in mind that so far, this massive growth that we've had in fraud, as well as the massive growth in mis and disinformation, that's all been done.
I mean, people talk about deepfakes. It's all done with cheap fakes. It's done with rubbish, which can still take in large numbers of people. Just imagine what happens when it is that much more convincing. And when that when that core, you know, the email I'm stranded in Bermuda or whatever it is, and I need you to send me £100 overnight. Imagine when that is actually a video of your child saying it to you. Um, and then on, then you move and then you realise that those things seem relatively benign when people start talking to you about AI and super and superintelligence, where you could have the machines actually kind of taking control of the situation.
And ultimately, some people describe this as a, as an existential threat to, to humanity. So I don't know what all the answers are, but I do think that as politicians, as a House of Commons, we need to make sure that our architecture is equipped to to be thinking about all of these questions as they evolve. And I don't think our select committee structure today is. I don't think having a committee d sits the committee, which covers technology, is a suitable way of addressing these matters, and I also don't think it's appropriate to expect every other select committee to develop that expertise.
And somehow we need to meld the two. We need to have some form of, um, super select committee, um, supports, uh, team or something like that, which can work with all the other teams across, across the piece. What I want to finish on, uh, Madam Chairman, is two is two specifics that I think we can do right now because there is a ticking bomb specifically as regards children. So in education now, if you ask the typical year nine, how many of your friends use AI to help them do their homework, that child just laughs at you and says all of them.
So the idea that we've got some sort of, you know, issue where we have to encourage children to use AI is just nonsense. It's also crazy to suppose that you can just say to them, don't do it, and they will comply. What instead, we need to do. And by the way, every child in the country learns computing at school. In primary school, we need to make sure that that curriculum evolves so that children get to understand how the thing works, how it generates its its content.
Why, therefore, it might hallucinate, why it tries to sort of flatter you as the questioner, and why you cannot fully rely upon it. And something else, um, there is a real danger and there's got fancy terms like cognitive, what do you call it?Cognitive offloading. But it basically means relying on this machine to do the work for me. And one way that we can mitigate that effect with school children is to make sure that when it comes to the end of the year and you've got to do your exam, you will do that exam with a piece of paper and a pen in exam conditions.
And there is a, I'm afraid, a move across the exam boards right now to try and move more and more exams digitally. Of course, they'll tell you these computers are attached to the internet and you can't do this, that or the other. But this is the safest thing to do. And of course, you have exceptions for children with special educational need or disability, which means they need to use a keyboard or exceptions for computer science. But in general, children at school doing their public exams should be doing them on pen and paper.
And that then will make sure that happens lower down the school as well. It will also make sure that children continue to learn. I know this may sound like a stupid thing to say, but there are already people who say, why is my child learning to write with a pen?Because by the time they honestly. Because by the time they grow up, nobody will be doing that. And finally, chatbots. We are about to make the same mistake with chatbots as we did with social media.
Now, and I'm talking here about the kind of what they call anthropomorphization, where this machine, this computer program develops a personality of its own and develops a relationship with you. Now, I welcome the development of an age appropriate design code for chatbots, but it's not enough. The regulatory regime we have in this country with Ofcom and the ICO, relies on there being evidence of harm. The evidence will not come. Mr. McVeigh, before the harm. And so we need to change that system.
So we adopt a precautionary principle when it comes to protecting children.
15:12
15:12
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And miss McVeigh. Um, I have rewritten this because I don't want to repeat all the things that have been said that I think we're in agreement that we may have different perspectives. So I want to take us back to 80 years ago in a country house a few miles from my constituency in Milton Keynes. A handful of mathematicians built a machine that cracked the Enigma code, and it gave birth to modern computing. Bletchley Park, where Britain proved that it could outthink the world.
That inheritance still runs through Milton Keynes. The data centre is rising on our edge. The British Standards Institute and Noel Hill, whose kitemark has told people that a product is safe. Since 1903. It is the oldest standard institute in the world, and a plethora of AI startups that outnumber Oxford or Cambridge. Britain is standing at another one of those moments, as we see with both our economy and our military tech coming together and pushing forward either for the good of this nation or for the ultimate, uh, damage to our nation.
The potential benefits from artificial intelligence are enormous, not only for the private sector, but AI is a tool that can pull our public services back from years of managed decline. It's a technology that will allow us to detect diseases earlier and cut NHS waiting lists. It will free nurses and other public servants, servants from back office grind for work that only people can do. But every country can see that prize. And the question that decides whether Britain leads or merely buys is whether we make this technology or just import it.
That inheritance still runs through Milton Keynes. The data centre is rising on our edge. The British Standards Institute and Noel Hill, whose kitemark has told people that a product is safe. Since 1903. It is the oldest standard institute in the world, and a plethora of AI startups that outnumber Oxford or Cambridge. Britain is standing at another one of those moments, as we see with both our economy and our military tech coming together and pushing forward either for the good of this nation or for the ultimate, uh, damage to our nation.
The potential benefits from artificial intelligence are enormous, not only for the private sector, but AI is a tool that can pull our public services back from years of managed decline. It's a technology that will allow us to detect diseases earlier and cut NHS waiting lists. It will free nurses and other public servants, servants from back office grind for work that only people can do. But every country can see that prize. And the question that decides whether Britain leads or merely buys is whether we make this technology or just import it.
15:14
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Services and ideas around the world, as we did in World War Two. But the UK is at risk of becoming an AI taker and simply handing the keys over to giant US tech firms that are buying up our best young AI companies. This is still our technology. It is just being bought up and packaged and sold back up to us in ways that we become indebted. And I do want to point out the series about Palantir, because we're both talking about the impact on our economy and our society within this debate.
Now, Palantir has the contract within the NHS. We know that US, UK companies, because I have spoken to them and many in this room have spoken to them, could do exactly the same thing. Even more concerning is that the Mod is now using it. With the activist government we have seen in the US turning off technology and its availability outside the US. This puts not only our NHS at risk, but most importantly the defence of our realm at risk against Russia, who others may have more sympathy for than we do.
There is a social cost as well as people look at a company like Palantir and say it does not reflect our values because that company is used by Ice and it has been used by Israel to target in Gaza. So it has a huge impact on public trust. And it's bad for our UK economy and innovation because it is crowding out UK firms that could be having those public contracts. So that is just one example of a dependency that is putting us at risk both socially and economically.
But it doesn't have to be that way. British AI firms need three things to succeed. They need customers who buy their products. They need the ability to increase supply to meet that demand. And they need a USP that British AI is the most trusted AI, and the government can help them with all three of those things. Firstly, we have to act as a good customer. Why shouldn't those NHS and Mod contracts be going to British A firms?Not only would it increase trust, but they would be developed in a way that meets our needs and not buying something that has been developed elsewhere.
It also means that we've got to invest in the entire British AI stack. That has to be British from start to finish. The second issue is supply. We need to make sure that we have the compute power that we need, and that we are not, again, relying on British UK. Sorry on US firms for that compute power. We are overly reliant, despite the fact that we own crown hosting. That is only 6% of public sector data.
The rest is pretty much all on AWS. That is a significant risk to us. Secondly, we need to make sure that we're looking at how we use the diffusion of supply of compute power. The underused capacity, in order to increase that. And finally, we need to increase AI take up across British businesses by building products that we trust. And the BSI is absolutely at the heart of that. It doesn't always have to be about regulation.
It can be about standards that lift everything up. And the thing about BSI and the thing that attracts, that attracts the world to it, is we are known for doing it. They become international standards. And then we get first market advantage. So finally, it is a there is a partnership model industrial strategy that is mission driven. Creates both the trust that we're talking about with the public that evaluates the impact that it has on society, but also creates the opportunities for our ideas and our innovation to flourish.
It is something we did back when with Bletchley Park and the innovations we did then, and it is that we need to become an innovation leader again and and an AI maker, and not just an AI taker, which puts us at risk.
Now, Palantir has the contract within the NHS. We know that US, UK companies, because I have spoken to them and many in this room have spoken to them, could do exactly the same thing. Even more concerning is that the Mod is now using it. With the activist government we have seen in the US turning off technology and its availability outside the US. This puts not only our NHS at risk, but most importantly the defence of our realm at risk against Russia, who others may have more sympathy for than we do.
There is a social cost as well as people look at a company like Palantir and say it does not reflect our values because that company is used by Ice and it has been used by Israel to target in Gaza. So it has a huge impact on public trust. And it's bad for our UK economy and innovation because it is crowding out UK firms that could be having those public contracts. So that is just one example of a dependency that is putting us at risk both socially and economically.
But it doesn't have to be that way. British AI firms need three things to succeed. They need customers who buy their products. They need the ability to increase supply to meet that demand. And they need a USP that British AI is the most trusted AI, and the government can help them with all three of those things. Firstly, we have to act as a good customer. Why shouldn't those NHS and Mod contracts be going to British A firms?Not only would it increase trust, but they would be developed in a way that meets our needs and not buying something that has been developed elsewhere.
It also means that we've got to invest in the entire British AI stack. That has to be British from start to finish. The second issue is supply. We need to make sure that we have the compute power that we need, and that we are not, again, relying on British UK. Sorry on US firms for that compute power. We are overly reliant, despite the fact that we own crown hosting. That is only 6% of public sector data.
The rest is pretty much all on AWS. That is a significant risk to us. Secondly, we need to make sure that we're looking at how we use the diffusion of supply of compute power. The underused capacity, in order to increase that. And finally, we need to increase AI take up across British businesses by building products that we trust. And the BSI is absolutely at the heart of that. It doesn't always have to be about regulation.
It can be about standards that lift everything up. And the thing about BSI and the thing that attracts, that attracts the world to it, is we are known for doing it. They become international standards. And then we get first market advantage. So finally, it is a there is a partnership model industrial strategy that is mission driven. Creates both the trust that we're talking about with the public that evaluates the impact that it has on society, but also creates the opportunities for our ideas and our innovation to flourish.
It is something we did back when with Bletchley Park and the innovations we did then, and it is that we need to become an innovation leader again and and an AI maker, and not just an AI taker, which puts us at risk.
15:18
15:19
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, Madam Chair. Responsible AI done right could be the saviour of humanity. Irresponsible AI done wrong could lead to the destruction of humanity. There is, to my knowledge, no effective self-regulated industry anywhere in the world that puts consumers and the planet before profit and shareholders. I thank my hon. Friend the member for Poole for bringing this important debate. As he highlighted and many others. A handful of companies run by men answerable to no electorate and standing before no constituents are making decisions right now that will shape health care, education, employment and childhood and the economy more than most acts of this Parliament ever will.
I will focus again on topics that haven't been covered and speak about safety and economic risks. I have spent 20 plus years in the pharmaceutical regulatory industry, and we can learn much from that industry. We regulate medicines before they reach a single patient. We do not wait for harm. Instead we test, we licence, we monitor. That is the entire logic of the GXP framework that underpins pharmaceutical safety in this country. And yet AI is being deployed in our hospitals, our schools, our courts and our welfare system with no comparable safety regime at all.
Not because the risk is smaller, but because the oversight is simply not there. So I put the following demands to this government today. Firstly, where GXP protect protects patients from medicine, we need G, a, I, P, or good AI practice regulation to protect patients from algorithms. Any AI system used in healthcare must meet a statutory standard before it touches a single patient record or clinical decision. The AI Security Institute already evaluates frontier models for biological, chemical, and cyber risk, but only if the AI companies allow.
This is progress in the but but progress in security assessment is not the same as regulation in the healthcare industry and delivery. This government bought Palantir into the heart of our NHS. In doing so, it handed the US, handed a US surveillance contractor complicit in genocide. The keys to patient data that belongs to the British public, not to a share price on Wall Street. I would like to ask the minister to guarantee to the British public that their NHS data will never be given, or be allowed to be stolen by Palantir or any other private company.
Secondly, the government must mandate independent statutory testing for AI before release and alongside it a yellow card scheme, which would be a national register where safety incidents, near misses and harms caused by AI are reported, tracked and acted on exactly as we do for adverse drug reactions, not the manufacturer making marking its own homework and hoping nobody checks. Self-Certification does not work and must end. Third, every AI system developed in this country must have a kill switch triggered automatically the moment a system takes unauthorised action, and one that any human being can trigger manually at any time without obstruction or AI override.
And this danger is not only about safety, it is about who pays the bill. While it unfolds. Over 300,000 private hire drivers and private hire drivers in this country now face displacement by robo taxis. So I ask the government, the minister, how will the government fund public services going forward?So in conclusion, um, there are dangers, there are opportunities from AI, and we must try and access them as much as possible. But we must address the societal, economic and safety consequences that AI poses.
Thank you.
I will focus again on topics that haven't been covered and speak about safety and economic risks. I have spent 20 plus years in the pharmaceutical regulatory industry, and we can learn much from that industry. We regulate medicines before they reach a single patient. We do not wait for harm. Instead we test, we licence, we monitor. That is the entire logic of the GXP framework that underpins pharmaceutical safety in this country. And yet AI is being deployed in our hospitals, our schools, our courts and our welfare system with no comparable safety regime at all.
Not because the risk is smaller, but because the oversight is simply not there. So I put the following demands to this government today. Firstly, where GXP protect protects patients from medicine, we need G, a, I, P, or good AI practice regulation to protect patients from algorithms. Any AI system used in healthcare must meet a statutory standard before it touches a single patient record or clinical decision. The AI Security Institute already evaluates frontier models for biological, chemical, and cyber risk, but only if the AI companies allow.
This is progress in the but but progress in security assessment is not the same as regulation in the healthcare industry and delivery. This government bought Palantir into the heart of our NHS. In doing so, it handed the US, handed a US surveillance contractor complicit in genocide. The keys to patient data that belongs to the British public, not to a share price on Wall Street. I would like to ask the minister to guarantee to the British public that their NHS data will never be given, or be allowed to be stolen by Palantir or any other private company.
Secondly, the government must mandate independent statutory testing for AI before release and alongside it a yellow card scheme, which would be a national register where safety incidents, near misses and harms caused by AI are reported, tracked and acted on exactly as we do for adverse drug reactions, not the manufacturer making marking its own homework and hoping nobody checks. Self-Certification does not work and must end. Third, every AI system developed in this country must have a kill switch triggered automatically the moment a system takes unauthorised action, and one that any human being can trigger manually at any time without obstruction or AI override.
And this danger is not only about safety, it is about who pays the bill. While it unfolds. Over 300,000 private hire drivers and private hire drivers in this country now face displacement by robo taxis. So I ask the government, the minister, how will the government fund public services going forward?So in conclusion, um, there are dangers, there are opportunities from AI, and we must try and access them as much as possible. But we must address the societal, economic and safety consequences that AI poses.
Thank you.
15:23
15:23
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
It's a pleasure to serve under your chair, and I thank my honourable friend for securing today's crucial debate. I think the quality of the contributions reflects how timely this conversation is. Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant future challenge. It is here, shaping our economy, public services and our daily lives. So the challenge is how do we make sure these changes work for people, strengthen our communities, and deliver benefits that are shared across the country and internationally. The UK has an opportunity to lead by embracing innovation and making sure the right safeguards are in place to protect our communities, building confidence and ensuring the benefits are shared.
And on this point, it's vital that we recognise how we can share in that new economy and act now to safeguard public value and wealth generation every day through our public services, our NHS, our transport network and countless interactions with the British public generate data that has enormous value. AI is the technology that unlocks that value, but the resource it is built on is our human data, which actually belongs to all of us. And as I outlined in a recent article, we must learn the lessons from the past in this in the last century, Norway made the decision to turn the national resource of fossil fuels in the North Sea.
The original driver of a modern industrial development into lasting public wealth in the UK. We did not invest the. The revenues of the North Sea oil, but we spent it to cover day to day costs and we must not make that same mistake twice. Rather than allowing the value created by AI from public data to flow permanently into a few private hands, we must ensure that the British public service shares in the wealth generated from that value, and the national assets that we have created by creating a national data wealth fund.
Government has already recognised the strategic importance of this through the National Data Library and through the AI Opportunities Action Plan. Those are welcome steps forward, but we must do more to build the institutions now that capture this value before it slips through our hands. And I want to fully agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend for Oxford East around the need for real sovereign AI capabilities and urgent collaboration with our European allies. Alongside this, keeping our communities safe and defending our democracy is essential.
Part of what this AI challenge is. I met recently with my honourable friend, the Minister for AI and Online Safety, to discuss the growing impact that AI is having on, particularly children and young people. We need to ensure those strong safeguards through around AI generated content. And if we cannot trust what is shown to us online, if we cannot distinguish between what is real and what is being artificially created, then the consequences can reach far beyond individual users and undermines trust in our democratic institutions themselves.
And that brings me to accountability. Companies with influence over what millions of people see should be held accountable and made responsible. Social media is not a village notice board. It is driven by algorithms that control what is recommended and amplified to millions of people every single day, acting as editors. Technology companies decide what people see, what spreads, what is promoted, and what disappears. AI will increasingly determine that that information that people consume, not only through social media, but through search engines, through digital assistants and services people use every day are increasingly driven by that.
So that's why transparency, accountability and effective regulation are crucial as the use of AI grows, so too does the demand for further infrastructure. As I've outlined before, data centres will become increasingly important to Britain's economy. And as the member for South East Cornwall, I know that nature is not a blocker to growth. With careful planning, meaningful engagement and strong environmental protections, we can both protect the landscapes that make Cornwall special while also creating skilled jobs, attracting investment and ensuring local communities benefit from a new technology which can often feel very far from south east Cornwall, concentrated in companies here in London.
So the economic revolution is happening whether we welcome it or not. But our responsibility is to ensure that we are ready to unlock those opportunities to protect children and vulnerable people, and hold the powerful platforms to account. So I am ready to ensure that the remarkable technology being developed today strengthens my community and does not leave them behind.
And on this point, it's vital that we recognise how we can share in that new economy and act now to safeguard public value and wealth generation every day through our public services, our NHS, our transport network and countless interactions with the British public generate data that has enormous value. AI is the technology that unlocks that value, but the resource it is built on is our human data, which actually belongs to all of us. And as I outlined in a recent article, we must learn the lessons from the past in this in the last century, Norway made the decision to turn the national resource of fossil fuels in the North Sea.
The original driver of a modern industrial development into lasting public wealth in the UK. We did not invest the. The revenues of the North Sea oil, but we spent it to cover day to day costs and we must not make that same mistake twice. Rather than allowing the value created by AI from public data to flow permanently into a few private hands, we must ensure that the British public service shares in the wealth generated from that value, and the national assets that we have created by creating a national data wealth fund.
Government has already recognised the strategic importance of this through the National Data Library and through the AI Opportunities Action Plan. Those are welcome steps forward, but we must do more to build the institutions now that capture this value before it slips through our hands. And I want to fully agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend for Oxford East around the need for real sovereign AI capabilities and urgent collaboration with our European allies. Alongside this, keeping our communities safe and defending our democracy is essential.
Part of what this AI challenge is. I met recently with my honourable friend, the Minister for AI and Online Safety, to discuss the growing impact that AI is having on, particularly children and young people. We need to ensure those strong safeguards through around AI generated content. And if we cannot trust what is shown to us online, if we cannot distinguish between what is real and what is being artificially created, then the consequences can reach far beyond individual users and undermines trust in our democratic institutions themselves.
And that brings me to accountability. Companies with influence over what millions of people see should be held accountable and made responsible. Social media is not a village notice board. It is driven by algorithms that control what is recommended and amplified to millions of people every single day, acting as editors. Technology companies decide what people see, what spreads, what is promoted, and what disappears. AI will increasingly determine that that information that people consume, not only through social media, but through search engines, through digital assistants and services people use every day are increasingly driven by that.
So that's why transparency, accountability and effective regulation are crucial as the use of AI grows, so too does the demand for further infrastructure. As I've outlined before, data centres will become increasingly important to Britain's economy. And as the member for South East Cornwall, I know that nature is not a blocker to growth. With careful planning, meaningful engagement and strong environmental protections, we can both protect the landscapes that make Cornwall special while also creating skilled jobs, attracting investment and ensuring local communities benefit from a new technology which can often feel very far from south east Cornwall, concentrated in companies here in London.
So the economic revolution is happening whether we welcome it or not. But our responsibility is to ensure that we are ready to unlock those opportunities to protect children and vulnerable people, and hold the powerful platforms to account. So I am ready to ensure that the remarkable technology being developed today strengthens my community and does not leave them behind.
15:27
15:27
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you very much, Mrs. McVey, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And thank you to the honourable member for Poole for securing the debate on a question that will shape every community in this country, including mine. And I, too, will try to focus on topics that have not been covered, including the infrastructure in. In Mid Dunbartonshire, my constituency, AI has recently been brought to the forefront of local debate at Wester Hill near Bishopbriggs, a developer has brought forward a proposal for a 300 megawatt AI data centre with 500MW of battery storage.
Nationally, significant infrastructure on our doorstep and my constituents response has rightly been one of caution not hostility and not blind welcome, but serious concerns and questions. What jobs will this bring and for whom?What?What happens to the environment, to the grid, to water and to energy bills?Developments on this scale must be good neighbors and deliver community benefit that people can see, as well as the skills, local employment and investment in the places that host them, not just high fences. And as my honourable friend said, the profits being disseminated at a distance, this is how they will be judged by the communities who host them.
And it is an international issue, one that so far has been dominated by US policy. And last month the EU, the United States showed the first sign that they may not see us as being part of their team when it comes to AI access. On the 12th of June, the US government ordered one of its leading AI companies to cut off access to its two most advanced models. For anyone who is not a US citizen, making the first time export controls that have ever been applied to AI models themselves, access for British businesses and researchers was switched off overnight, not because of anything that we did, but because Trump decided to cut us off.
Now, that's not a partnership, a vital technology that can be withdrawn at another government's whim is a chain around Britain's neck. We can't build our public services, our security and our economy on systems that can be cut off at a whim. So it is clear that the UK must build sovereign capacity of its own. The data centres, the skills and the software needed to ensure that we are not simply locked out of the AI race and communities like mine, which are being asked to host the infrastructure of that future, should share fairly in the rewards and we must build public trust.
The Liberal Democrat approach would make that possible. A cross sector, principle based framework to give innovators certainty and public confidence and transparency. Wherever AI is used in the public sector, so people can understand the impact of AI that that is having on their lives. Thank you.
Nationally, significant infrastructure on our doorstep and my constituents response has rightly been one of caution not hostility and not blind welcome, but serious concerns and questions. What jobs will this bring and for whom?What?What happens to the environment, to the grid, to water and to energy bills?Developments on this scale must be good neighbors and deliver community benefit that people can see, as well as the skills, local employment and investment in the places that host them, not just high fences. And as my honourable friend said, the profits being disseminated at a distance, this is how they will be judged by the communities who host them.
And it is an international issue, one that so far has been dominated by US policy. And last month the EU, the United States showed the first sign that they may not see us as being part of their team when it comes to AI access. On the 12th of June, the US government ordered one of its leading AI companies to cut off access to its two most advanced models. For anyone who is not a US citizen, making the first time export controls that have ever been applied to AI models themselves, access for British businesses and researchers was switched off overnight, not because of anything that we did, but because Trump decided to cut us off.
Now, that's not a partnership, a vital technology that can be withdrawn at another government's whim is a chain around Britain's neck. We can't build our public services, our security and our economy on systems that can be cut off at a whim. So it is clear that the UK must build sovereign capacity of its own. The data centres, the skills and the software needed to ensure that we are not simply locked out of the AI race and communities like mine, which are being asked to host the infrastructure of that future, should share fairly in the rewards and we must build public trust.
The Liberal Democrat approach would make that possible. A cross sector, principle based framework to give innovators certainty and public confidence and transparency. Wherever AI is used in the public sector, so people can understand the impact of AI that that is having on their lives. Thank you.
15:30
15:30
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mrs. McVey. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I wholeheartedly thank the member for Poole for securing this debate. And I think the richness of this debate shows that this is one that we really need to have. Also, in the main chamber, the government need to tackle this head on. Um, and before I dive in, I'd also just like to refer members to my register of interests. And that's the thing going back to the government work, there has been some work done, but it still seems that AI policy is done by announcement rather than a real strategic overview of how it will power our society.
And we still have no sign of an AI bill, as has been talked about today, AI is everywhere and the government must tackle it head on. They need to see that it is a tool that can be as used as a force to benefit our societies, or for our society's demise. It can drive. Briefly, yes.
And we still have no sign of an AI bill, as has been talked about today, AI is everywhere and the government must tackle it head on. They need to see that it is a tool that can be as used as a force to benefit our societies, or for our society's demise. It can drive. Briefly, yes.
15:31
15:31
15:31
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I think that's been at the core of a lot of our debate today. And that's the thing. So AI can drive the inequalities that we're seeing, break down our society, our security, our safety. Take away jobs, or it can be used to tackle our biggest problems, empower individuals and drive growth. And I see electricity, I see AI a little bit, a bit like the electricity of today, a very supercharged tool, a version of electricity. And we need to think about where we're going to direct it.
At some point, we started using electricity to light our cities, to power our homes, to charge our businesses and industries. But now we need to think where we'll direct the AI, how we prepare people for that future. But as the member for Poole talked about and many about the future of our economy, tax and wealth, it is really important. And I think there's a really there are key examples which highlight how important that is that we have started talking about donkey corns. You may have heard of unicorns, but donkey corns are those companies that are 1 or 2 people who have billion dollar companies.
And there is a legend that Open Claw has become the company that was one person sold for £1 billion. That is a real shift in our economy and something that we have to tackle head on. As liberal Democrats. We believe in embracing that progress and change, but we also believe in empowering individuals. And when it comes to AI, we thought about tackling that big picture, which is why we launched a project called everyday AI, where we brought together over 100 global stakeholders from industry and civil society to look at a liberal vision for AI and how Britain can thrive in the age of AI.
We look at backing British innovation, empowering people and building trust and building infrastructure for success. And as the member for East Hampshire said, no one knows where we're going. And I often feel as a member of Parliament or politician, it's very difficult to either sound utopian or dystopian about all of this. But what is crucial is that we need to ask the right questions, and we need to keep asking those questions and making sure we're going in the right direction. I'm going to advance because I think we need to, and I do want to hear from the minister as well.
But crucially, we need to. We need to lean into those opportunities and challenges. And briefly, we'd like to look at some of some of our proposals around that. And of course, very happy to discuss with the minister after that. And when it comes to leading to the opportunities, it's looking at helping startups and SMEs thrive with AI, with AI procurement guides, skills tax credit, capital expenditure relief for AI software that adoption, we need to look at supporting our university spin outs.
That research that we have, which is incredible in this country, quadrupling proof of concept funding, looking at a standardised national framework for negotiating IP between university and staff, and moving towards full IP ownership by research and research teams, helping to grow that here in the UK. And as has been mentioned by the member for Oxford East and the member for Milton Keynes Central, using government procurement to support UK tech, it has to be a catalyst for British sovereign tech, and what we're calling for is also a trial in increasing the social value for procurement contracts up to 30%.
And that ensures. Consider an alignment with the strategic goals on digital sovereignty and AI, but also maintaining those open borders. But when it comes to tackling challenges head on, we need to look at those cyber security threats. Seriously. They've already been talked about today, whether it was the member for Paul talked the impact of big tech companies that wake up call from mythos. We hear that China now is also developing those models. And it's also the models that we are not hearing about that I am most worried about.
We need to prepare for the future of work and fuel our creative industry. We are nowhere without them. Um, and when it comes to NEETs, we have to realise we're at this squeeze point where companies are looking at how AI is bringing down, bringing down costs. But I would also add that I think then increasing the cost of employment at this time is not a time to help tackle that employment question. But back to AI. We also need to look at establishing safety by design for AI systems and AI models, tackling harms for chatbots said without harm based framework, but that enforcement is crucial, and the AI Safety Institute, which is now security.
We think that it's such a shame that that focus has been diminished because it should be looking at AI safety and ethics, as well as that safety and security. Um, and it cannot, um, we have to make sure that those AI systems are not used for harm. And AI fraud was talked about. Now this is a massive serious problem in the UK. And Revolut spoke to us about the fact that 22% of their customer base is in the UK, but 68% of their fraud costs are in the UK.
We have a massive problem that we are not tackling properly, and AI is just supercharging that. And so we're calling for an online crime agency, AI labelling, and also saying that social media companies, where a lot of this AI enabled fraud starts, should be financially liable for that. Um, there's also about tackling the energy question for AI identities and their role in the community. The member for Dunbartonshire tackled this. We have to make sure that they are a value add to our community.
But also, um, as was talked about, the AI Energy Council, that this is really tackling those issues head on and public services to make sure that there is a person. Stays in the loop. But ultimately we need to prepare for a future that is already arriving and very, very quickly. And underpinning of that is what we're calling for, a national people strategy. A lot of this we talk about things are changing very quickly. We need a single coherent framework from primary school to the workplace.
Looking at regional input from that and realize that skills for an AI future are not just those technical skills, but it's also about critical thinking. It's about analysis. We need to look also at a digital sovereign strategy. As many members have alluded to, we need to look at our tech stack and realise that we cannot have a single point of failure. We need to have a resilient tech stack, which is not just good for our security. It's not just good for businesses, but it is also good for our tech and our economy.
And it's absolutely something that we need to look at. And the other thing about frontier models, we cannot give up. We need to start looking now. And there's also a point where proportionality and models, we don't all need the massive, complex models that take massive energy to do most of our problems. Most companies actually probably just need more simple models. Those can also be UK models. But if we don't start now, if we don't back and invest in those, we will be left behind and very quickly.
And finally is also smart regulation. We need to move very quickly. I would just um, I like to think about the FCA has a fantastic approach to fintech and also kind of looking at outcomes based approach and standards and looking at how we need to have a flexible approach to this because things are moving very quickly. We need to look at a digital bill of rights as well. And so we need to unlock those benefits by addressing the challenges head on.
91% of the public feel it's important that AI systems are developed and used in ways that treat people fairly. Almost 90%, um, are calling for an independent regulator for AI, according to the Ada Lovelace Institute. So will the minister listen to those concerns?Take back so many of the great ideas today and speak also to his colleagues across departments. AI is an extremely powerful tool. We must embrace it, and the government must tackle this head on. Where will you let the power be focused?Oh, and if we were unsure about how quickly AI was going to change, I've been reminded repeatedly that this year is the slowest we will ever see in terms of AI development.
Um, and, uh, if you, if you take a plane and a one degree off and go around the world, you'll be 500 miles off course. We need to decide now the direction of where we're going with AI. We need to look at that holistically. We're here to support that government and make sure it empowers society, and that Britain can really be the leading nation in terms of trustworthy, innovative technology.
At some point, we started using electricity to light our cities, to power our homes, to charge our businesses and industries. But now we need to think where we'll direct the AI, how we prepare people for that future. But as the member for Poole talked about and many about the future of our economy, tax and wealth, it is really important. And I think there's a really there are key examples which highlight how important that is that we have started talking about donkey corns. You may have heard of unicorns, but donkey corns are those companies that are 1 or 2 people who have billion dollar companies.
And there is a legend that Open Claw has become the company that was one person sold for £1 billion. That is a real shift in our economy and something that we have to tackle head on. As liberal Democrats. We believe in embracing that progress and change, but we also believe in empowering individuals. And when it comes to AI, we thought about tackling that big picture, which is why we launched a project called everyday AI, where we brought together over 100 global stakeholders from industry and civil society to look at a liberal vision for AI and how Britain can thrive in the age of AI.
We look at backing British innovation, empowering people and building trust and building infrastructure for success. And as the member for East Hampshire said, no one knows where we're going. And I often feel as a member of Parliament or politician, it's very difficult to either sound utopian or dystopian about all of this. But what is crucial is that we need to ask the right questions, and we need to keep asking those questions and making sure we're going in the right direction. I'm going to advance because I think we need to, and I do want to hear from the minister as well.
But crucially, we need to. We need to lean into those opportunities and challenges. And briefly, we'd like to look at some of some of our proposals around that. And of course, very happy to discuss with the minister after that. And when it comes to leading to the opportunities, it's looking at helping startups and SMEs thrive with AI, with AI procurement guides, skills tax credit, capital expenditure relief for AI software that adoption, we need to look at supporting our university spin outs.
That research that we have, which is incredible in this country, quadrupling proof of concept funding, looking at a standardised national framework for negotiating IP between university and staff, and moving towards full IP ownership by research and research teams, helping to grow that here in the UK. And as has been mentioned by the member for Oxford East and the member for Milton Keynes Central, using government procurement to support UK tech, it has to be a catalyst for British sovereign tech, and what we're calling for is also a trial in increasing the social value for procurement contracts up to 30%.
And that ensures. Consider an alignment with the strategic goals on digital sovereignty and AI, but also maintaining those open borders. But when it comes to tackling challenges head on, we need to look at those cyber security threats. Seriously. They've already been talked about today, whether it was the member for Paul talked the impact of big tech companies that wake up call from mythos. We hear that China now is also developing those models. And it's also the models that we are not hearing about that I am most worried about.
We need to prepare for the future of work and fuel our creative industry. We are nowhere without them. Um, and when it comes to NEETs, we have to realise we're at this squeeze point where companies are looking at how AI is bringing down, bringing down costs. But I would also add that I think then increasing the cost of employment at this time is not a time to help tackle that employment question. But back to AI. We also need to look at establishing safety by design for AI systems and AI models, tackling harms for chatbots said without harm based framework, but that enforcement is crucial, and the AI Safety Institute, which is now security.
We think that it's such a shame that that focus has been diminished because it should be looking at AI safety and ethics, as well as that safety and security. Um, and it cannot, um, we have to make sure that those AI systems are not used for harm. And AI fraud was talked about. Now this is a massive serious problem in the UK. And Revolut spoke to us about the fact that 22% of their customer base is in the UK, but 68% of their fraud costs are in the UK.
We have a massive problem that we are not tackling properly, and AI is just supercharging that. And so we're calling for an online crime agency, AI labelling, and also saying that social media companies, where a lot of this AI enabled fraud starts, should be financially liable for that. Um, there's also about tackling the energy question for AI identities and their role in the community. The member for Dunbartonshire tackled this. We have to make sure that they are a value add to our community.
But also, um, as was talked about, the AI Energy Council, that this is really tackling those issues head on and public services to make sure that there is a person. Stays in the loop. But ultimately we need to prepare for a future that is already arriving and very, very quickly. And underpinning of that is what we're calling for, a national people strategy. A lot of this we talk about things are changing very quickly. We need a single coherent framework from primary school to the workplace.
Looking at regional input from that and realize that skills for an AI future are not just those technical skills, but it's also about critical thinking. It's about analysis. We need to look also at a digital sovereign strategy. As many members have alluded to, we need to look at our tech stack and realise that we cannot have a single point of failure. We need to have a resilient tech stack, which is not just good for our security. It's not just good for businesses, but it is also good for our tech and our economy.
And it's absolutely something that we need to look at. And the other thing about frontier models, we cannot give up. We need to start looking now. And there's also a point where proportionality and models, we don't all need the massive, complex models that take massive energy to do most of our problems. Most companies actually probably just need more simple models. Those can also be UK models. But if we don't start now, if we don't back and invest in those, we will be left behind and very quickly.
And finally is also smart regulation. We need to move very quickly. I would just um, I like to think about the FCA has a fantastic approach to fintech and also kind of looking at outcomes based approach and standards and looking at how we need to have a flexible approach to this because things are moving very quickly. We need to look at a digital bill of rights as well. And so we need to unlock those benefits by addressing the challenges head on.
91% of the public feel it's important that AI systems are developed and used in ways that treat people fairly. Almost 90%, um, are calling for an independent regulator for AI, according to the Ada Lovelace Institute. So will the minister listen to those concerns?Take back so many of the great ideas today and speak also to his colleagues across departments. AI is an extremely powerful tool. We must embrace it, and the government must tackle this head on. Where will you let the power be focused?Oh, and if we were unsure about how quickly AI was going to change, I've been reminded repeatedly that this year is the slowest we will ever see in terms of AI development.
Um, and, uh, if you, if you take a plane and a one degree off and go around the world, you'll be 500 miles off course. We need to decide now the direction of where we're going with AI. We need to look at that holistically. We're here to support that government and make sure it empowers society, and that Britain can really be the leading nation in terms of trustworthy, innovative technology.
15:40
15:40
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you. And it's a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship. Mr. Murphy, I'd like to start by thanking the member for Paul for bringing forward this very interesting debate and all the members taking part across both sides of the House. And I recognise many faces, and I know have been participants. And many debates such as today, and I'm sure many more to come. I like to start by thanking the member for South Holland and the Deepings, and I wish I'd attended his lecture in 2000, not least to, to have the the, the experience of being in a room where everyone disagreed with him.
Must have been rather. Himself. We must have been more of a unique. But he made a very important point about how slowly Parliament regulates um and responds to change a point which is also made by the member, the Right Honourable member for East Hampshire, uh, about the responsiveness in terms of a rapidly evolving sector. I very much welcome his point on education. Um, and the challenges that he raises, particularly given his experience in the sector. But more than anything, the point he made, which is nobody knows what the future outcomes are going to be a point which I shall come back to a bit later on in my remarks.
I want to focus the bulk of these, though, specifically on employment. Now, I share the member for Poole's desire to look at how to support and enhance employment through the AI transition, and we do need to have more of these discussions. But I'm saddened, again, that a core proposal from the Labour backbenchers is a plan on who or what. Now we should be taxing. I regret that his plans and employment levy, which I know is something that he's very passionate about and has written about previously, would not work to protect jobs.
Protectionism never does. It would simply put a brake on the ability of organisations, large and small to adapt to AI and leave us behind compared to our competitors losing jobs across all sectors. The history of protectionism is a frequent and sadly very tragic one. Madam chairman, with each technological intervention and change, there often calls for protectionist approaches. And when they come in. Uh, yes. I haven't got much time. I'm very happy to.
Must have been rather. Himself. We must have been more of a unique. But he made a very important point about how slowly Parliament regulates um and responds to change a point which is also made by the member, the Right Honourable member for East Hampshire, uh, about the responsiveness in terms of a rapidly evolving sector. I very much welcome his point on education. Um, and the challenges that he raises, particularly given his experience in the sector. But more than anything, the point he made, which is nobody knows what the future outcomes are going to be a point which I shall come back to a bit later on in my remarks.
I want to focus the bulk of these, though, specifically on employment. Now, I share the member for Poole's desire to look at how to support and enhance employment through the AI transition, and we do need to have more of these discussions. But I'm saddened, again, that a core proposal from the Labour backbenchers is a plan on who or what. Now we should be taxing. I regret that his plans and employment levy, which I know is something that he's very passionate about and has written about previously, would not work to protect jobs.
Protectionism never does. It would simply put a brake on the ability of organisations, large and small to adapt to AI and leave us behind compared to our competitors losing jobs across all sectors. The history of protectionism is a frequent and sadly very tragic one. Madam chairman, with each technological intervention and change, there often calls for protectionist approaches. And when they come in. Uh, yes. I haven't got much time. I'm very happy to.
15:42
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
For giving way. Would he um. Explain how then so human beings at work pay National insurance, income tax, pensions, contributions, and then they can support their families, AI agents and AI powered robots do not pay any of that. No tax receipts for the government. So how will government fund public services in that scenario?
15:43
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
And I thank him for his challenge of regarding a future hypothetical future hypothetical, which has not yet to be realised. I think I'll be able to address some of his points in this debate, but I think they're a bit more beyond the scope of of this this discussion, given the the premise which he's um, which he's setting. Um, I can give some concrete proposals though in terms of protecting human jobs as a starter for ten rather than inventing a new tax, we could start with some old ones rather than inventing new regs.
We could start with some newish ones. The Labour government's approach has been to make it as difficult as possible to employ human labour through increasing national Insurance contributions by employers, making it more difficult for younger people to compete in the workplace by increasing the minimum wage, increasing employment regulations, making it a greater gamble for business to take on new starters to support jobs in the UK. Before looking at AI, we should look at the Labour government's policies, which are uniquely designed to make it more and more difficult to employ a person over a machine.
Now we're right to think about the workforce implications regarding adoption of AI, but the future is always, always very unclear and uncertain. That's the challenge of working in the sector, and I'm very mindful of this, um, and this position of humility with making the following more specific remarks. Other technological disruptions while displacing jobs have ultimately led to more jobs through elasticity of demand as costs decrease through automation, demand increases. This is a story of what happened with the mass manufacturing in the automotive sector to begin with.
People very concerned that, um, mechanized manufacturing would reduce jobs in the sector. But of course, the car sector exploded because the cost of a car went through the floor. So as a result, there were more cars, more, more jobs in the automotive sector. The issue was they were different jobs. It's more of a trans a transition rather than a replacement. Now there are signals and there are concerns that the current decrease in youth jobs are due to AI.
However, as the member for East Hampshire said, this is really unclear. To know what's going on. If it is AI replacement or it's due to the current prevailing economic circumstances, or it's a mixture of a bit of the two. And the data on this remains unclear. But I do appreciate this is something that we need to be thinking about now in terms of what possible futures could unfold. Equally, our tech sector provides growth jobs. The UK could be the world's fastest AI adopter, but only if it's not punished with burdensome taxes and regulations.
We're already seeing a hint, a hint of what AI can offer, especially in the research and health sectors. Our economic future needs AI, or we are going to be left behind. Now, before I come to my final questions for the Minister, I want to just touch on AI and tech sovereignty, which increasingly is being talked about a lot in the media, being talked quite a lot about in this place, and people are focusing more and more on. AI and tech sovereignty as described in this debate and in other forums, is illusory.
We work and operate in global supply chains with enmeshed technology across the world, whether it's microchips built by Tmsc in Taiwan, whether it's microchip etches in the Netherlands, whether it's quantum tech in the UK, whether it's frontier models, most of which are based in the States, our sectors are completely and utterly enmeshed. Rather than talking about tech and data sovereignty, we should be talking about resilience and leverage. What are the core functions and features we want to have on domestic soil?We can have a discussion about that.
What should be necessary to have on British soil, and what are the core technologies we want to be absolutely elite on. We want to be world leaders. We want to be indispensable to the world so that they. Look to us as opposed to way round. We need resilience and leverage rather than chasing the illusory rainbow of tech and data sovereignty, I've got some. Final questions for the Minister. Given the remarks I've made about regulation and competitiveness, can he rule out any part of the UK being brought into the UK's AI act, rendering us as a U.S?Act?Thank you for the correction AI renders.
Not reducing our. Competitiveness with the EU. Could you summarize the impact of government taxation and employment policies on the UK AI sector?Have there been positive or have they been negative and if negative, to what extent can he confirm that there will be a decent statement by the end well before recess, as has been promised on social media and regulation of chat bots?And has he spoken to the virtual Prime Minister, the member for Makerfield, about the importance of anti protectionist policies in the UK's AI sector?
We could start with some newish ones. The Labour government's approach has been to make it as difficult as possible to employ human labour through increasing national Insurance contributions by employers, making it more difficult for younger people to compete in the workplace by increasing the minimum wage, increasing employment regulations, making it a greater gamble for business to take on new starters to support jobs in the UK. Before looking at AI, we should look at the Labour government's policies, which are uniquely designed to make it more and more difficult to employ a person over a machine.
Now we're right to think about the workforce implications regarding adoption of AI, but the future is always, always very unclear and uncertain. That's the challenge of working in the sector, and I'm very mindful of this, um, and this position of humility with making the following more specific remarks. Other technological disruptions while displacing jobs have ultimately led to more jobs through elasticity of demand as costs decrease through automation, demand increases. This is a story of what happened with the mass manufacturing in the automotive sector to begin with.
People very concerned that, um, mechanized manufacturing would reduce jobs in the sector. But of course, the car sector exploded because the cost of a car went through the floor. So as a result, there were more cars, more, more jobs in the automotive sector. The issue was they were different jobs. It's more of a trans a transition rather than a replacement. Now there are signals and there are concerns that the current decrease in youth jobs are due to AI.
However, as the member for East Hampshire said, this is really unclear. To know what's going on. If it is AI replacement or it's due to the current prevailing economic circumstances, or it's a mixture of a bit of the two. And the data on this remains unclear. But I do appreciate this is something that we need to be thinking about now in terms of what possible futures could unfold. Equally, our tech sector provides growth jobs. The UK could be the world's fastest AI adopter, but only if it's not punished with burdensome taxes and regulations.
We're already seeing a hint, a hint of what AI can offer, especially in the research and health sectors. Our economic future needs AI, or we are going to be left behind. Now, before I come to my final questions for the Minister, I want to just touch on AI and tech sovereignty, which increasingly is being talked about a lot in the media, being talked quite a lot about in this place, and people are focusing more and more on. AI and tech sovereignty as described in this debate and in other forums, is illusory.
We work and operate in global supply chains with enmeshed technology across the world, whether it's microchips built by Tmsc in Taiwan, whether it's microchip etches in the Netherlands, whether it's quantum tech in the UK, whether it's frontier models, most of which are based in the States, our sectors are completely and utterly enmeshed. Rather than talking about tech and data sovereignty, we should be talking about resilience and leverage. What are the core functions and features we want to have on domestic soil?We can have a discussion about that.
What should be necessary to have on British soil, and what are the core technologies we want to be absolutely elite on. We want to be world leaders. We want to be indispensable to the world so that they. Look to us as opposed to way round. We need resilience and leverage rather than chasing the illusory rainbow of tech and data sovereignty, I've got some. Final questions for the Minister. Given the remarks I've made about regulation and competitiveness, can he rule out any part of the UK being brought into the UK's AI act, rendering us as a U.S?Act?Thank you for the correction AI renders.
Not reducing our. Competitiveness with the EU. Could you summarize the impact of government taxation and employment policies on the UK AI sector?Have there been positive or have they been negative and if negative, to what extent can he confirm that there will be a decent statement by the end well before recess, as has been promised on social media and regulation of chat bots?And has he spoken to the virtual Prime Minister, the member for Makerfield, about the importance of anti protectionist policies in the UK's AI sector?
15:47
15:48
15:48
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
It's a pleasure to serve under your chair. Can I start by congratulating my honourable friend, the member for Poole for securing this debate?It is a debate that speaks directly to the kind of country and the society that we want to create, that we want to live in and thrive for both everyone we represent and our friends and family. And the government recognises that AI is already changing. As members have said, our economy, the delivery of public services, our expectations on each other, the ways in which we interact and engage in debate.
It is for me, not merely a latest or the something new and shiny so attractive to politics and politicians, but it is equivalent, in my mind, to a new atmosphere in which we are now all expecting to feature and play our part, and we see the potential of AI from scientific discovery, better public services, stronger economic growth. But government also has a clear responsibility to make sure that this change reinforces, rather than weakens the fabric of our society at the heart of this debate, this includes standing up to big tech firms when we deem necessary, and examples will follow when they facilitate harm to UK citizens, as well as developing as so many members of powerfully made, the argument for sovereign capability, determining what comes next, honing it for best benefit.
As we bring today's debate to a close, it's important that we continue to consider these questions. We must collectively decide how we build a better society in an AI enabled world. AI must serve us all and not the other way round. Government recognises the pressure to internationally compete on AI. This means that we need to actively shape the transition towards it. Securing benefits for the UK whilst managing risk or, as my right hon. Friend for Oxford East, my friend referred to it as the domestic control that we need to exert here.
And that is. And that is why I'm going to make some progress. I will come in. That is why we are working hard to ensure that the UK has the capability, access and influence it needs in the technologies that will shape our economy, public services and national security. It is why we established the sovereign AI unit, backed by £500 million, to enable government to back promising UK firms. The UK already attracts the third highest private investment in AI.
I give way.
It is for me, not merely a latest or the something new and shiny so attractive to politics and politicians, but it is equivalent, in my mind, to a new atmosphere in which we are now all expecting to feature and play our part, and we see the potential of AI from scientific discovery, better public services, stronger economic growth. But government also has a clear responsibility to make sure that this change reinforces, rather than weakens the fabric of our society at the heart of this debate, this includes standing up to big tech firms when we deem necessary, and examples will follow when they facilitate harm to UK citizens, as well as developing as so many members of powerfully made, the argument for sovereign capability, determining what comes next, honing it for best benefit.
As we bring today's debate to a close, it's important that we continue to consider these questions. We must collectively decide how we build a better society in an AI enabled world. AI must serve us all and not the other way round. Government recognises the pressure to internationally compete on AI. This means that we need to actively shape the transition towards it. Securing benefits for the UK whilst managing risk or, as my right hon. Friend for Oxford East, my friend referred to it as the domestic control that we need to exert here.
And that is. And that is why I'm going to make some progress. I will come in. That is why we are working hard to ensure that the UK has the capability, access and influence it needs in the technologies that will shape our economy, public services and national security. It is why we established the sovereign AI unit, backed by £500 million, to enable government to back promising UK firms. The UK already attracts the third highest private investment in AI.
I give way.
15:50
15:50
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Way at the Teesside region has the potential to bring in nationally significant investment in new AI data center infrastructure. We welcome that investment. We are open for business. But will the minister commit to meet with Mhclg colleagues to ensure that the governance arrangements around the Teesworks site also attract business, rather than deter it?
15:51
15:51
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I'd be very happy if I'm considered worthy to meet in a few weeks time. I will be very happy to to do so. This is not about self-sufficiency or turning away from trusted international partners. It is about ensuring that where the UK has genuine strengths in research and talent, our creativity and innovation, we can translate them into long term economic benefit, significant private investment is now flowing into all areas, even a decade that even a decade ago, would have seemed like science fiction therapies that slow or reverse biological aging or AI accelerated drug discovery that could compress timelines for curing major diseases.
If realised, these developments would profoundly reshape expectations of health work and the role of the state. That is why the government has already committed to ambitious plans to transform services, to digitise government, as set out in the roadmap of modern digital government published earlier this year.
If realised, these developments would profoundly reshape expectations of health work and the role of the state. That is why the government has already committed to ambitious plans to transform services, to digitise government, as set out in the roadmap of modern digital government published earlier this year.
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
The principle the government has is to regulate, at time of deployment or at use. I understand the argument that the gentleman is making, but it is important that we strike the right balance between innovation and regulation. And, of course, where there have been examples of harm, as I'll come on to in more detail, we must call that out and call them in. I will make some progress. That's why the government has already committed to ambitious plans to transform services. For a radiologist, this means access to the best tools for detecting cancer tools that can save lives and cut waiting lists within our NHS.
And it is in the public sector where it is perhaps most crucial that government ensures we are embedding frameworks, standards and guidance to ensure AI is deployed in a way that is fair, transparent and accountable. This includes the data and AI ethics framework, the AI playbook and transparency standards that ensure the public can understand how systems are used. We are also supporting UK firms that provide third party AI assurance ecosystems, demonstrating that AI systems are safe and reliable, as well as creating new jobs. This is critical not just for risk management, but for building businesses and confidence in those deploying AI and building trust in the systems that we use.
AI has the potential to enhance job roles to the point being made on the job market. Each and each of our performance at work can be enhanced, but it is necessary and reasonable. As my honourable friend points out, to distinguish that there are jobs at most, most at risk, or most or least likely to be enhanced and instead replaced. And that is a very reasonable, uh. Proposition. We recognise that one of the primary areas where people will interact of with AI is in the labour market.
An estimated on the issue of young people zoning, on zoning in on labour markets momentarily on the issue of young people and entry level jobs. An estimated 12.8% of all people aged 16 to 24 in the UK were not in education, employment or training. This goes well beyond data entry or access level jobs. As well as then a potential shift of culture in our entry level jobs. And to date there is conclusive. There is little conclusive evidence that AI is reducing employment.
However, the IMF estimates around 70% of UK workers are in exposed occupations. Around half of those exposed workers are in high complementary roles, where AI will enhance rather than replace their work, and the government is committed to supporting the worker experience through AI transition and has a proud record of advancing workers rights. To this end, the government established the AI and Future of Work Unit earlier this year, beginning bringing together expertise from across departments and industry to monitor how AI is affecting jobs, wages and opportunity in real time.
We are putting in place the institutions, the data and the cross-government coordination needed to ensure AI transforms the labour market, that workers are supported, and opportunities are widely shared across society. We are also investing in people because the opportunities of AI will only be realised if the workforce is equipped to harness them. It's why we've launched one of the most ambitious skills programmes anywhere in the world. Our AI boosts skills. Boost is already delivering results and in an answer given to the House last week, I referred to the early careers funding and work on curriculum reforms to come, including AI, GCSE and computing.
This is about ensuring that workers at every stage of their career, whether in small business, large firms or public services, have the tools that they need to thrive in an AI enabled economy. AI will have seismic is having seismic impacts on our working life, on our productivity, and we must embrace the democracy. This gives us the how it democratizes. My apologies. Accept access to AI to ensure that communities across the country reap the benefits. Central to this effort is ensuring that support is delivered to the graduates and young people entering the world of work for the first time, and much has been made of the rising level in needs.
Programmes such as tech local, creating new jobs, traineeships and professional training, whilst scholarships and fellowships are supporting the next generation of researchers and innovators. There is nobody waiting 25 years to tackle the threats, however, and AI harms are very real and we do not dwell and sit idly by on on tackling these. We are not standing still. The AI Security Institute is conducting world leading research to understand the capabilities and impacts of advanced AI in response to the generation of vile, degrading, non-consensual sexual deepfakes on grok.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister himself, the government stood up to grok and X and won that fight. We have criminalised the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes and have legislated to require platforms to remove them separately. We have banned new notification apps and criminalised AI tools designed to create sexual abuse, as well as learning from the example, and that the importance of sovereignty when considering the switching off recently of the latest. Topic AI to. All on the issue of social media, ban was asked a specific question.
I was a proud early adopter of this policy, and I'm pleased to say it remains the government's intention to update the House before recess in final comment, um, the UK is proactively responding to the AI revolution. We are shaping it. AI has extraordinary potential to improve healthcare, to accelerate scientific discovery, personalised education, strengthen public services and drive economic growth. We will harness these opportunities across every region and every community to shape the UK society for the better for all.
And it is in the public sector where it is perhaps most crucial that government ensures we are embedding frameworks, standards and guidance to ensure AI is deployed in a way that is fair, transparent and accountable. This includes the data and AI ethics framework, the AI playbook and transparency standards that ensure the public can understand how systems are used. We are also supporting UK firms that provide third party AI assurance ecosystems, demonstrating that AI systems are safe and reliable, as well as creating new jobs. This is critical not just for risk management, but for building businesses and confidence in those deploying AI and building trust in the systems that we use.
AI has the potential to enhance job roles to the point being made on the job market. Each and each of our performance at work can be enhanced, but it is necessary and reasonable. As my honourable friend points out, to distinguish that there are jobs at most, most at risk, or most or least likely to be enhanced and instead replaced. And that is a very reasonable, uh. Proposition. We recognise that one of the primary areas where people will interact of with AI is in the labour market.
An estimated on the issue of young people zoning, on zoning in on labour markets momentarily on the issue of young people and entry level jobs. An estimated 12.8% of all people aged 16 to 24 in the UK were not in education, employment or training. This goes well beyond data entry or access level jobs. As well as then a potential shift of culture in our entry level jobs. And to date there is conclusive. There is little conclusive evidence that AI is reducing employment.
However, the IMF estimates around 70% of UK workers are in exposed occupations. Around half of those exposed workers are in high complementary roles, where AI will enhance rather than replace their work, and the government is committed to supporting the worker experience through AI transition and has a proud record of advancing workers rights. To this end, the government established the AI and Future of Work Unit earlier this year, beginning bringing together expertise from across departments and industry to monitor how AI is affecting jobs, wages and opportunity in real time.
We are putting in place the institutions, the data and the cross-government coordination needed to ensure AI transforms the labour market, that workers are supported, and opportunities are widely shared across society. We are also investing in people because the opportunities of AI will only be realised if the workforce is equipped to harness them. It's why we've launched one of the most ambitious skills programmes anywhere in the world. Our AI boosts skills. Boost is already delivering results and in an answer given to the House last week, I referred to the early careers funding and work on curriculum reforms to come, including AI, GCSE and computing.
This is about ensuring that workers at every stage of their career, whether in small business, large firms or public services, have the tools that they need to thrive in an AI enabled economy. AI will have seismic is having seismic impacts on our working life, on our productivity, and we must embrace the democracy. This gives us the how it democratizes. My apologies. Accept access to AI to ensure that communities across the country reap the benefits. Central to this effort is ensuring that support is delivered to the graduates and young people entering the world of work for the first time, and much has been made of the rising level in needs.
Programmes such as tech local, creating new jobs, traineeships and professional training, whilst scholarships and fellowships are supporting the next generation of researchers and innovators. There is nobody waiting 25 years to tackle the threats, however, and AI harms are very real and we do not dwell and sit idly by on on tackling these. We are not standing still. The AI Security Institute is conducting world leading research to understand the capabilities and impacts of advanced AI in response to the generation of vile, degrading, non-consensual sexual deepfakes on grok.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister himself, the government stood up to grok and X and won that fight. We have criminalised the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes and have legislated to require platforms to remove them separately. We have banned new notification apps and criminalised AI tools designed to create sexual abuse, as well as learning from the example, and that the importance of sovereignty when considering the switching off recently of the latest. Topic AI to. All on the issue of social media, ban was asked a specific question.
I was a proud early adopter of this policy, and I'm pleased to say it remains the government's intention to update the House before recess in final comment, um, the UK is proactively responding to the AI revolution. We are shaping it. AI has extraordinary potential to improve healthcare, to accelerate scientific discovery, personalised education, strengthen public services and drive economic growth. We will harness these opportunities across every region and every community to shape the UK society for the better for all.
15:58
15:58
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. McVey. And can I start by just thanking all members for their contributions?I thought it was an excellent debate and uh, really shows. I think that we need to have more of this discussion. That brings me on to some very, very quick points. Firstly, we need to act with speed. I think that was accepted by a number of members in the House. We can't wait 25 years as the Right Honourable Gentleman mentioned earlier, we also need very clear democratic oversight of what is happening.
We cannot allow people that we don't know and we don't control to make our futures for us. We have to be in control of our own destinies. That's a very important thing that will require global regulation, where we have to work with other authorities across the globe to come to those arrangements. And finally, the protections that I think we will need must ensure that the next industrial revolution, which is already here, in effect, benefits everyone and not just a few, order.
We cannot allow people that we don't know and we don't control to make our futures for us. We have to be in control of our own destinies. That's a very important thing that will require global regulation, where we have to work with other authorities across the globe to come to those arrangements. And finally, the protections that I think we will need must ensure that the next industrial revolution, which is already here, in effect, benefits everyone and not just a few, order.
16:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Order. Before we begin, Edward, it's usually you and the minister. Do you know if anybody else is speaking or intervening?You haven't given permission. There might be interventions, but there hasn't been speeches. Okay, so Luke here looks like he's the PS. We've got the minister crossing. Already. Order!I will call Edward Morello to move the motion, and then I will call the minister to respond.
16:01
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you very much, Mr. Mcvean. It's a pleasure to serve, as always, with you in the chair. Um, and it is my privilege to bring this debate to the House, and I beg to move that this House has considered bus services in West Dorset. It may seem niche, but it matters to my residents a great deal. It has generated a huge number of queries. Social media comments, emails and constituency casework since I became an MP, reflecting just how deeply it affects people's daily lives.
Buses determine whether my constituents can get to work, reach college, attend a hospital appointment, visit the high street or simply remain independent. When services are reduced or withdrawn. It can cause real anxiety for those who rely on them. Or, as I recently saw through casework, their families too. This is especially true when it comes to reaching vital hospital appointments or facing further cuts to essential routes. As we saw when the X53 and X51 services were significantly reduced due to last minute increases in the subsidies demanded by the bus company that the council could not afford to meet when changing to a winter timetable.
In the spirit of being the constructive opposition, I would like to start by welcoming the direction this government has taken when I. I welcome the introduction of the new Local Authority Bus grant, bringing together previous funding streams into a single multi-year settlement and the recognition of Rurality in the funding model, as well as the extra funding that has been provided to local authorities. Long term funding provides certainty, allows authorities to plan strategically and move away from the stop start cycle of short term funding announcement that is characterized this area for too long.
Of course I will give way.
Buses determine whether my constituents can get to work, reach college, attend a hospital appointment, visit the high street or simply remain independent. When services are reduced or withdrawn. It can cause real anxiety for those who rely on them. Or, as I recently saw through casework, their families too. This is especially true when it comes to reaching vital hospital appointments or facing further cuts to essential routes. As we saw when the X53 and X51 services were significantly reduced due to last minute increases in the subsidies demanded by the bus company that the council could not afford to meet when changing to a winter timetable.
In the spirit of being the constructive opposition, I would like to start by welcoming the direction this government has taken when I. I welcome the introduction of the new Local Authority Bus grant, bringing together previous funding streams into a single multi-year settlement and the recognition of Rurality in the funding model, as well as the extra funding that has been provided to local authorities. Long term funding provides certainty, allows authorities to plan strategically and move away from the stop start cycle of short term funding announcement that is characterized this area for too long.
Of course I will give way.
16:02
16:02
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
For bringing this forward?West Dorset is the only vitamin is very where I. World it's very similar to my constituency with market towns, many towns rather than towns. The profitability of the public transport can be questionable. However, the honourable member. Does he agree that the bottom line is not the ledger, but it is instead connectivity and the end of rural isolation in an affordable fashion, and that we're not getting the balance right for our rural constituents, which are the backbone of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
16:03
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Well, I thank the honourable member for his intervention, and he rightly touches upon a lot of the issues that I will come on to, all of which are, I know, as pressing in his part of the United Kingdom as it is mine. Um, I would also like to thank the Minister for the constructive meeting we had on these issues for the first time, the funding formula explicitly recognises rurality, and that is an important step forward, and one that myself and many other rural members have called for. From the first day in our house.
In this House, however, recognising rurality and adequately funding rurality are two different things. The scale of the challenge in rural areas is immense, requiring a sustained and significant effort to rebuild networks that have been hollowed out over many years. We are in a position where rural bus services have fallen by 52% between 2008 and 2023. Of course.
In this House, however, recognising rurality and adequately funding rurality are two different things. The scale of the challenge in rural areas is immense, requiring a sustained and significant effort to rebuild networks that have been hollowed out over many years. We are in a position where rural bus services have fallen by 52% between 2008 and 2023. Of course.
16:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. He will know that Somerset and Dorset we get older models of buses no longer used elsewhere. At the same time, rural bus depots like in Yeovil are closing. I mean, if your bus breaks down from Ilchester on the way to Dorchester, you have to wait over an hour for a replacement bus. Does my hon. Friend agree that if depots for repairs are going to be closed and we need new buses in West Dorset and Yeovil?
16:04
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Well, I thank my honourable friend and neighbour for his intervention and I. He's right to raise the issue, which is particularly pertinent to the issue with older buses and the closing of depots, which are directly linked. And I hope that has been heard by the Minister. Across England. There are more than 1 billion fewer passenger journeys in 2023 than there were in 2015. Bus service frequency in west Dorset has fallen by an astonishing 62%. Ten of Dorset's 14 towns are transport deserts or at serious risk of becoming one.
This creates barriers to employment, healthcare and independence. Patients missed hospital appointments, contributing to the 1.2 billion annual cost of missed appointments to NHS England. Young people miss out on opportunities. Older residents become isolated communities slowly lose confidence that public transport will ever return. And that is why simply maintaining today's network cannot be considered a success. The scale of decline means we have. We must actively rebuild what has already been lost. Between 2026 and 2030, Dorset will receive £13.8 million in government bus funding, the lowest allocation anywhere in the South West.
It is 10.9 million less than neighbouring Somerset and 7.5 million less than Wiltshire. Devon and Torbay alone will receive more than three and a half times Dorset's allocation. Hampshire will receive nearly four times as much. It is therefore unsurprising that neighbouring authorities can expand services, modernise fleets and increase frequency. While Dorset is often forced to simply maintain what they've got left, the government deserves credit for recognising Rurality, but Rurality now needs to be given greater weighting within the funding formula, serving dispersed populations inevitably costs more per passenger than operating in dense urban areas.
There is a significant difference between increasing the frequency of an existing service and recreating a lost route from scratch. The latter requires considerably greater investment before passenger numbers even begin to increase. Every summer, West Dorset's population increases by more than 42% due to seasonal visitors. Around 4 million day visitors and 2 million overnight visitors place a huge additional demand upon our transport networks deserve to serve a much smaller, permanent population. Yet that seasonal pressure is barely recognised in the national funding allocations.
The Prime Minister in waiting takes great pride in the transformation of Manchester's bus network, but the bee network demonstrates the scale of the investment required. Greater Manchester receives about 41.42 £41.42 per resident, compared with approximately £4.84 per resident in Dorset, over eight times as much in funding per head. Transport for Greater Manchester manages a transport budget exceeding £480 million and subsidises almost a quarter of the network. That level of investment has transformed services and I want Dorset to achieve that same level of ambition.
But rebuilding transport across hundreds of square miles of villages, market towns and dispersed communities is significantly harder than doing so in a major urban area. If the government truly wishes to level up rural transport, then funding must recognize that restoring services in rural Britain costs more, not less, than maintaining them. In our cities. The consequence of poor bus services are perhaps felt most keenly by young people, the recent Milburn Review identified transport as one of the main drivers of young people becoming detached from education, employment and training in rural, deprived and coastal communities.
The review found that transport itself had become a major barrier to opportunity for those without access to a car. The proportion of 17 to 20 year olds holding a full driving licence has fallen by 29%, while for many families, the cost of owning an insurance insuring a car is simply unaffordable. At the same time, bus services have become less frequent and more expensive. Bus fares increased by 59% between 2015 and 2023. Young people are now, on average, 15% less likely to travel than they were just 15 years ago, and that should be a concern to every member of this House.
When the last bus leaves before a hospitality event shift, a hospitality evening shift finishes, that young person cannot access that job. They have been presented with a challenge that they cannot overcome. That is why I was pleased to table amendments during the passage of the Bus Services Act to improve connectivity for young people through free bus travel for 1618 year olds, and encourage better coordination between buses and trains, and ensure that funding reflects the realities facing rural communities. Those amendments were not adopted and I hope the government will start to move in that positive direction.
West Dorset has an ageing population and many people rely on rely on buses to reach GP surgeries, hospitals, pharmacies and shops when the services disappear, independence disappears with them and poor transport increases pressure on the NHS, on social care and on local authorities. All of these things are connected. That is why I believe we should return to a sort of total place, thinking that first developed over a decade ago. Looking across departmental boundaries instead of operating within them. The Dorset Total Transport Pilot brought together school transport, adult social care, transport, public bus services and community transport.
With just 180 zero zero £0 of funding. It improves services in some areas while identifying longer term efficiencies and introducing more flexible demand. Responsive transport. It also explored digital technology to better match transport supply with demand, rather than allowing buses to sit empty after a school run or returning to depots. We should ask how those vehicles could could transport patients home from hospitals, connect isolated villages or just provide additional journeys during the day?We also need a more joined up approach between different modes of transport.
People should not wait 40 minutes for a bus because the train was three minutes late. We need a properly integrated local transport network with more regulated and coordinated bus services in many rural communities, community transport is often the only reason people remain connected at all. I will, of course. Yes.
This creates barriers to employment, healthcare and independence. Patients missed hospital appointments, contributing to the 1.2 billion annual cost of missed appointments to NHS England. Young people miss out on opportunities. Older residents become isolated communities slowly lose confidence that public transport will ever return. And that is why simply maintaining today's network cannot be considered a success. The scale of decline means we have. We must actively rebuild what has already been lost. Between 2026 and 2030, Dorset will receive £13.8 million in government bus funding, the lowest allocation anywhere in the South West.
It is 10.9 million less than neighbouring Somerset and 7.5 million less than Wiltshire. Devon and Torbay alone will receive more than three and a half times Dorset's allocation. Hampshire will receive nearly four times as much. It is therefore unsurprising that neighbouring authorities can expand services, modernise fleets and increase frequency. While Dorset is often forced to simply maintain what they've got left, the government deserves credit for recognising Rurality, but Rurality now needs to be given greater weighting within the funding formula, serving dispersed populations inevitably costs more per passenger than operating in dense urban areas.
There is a significant difference between increasing the frequency of an existing service and recreating a lost route from scratch. The latter requires considerably greater investment before passenger numbers even begin to increase. Every summer, West Dorset's population increases by more than 42% due to seasonal visitors. Around 4 million day visitors and 2 million overnight visitors place a huge additional demand upon our transport networks deserve to serve a much smaller, permanent population. Yet that seasonal pressure is barely recognised in the national funding allocations.
The Prime Minister in waiting takes great pride in the transformation of Manchester's bus network, but the bee network demonstrates the scale of the investment required. Greater Manchester receives about 41.42 £41.42 per resident, compared with approximately £4.84 per resident in Dorset, over eight times as much in funding per head. Transport for Greater Manchester manages a transport budget exceeding £480 million and subsidises almost a quarter of the network. That level of investment has transformed services and I want Dorset to achieve that same level of ambition.
But rebuilding transport across hundreds of square miles of villages, market towns and dispersed communities is significantly harder than doing so in a major urban area. If the government truly wishes to level up rural transport, then funding must recognize that restoring services in rural Britain costs more, not less, than maintaining them. In our cities. The consequence of poor bus services are perhaps felt most keenly by young people, the recent Milburn Review identified transport as one of the main drivers of young people becoming detached from education, employment and training in rural, deprived and coastal communities.
The review found that transport itself had become a major barrier to opportunity for those without access to a car. The proportion of 17 to 20 year olds holding a full driving licence has fallen by 29%, while for many families, the cost of owning an insurance insuring a car is simply unaffordable. At the same time, bus services have become less frequent and more expensive. Bus fares increased by 59% between 2015 and 2023. Young people are now, on average, 15% less likely to travel than they were just 15 years ago, and that should be a concern to every member of this House.
When the last bus leaves before a hospitality event shift, a hospitality evening shift finishes, that young person cannot access that job. They have been presented with a challenge that they cannot overcome. That is why I was pleased to table amendments during the passage of the Bus Services Act to improve connectivity for young people through free bus travel for 1618 year olds, and encourage better coordination between buses and trains, and ensure that funding reflects the realities facing rural communities. Those amendments were not adopted and I hope the government will start to move in that positive direction.
West Dorset has an ageing population and many people rely on rely on buses to reach GP surgeries, hospitals, pharmacies and shops when the services disappear, independence disappears with them and poor transport increases pressure on the NHS, on social care and on local authorities. All of these things are connected. That is why I believe we should return to a sort of total place, thinking that first developed over a decade ago. Looking across departmental boundaries instead of operating within them. The Dorset Total Transport Pilot brought together school transport, adult social care, transport, public bus services and community transport.
With just 180 zero zero £0 of funding. It improves services in some areas while identifying longer term efficiencies and introducing more flexible demand. Responsive transport. It also explored digital technology to better match transport supply with demand, rather than allowing buses to sit empty after a school run or returning to depots. We should ask how those vehicles could could transport patients home from hospitals, connect isolated villages or just provide additional journeys during the day?We also need a more joined up approach between different modes of transport.
People should not wait 40 minutes for a bus because the train was three minutes late. We need a properly integrated local transport network with more regulated and coordinated bus services in many rural communities, community transport is often the only reason people remain connected at all. I will, of course. Yes.
16:10
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. Thank you, Mr. McVeigh as well. Just just on that interconnectivity, I think that that doesn't just go across buses, but also across other modes of transport, like trains as well. I've had a petition out in one of my rural areas where pre-COVID trains run every 30 minutes. It's now every two hours, big gap in the middle of the in the middle of the day as well. I just wondered if he agrees with me that when we strategically planning within the mayoralties, we need to do that across all modes of transport.
16:11
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I 100% agree with my right hon. Friend and, you know, talk to anyone who has got off the last train from Crewkerne and the last bus stopped two hours beforehand. I mean, you know, we are just we are depriving our communities of the ability to get around. And of course, there's an economic impact to that as well. The CB three community bus in Beaminster demonstrates exactly what local communities can achieve when volunteers, councils and residents work together. Similarly, the new LBE one evening service between Lyme Regis and Bridport has quickly proved a success despite disruption caused by the necessary works on the A35.
I am also encouraged by proposals for further community transport in places such as Sherborne, which have my support. But parish councils and volunteers cannot continue to carry the burden alone. The Department for transport currently makes up to 3.8 million available annually for eligible community transport operators, but that is across the whole of the country. Given the scale needed, it's simply not enough. Instead, I believe there should be a dedicated ring fenced grant funding specifically to help communities establish new community transport services where commercial routes have disappeared.
A hub and spoke model supported by smaller community buses and demand responsive transport, could reconnect villages at a fraction of the cost of restoring traditional commercial routes immediately. Importantly, that funding should recognise that the greatest cost comes at the beginning. Communities need capital investment to purchase vehicles, recruit drivers, establish a booking system and build passenger confidence. Once services become established and passenger numbers increase, public subsidies can reduce over time, demand. Responsive transport has already shown real promise in Wiltshire, where passengers can book flexible journeys through an app, and AI software identifies the most efficient routes, the data suggests these services have been particularly successful amongst younger users travelling between villages and market towns, before they learn to drive west.
Dorset would be an ideal place to pilot a similar, larger scale approach for rural communities like West Dorset. Buses are fundamental to tackling social isolation, supporting economic growth and giving young people genuine opportunities. I hope the minister will listen to the appeals of my residents and ensure that rural Britain is no longer left waiting at the bus stop, while the rest of the country moves ahead. Thank you.
I am also encouraged by proposals for further community transport in places such as Sherborne, which have my support. But parish councils and volunteers cannot continue to carry the burden alone. The Department for transport currently makes up to 3.8 million available annually for eligible community transport operators, but that is across the whole of the country. Given the scale needed, it's simply not enough. Instead, I believe there should be a dedicated ring fenced grant funding specifically to help communities establish new community transport services where commercial routes have disappeared.
A hub and spoke model supported by smaller community buses and demand responsive transport, could reconnect villages at a fraction of the cost of restoring traditional commercial routes immediately. Importantly, that funding should recognise that the greatest cost comes at the beginning. Communities need capital investment to purchase vehicles, recruit drivers, establish a booking system and build passenger confidence. Once services become established and passenger numbers increase, public subsidies can reduce over time, demand. Responsive transport has already shown real promise in Wiltshire, where passengers can book flexible journeys through an app, and AI software identifies the most efficient routes, the data suggests these services have been particularly successful amongst younger users travelling between villages and market towns, before they learn to drive west.
Dorset would be an ideal place to pilot a similar, larger scale approach for rural communities like West Dorset. Buses are fundamental to tackling social isolation, supporting economic growth and giving young people genuine opportunities. I hope the minister will listen to the appeals of my residents and ensure that rural Britain is no longer left waiting at the bus stop, while the rest of the country moves ahead. Thank you.
16:13
16:13
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you, chair, and it's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr. McVey. And I want to start by congratulating the honourable member for West Dorset for securing this important debate. He has been a committed champion for both bus services and transport needs in his constituency. Um, and I'd like to thank him for the constructive tone that he has. He has approached these these subjects on buses are at the heart of our our vision for better, more integrated, more reliable, affordable and accessible public transport.
The government has set out an ambitious plan to deliver better bus services, to grow passenger numbers and ensure that communities which have been too often underserved, can benefit from reliable public transport. And of course, there is no one size fits all. Mr. McVey, in terms of our approach when it comes to local bus services, and this is particularly the case in rural areas like West Dorset, where there can be additional challenges to running a good local bus service and the Bus Services Act of 2025 puts decision making into the hands of local leaders across England, including in rural areas, so they can determine how best to design their services for their communities and have greater control over routes and timetables.
The act, as the honourable gentleman knows, he was on the committee, expands the options available to local authorities, allowing each area to pursue the model of bus service delivery that's best suited to their needs, while safeguarding the needs of passengers. The act also tightens the requirements around the cancellation of vital bus routes, particularly those relied on by vulnerable and disadvantaged passengers. The government is committed to monitoring the effectiveness of these measures, including the impact on rural services, with a review five years after their introduction. Now we're providing, I think, meaningful, uh, support, financial support to improve bus networks totalling more than £3 billion, £3 billion over the next three years.
Now, this funding includes nearly £700 million per year providing local transport authorities through the local authority bus grant. This funding can be used to support the introduction of new routes, more frequent services, safer, better, more accessible bus stops, new electric buses and improved real time information so that passengers can travel with greater confidence. It could also be used to. Increase the provision of community transport. For instance, at the end of last year, we also published individual multiyear settlements for local authorities under the Local Authority bus grant over the next three years.
Those allocations were, as the honourable member said, determined by a new revised formula. Gone are the days where it was a competitive funding bid. Each local transport authority now receives funding and for the first time, as the honourable member uh, acknowledged, the formula included considering Rurality for the first time to ensure that rural areas are not disadvantaged. Other parts of that formula include population size, levels of deprivation, and the extent of current bus service.
The government has set out an ambitious plan to deliver better bus services, to grow passenger numbers and ensure that communities which have been too often underserved, can benefit from reliable public transport. And of course, there is no one size fits all. Mr. McVey, in terms of our approach when it comes to local bus services, and this is particularly the case in rural areas like West Dorset, where there can be additional challenges to running a good local bus service and the Bus Services Act of 2025 puts decision making into the hands of local leaders across England, including in rural areas, so they can determine how best to design their services for their communities and have greater control over routes and timetables.
The act, as the honourable gentleman knows, he was on the committee, expands the options available to local authorities, allowing each area to pursue the model of bus service delivery that's best suited to their needs, while safeguarding the needs of passengers. The act also tightens the requirements around the cancellation of vital bus routes, particularly those relied on by vulnerable and disadvantaged passengers. The government is committed to monitoring the effectiveness of these measures, including the impact on rural services, with a review five years after their introduction. Now we're providing, I think, meaningful, uh, support, financial support to improve bus networks totalling more than £3 billion, £3 billion over the next three years.
Now, this funding includes nearly £700 million per year providing local transport authorities through the local authority bus grant. This funding can be used to support the introduction of new routes, more frequent services, safer, better, more accessible bus stops, new electric buses and improved real time information so that passengers can travel with greater confidence. It could also be used to. Increase the provision of community transport. For instance, at the end of last year, we also published individual multiyear settlements for local authorities under the Local Authority bus grant over the next three years.
Those allocations were, as the honourable member said, determined by a new revised formula. Gone are the days where it was a competitive funding bid. Each local transport authority now receives funding and for the first time, as the honourable member uh, acknowledged, the formula included considering Rurality for the first time to ensure that rural areas are not disadvantaged. Other parts of that formula include population size, levels of deprivation, and the extent of current bus service.
16:16
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Protect what's there, but go further. Build back and will continue to to look at that funding formula. You have my assurance. We'll continue to look at that to make sure that it's the fairest possible way to distribute funding across the country. Obviously, we've already allocated multiyear for the next three years, so it would be after that period. But I'm pleased to confirm that Dorset Council will receive slightly over £12 million through the local authority bus grant for the next three years.
That's nearly £200,000 more per year compared to the allocation in 2526. That's, I think it's roughly around 5% increase. And under the local authority bus grant, local leaders will be able to invest in transport priorities that are right for their area, such as enhancing bus services in in rural communities. Now, alongside the multiyear funding, this government's bus reforms are fundamentally about giving local leaders more powers and more choice over how to deliver services, and that includes unlocking franchising as an option for all areas.
There is no one size fits all approach because different areas face different challenges and because of their geography. The population density and demographics. And that's why work is underway to provide active support to local transport authorities that wish to explore franchising, particularly in rural areas. And this includes bus reform and franchising pilots, which support authorities with feasibility assessments for bus franchising. And the programme is designed to test different types of franchising models to understand how they can be best implemented to deliver improved bus services for passengers in rural locations.
Case studies, guidance and templates from the programme will then be shared with other local transport authorities, ensuring that learning is captured and can support other areas. Considering franchising. These products could be particularly important for small towns and rural communities, including in in West Dorset, where where members of the community may rely on buses as their only realistic public transport option. We also know that in some areas, traditional stopping bus services may not be viable and we want to encourage local leaders to consider a range of options to deliver better services for passengers.
That includes incorporating demand, responsive transport and community transport services into the local transport network. Now dot. Demand responsive transport has the potential to improve local transport in areas where demand is is more dispersed over longer distances that make it harder to provide conventional fixed route services that meet residents needs. For LTA is exploring franchising or franchising. Guidance outlines key considerations they should address regarding Drti, including how local bus services integrate with alternative models such as Drti, and we have recently published our guidance.
Our best Practice, which provides local authorities with a guide on how to set up and deploy demand responsive schemes, from planning and procurement through to launching and sustaining those services. Now making bus fares more affordable is one of the government's transport priorities, because we know that this really matters to passengers and the government continues to cap single bus fares at £3 on thousands of routes in England outside of London until March 2027, helping millions of people access affordable travel and better opportunities. Now the cap can be particularly beneficial for rural passengers, helping to limit the cost of journeys where single fares can otherwise be significantly higher.
And the Chancellor went further in May. Mr. McVey announcing over £100 million of additional funding for the bus sector to help children travel for free this summer and to continue supporting services under the summer bus fare offer. Children aged 5 to 15 will be able to travel free on participating local buses in England throughout August, helping families to get out and about for less at a time of increased cost of living. Further details will be announced shortly. Uh, just to pick up on the, um, the.
Change around. How do we better integrate. I would draw members attention to a fantastic read. That's our better connected strategy. And that is this government's integrated National transport strategy, which very much looks at how do we how do we. We dovetail buses with trams, with trains with, with micro-mobility, with active travel. I would highly encourage members to take a look at that, because we absolutely recognise the challenges that they have mentioned today. Uh, I will indeed.
That's nearly £200,000 more per year compared to the allocation in 2526. That's, I think it's roughly around 5% increase. And under the local authority bus grant, local leaders will be able to invest in transport priorities that are right for their area, such as enhancing bus services in in rural communities. Now, alongside the multiyear funding, this government's bus reforms are fundamentally about giving local leaders more powers and more choice over how to deliver services, and that includes unlocking franchising as an option for all areas.
There is no one size fits all approach because different areas face different challenges and because of their geography. The population density and demographics. And that's why work is underway to provide active support to local transport authorities that wish to explore franchising, particularly in rural areas. And this includes bus reform and franchising pilots, which support authorities with feasibility assessments for bus franchising. And the programme is designed to test different types of franchising models to understand how they can be best implemented to deliver improved bus services for passengers in rural locations.
Case studies, guidance and templates from the programme will then be shared with other local transport authorities, ensuring that learning is captured and can support other areas. Considering franchising. These products could be particularly important for small towns and rural communities, including in in West Dorset, where where members of the community may rely on buses as their only realistic public transport option. We also know that in some areas, traditional stopping bus services may not be viable and we want to encourage local leaders to consider a range of options to deliver better services for passengers.
That includes incorporating demand, responsive transport and community transport services into the local transport network. Now dot. Demand responsive transport has the potential to improve local transport in areas where demand is is more dispersed over longer distances that make it harder to provide conventional fixed route services that meet residents needs. For LTA is exploring franchising or franchising. Guidance outlines key considerations they should address regarding Drti, including how local bus services integrate with alternative models such as Drti, and we have recently published our guidance.
Our best Practice, which provides local authorities with a guide on how to set up and deploy demand responsive schemes, from planning and procurement through to launching and sustaining those services. Now making bus fares more affordable is one of the government's transport priorities, because we know that this really matters to passengers and the government continues to cap single bus fares at £3 on thousands of routes in England outside of London until March 2027, helping millions of people access affordable travel and better opportunities. Now the cap can be particularly beneficial for rural passengers, helping to limit the cost of journeys where single fares can otherwise be significantly higher.
And the Chancellor went further in May. Mr. McVey announcing over £100 million of additional funding for the bus sector to help children travel for free this summer and to continue supporting services under the summer bus fare offer. Children aged 5 to 15 will be able to travel free on participating local buses in England throughout August, helping families to get out and about for less at a time of increased cost of living. Further details will be announced shortly. Uh, just to pick up on the, um, the.
Change around. How do we better integrate. I would draw members attention to a fantastic read. That's our better connected strategy. And that is this government's integrated National transport strategy, which very much looks at how do we how do we. We dovetail buses with trams, with trains with, with micro-mobility, with active travel. I would highly encourage members to take a look at that, because we absolutely recognise the challenges that they have mentioned today. Uh, I will indeed.
16:21
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
And I thank, thank you. Um, my biggest concern as well is that we have no electric buses in, in Yeovil because there's nowhere to charge them because of the depots have been shut down. How, how do you think what we are going to cope with future going electric if first will not put in these depots and they're closing them?
16:22
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Well, this will obviously be a commercial decision for for first about whether they're investing in those in those services, there remains the option for your local leaders to consider whether or not they want to, to pursue franchising, to take greater control over that issue. Or they could also, obviously, we lifted the ban on on establishing new municipal bus companies as well. So there is an option there. Obviously, I'll continue to work across government to make sure that we have, uh, the ability to get those grid connections for future deployment of electric buses.
And obviously the funding that's come down in terms of local authority bus grants and other funding can be used to purchase electric buses. So in closing, I reiterate my my thanks to the honourable member for West Dorset for securing this debate and all honourable members for their interventions here today. Improving bus services, including in rural areas, importantly, really importantly in rural areas, is central to this government's mission to drive growth and opportunity across the whole country. Now we know there's more to do, but we are taking meaningful steps to ensure that wherever people live, wherever, whether it's in a city or rural area or a small town, they have access to reliable, accessible and affordable transport that they deserve.
Thank you.
And obviously the funding that's come down in terms of local authority bus grants and other funding can be used to purchase electric buses. So in closing, I reiterate my my thanks to the honourable member for West Dorset for securing this debate and all honourable members for their interventions here today. Improving bus services, including in rural areas, importantly, really importantly in rural areas, is central to this government's mission to drive growth and opportunity across the whole country. Now we know there's more to do, but we are taking meaningful steps to ensure that wherever people live, wherever, whether it's in a city or rural area or a small town, they have access to reliable, accessible and affordable transport that they deserve.
Thank you.
16:30
16:30
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
And it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the importance of the National Youth Strategy and of youth enrichment. I know that many colleagues share my commitment to ensuring that every young person is offered the support and opportunities they need to thrive. Youth services are not a luxury, but an essential part of our communities. I want to commend the minister and her team for the government's National National Youth Strategy and its £500 million commitment to rebuild the places, relationships and power structures young people need to thrive.
It aims to right the wrongs of previous administrations and confronts the challenges faced by over 10 million young people. But we must also be honest about the challenges we face. Having been born and raised in Huddersfield, I have seen first hand the impact of austerity has had on young people. Too many have had their futures torn away from them. Youth services have lost around £1.2 billion in local authority funding since 2010, with more than half of council run youth centres closing in that time.
Kirklees Council, which covers my constituency of Huddersfield, saw a 70% decrease in funding from 2011 to 2025. That leaves just over £47 per young person spent on youth services in our community.
It aims to right the wrongs of previous administrations and confronts the challenges faced by over 10 million young people. But we must also be honest about the challenges we face. Having been born and raised in Huddersfield, I have seen first hand the impact of austerity has had on young people. Too many have had their futures torn away from them. Youth services have lost around £1.2 billion in local authority funding since 2010, with more than half of council run youth centres closing in that time.
Kirklees Council, which covers my constituency of Huddersfield, saw a 70% decrease in funding from 2011 to 2025. That leaves just over £47 per young person spent on youth services in our community.
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
We know all about funding cuts in Stoke on Trent in Staffordshire, over 90% in our local area. Um, therefore I really welcome this investment. But would the member agree with me?My hon. Friend agree with me that actually we've got to make sure we get the revenue funding as well as capital funding in place, because that's what makes activity work on the ground.
16:32
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you chair. And my honourable friend is quite right, and I'll be coming on to that later in my speech as well. Young people who have access, who have lost access to youth clubs have been shown to be 14% more likely to engage in criminal activity in the six years following closures. I do want to highlight a recent project in Ashbrow in my constituency, which saw anti-social behaviour fall by by an incredible 63%, alongside policing operations, partnerships were developed with community organisations to support children and young people alongside regular intervention programmes designed to support those most at risk.
The evidence is clear when youth services are cut, our young people and our communities suffer when they are funded. Both young people and entire communities thrive. Whilst the Youth Strategy sets out a ten year vision. Current funding commitments only cover the first few years. So could the Minister outline how the government will ensure long term investment, so organisations have the certainty they need?And can the Minister confirm how her department will work alongside other departments to ensure greater alignment between all government reforms focused on young people?Since being elected, I have had the privilege of visiting many of the youth work organisations within my constituency and witnessed first hand the life changing work they deliver.
These include Central Stars Youth Club, Yorkshire Community Development, Empower Power, Positive Steps, Team Kickstart, Conscious Youth box Power and Temple wellbeing, as well as the foundations at Huddersfield Town Football Club and Huddersfield Giants. I also want to mention organisations organisations working at the national level, such as the Duke of Edinburgh team and some of them are here today, so thank you for joining us. The National Youth. Hear, hear. The National Youth Agency and all members of UK youth. All of these organisations and many others deliver outstanding community led services and policy work, often in difficult financial circumstances.
Crucially, many also offer opportunities to access sustained enrichment programs such as volunteering, physical activity and skills development. These can help close opportunity gaps, particularly for young people who face disadvantage. Enrichment should not be seen as a nice to have activities outside the classroom. Also, give young people direct exposure to environments that many have never had previously accessed. This. Yes.
The evidence is clear when youth services are cut, our young people and our communities suffer when they are funded. Both young people and entire communities thrive. Whilst the Youth Strategy sets out a ten year vision. Current funding commitments only cover the first few years. So could the Minister outline how the government will ensure long term investment, so organisations have the certainty they need?And can the Minister confirm how her department will work alongside other departments to ensure greater alignment between all government reforms focused on young people?Since being elected, I have had the privilege of visiting many of the youth work organisations within my constituency and witnessed first hand the life changing work they deliver.
These include Central Stars Youth Club, Yorkshire Community Development, Empower Power, Positive Steps, Team Kickstart, Conscious Youth box Power and Temple wellbeing, as well as the foundations at Huddersfield Town Football Club and Huddersfield Giants. I also want to mention organisations organisations working at the national level, such as the Duke of Edinburgh team and some of them are here today, so thank you for joining us. The National Youth. Hear, hear. The National Youth Agency and all members of UK youth. All of these organisations and many others deliver outstanding community led services and policy work, often in difficult financial circumstances.
Crucially, many also offer opportunities to access sustained enrichment programs such as volunteering, physical activity and skills development. These can help close opportunity gaps, particularly for young people who face disadvantage. Enrichment should not be seen as a nice to have activities outside the classroom. Also, give young people direct exposure to environments that many have never had previously accessed. This. Yes.
16:34
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
Giving way and making an important speech. The NEETs crisis and young people being unemployed is one of the biggest problems we have in this country. I wonder if she would agree with me that youth clubs and the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme are part of how young people get the skills that will help them get into the world of work.
16:34
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, chair and my honourable friend is quite right. And that's why it's so important that we fund and support these organisations sustainably. This helps to build confidence and skills whilst also raising aspirations and making future opportunities feel achievable. Only last week, while visiting a school in my constituency, pupils asked me what services and activities will be available for them in the local area. Once the social the social media ban is in place for under 16 seconds. Importantly, access to opportunities should not depend on family income.
For every £1 of public money invested in the youth sector, between £3.20 and £6.40 in benefits are generated for the taxpayers and for every £1 saved from youth service closures, nearly £3 is lost in educational outcomes and increased crime costs. Nationally, the Duke of Edinburgh Award is a proven enrichment programme that helps young people develop skills and gain experiences that can have a lasting impact on their lives. Last year alone, more than 350 students from a range of backgrounds in Huddersfield took part. I'm really pleased to see the launch last month of the Every Child Can programme to fund enrichment activities and the National Youth Strategy's commitment to half the gap in participation enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers.
I know youth workers see enrichment as one of the most important commitments in the strategy. So can the minister confirm how the government plans to deliver on this pledge and and if she has considered an enrichment premium or targeted funding to help to do so alongside enrichment, many who work in the industry believe that the most significant policy change government could make would be to strengthen the statutory duty on local authorities to provide a sufficient local youth offer. I understand the National Youth Strategy commits to to explore, to review this.
The youth sector is clear that this needs to be urgently prioritised. So can I ask the Minister if the government will commit to urgently reviewing and strengthening the statutory duty on local authorities to provide a local offer, and that it will be backed by dedicated funding and clear national benchmarks to define what sufficient youth provision means. Youth workers. I certainly will.
For every £1 of public money invested in the youth sector, between £3.20 and £6.40 in benefits are generated for the taxpayers and for every £1 saved from youth service closures, nearly £3 is lost in educational outcomes and increased crime costs. Nationally, the Duke of Edinburgh Award is a proven enrichment programme that helps young people develop skills and gain experiences that can have a lasting impact on their lives. Last year alone, more than 350 students from a range of backgrounds in Huddersfield took part. I'm really pleased to see the launch last month of the Every Child Can programme to fund enrichment activities and the National Youth Strategy's commitment to half the gap in participation enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers.
I know youth workers see enrichment as one of the most important commitments in the strategy. So can the minister confirm how the government plans to deliver on this pledge and and if she has considered an enrichment premium or targeted funding to help to do so alongside enrichment, many who work in the industry believe that the most significant policy change government could make would be to strengthen the statutory duty on local authorities to provide a sufficient local youth offer. I understand the National Youth Strategy commits to to explore, to review this.
The youth sector is clear that this needs to be urgently prioritised. So can I ask the Minister if the government will commit to urgently reviewing and strengthening the statutory duty on local authorities to provide a local offer, and that it will be backed by dedicated funding and clear national benchmarks to define what sufficient youth provision means. Youth workers. I certainly will.
16:36
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
I make a habit of agreeing with her, and I particularly agree with her on that point. When I speak with youth workers, they're clear they don't want to reinvent the wheel. Youth work works, and we just need more of it to be ring fenced and have funding dedicated to it. In Bournemouth, we're about to have a youth hub open, which is fantastic news. As part of the Youth Guarantee. But would my hon. Friend in particular join me with paying tribute to modern Art and Mike ness, who last Friday last Thursday put on a summer exhibition for younger people who have got neurodivergence to help them with their education and their creative pathways into a brighter future in Bournemouth.
16:37
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you chair. That sounds like an excellent programme, so I absolutely commend it. Thank you. Youth workers are central to delivering the National Youth Strategy. However, the the workforce is under acute pressure. Over 4500 qualified youth workers have left the profession in the past decade. Around 60% of the workforce have no recognised youth work qualification, and only six undergraduate youth and community work programmes remain, down from 37 in 2013. The strategy does provide a £15 million commitment for youth workers, new qualifications and educational pathways, which is excellent.
But can the Minister confirm how this will align with the government's wider skills reforms to rebuild the workforce capacity at scale and improve job prospects in the industry?Can I also take this opportunity to highlight the importance of young future hubs?They reflect a growing understanding of the importance of youth services and provide accessible pathways into education, employment, volunteering, volunteering and community participation. However, to be a success, they must be. They must effectively support young people to re-engage with education and training and create collaborative working partnerships.
So again, can the minister outline the steps the government will be taking to deliver this long term approach to youth engagement?And can I reiterate my previous request for Huddersfield to be included in future phases of this programme?She may need to pass that on to someone else but that would be amazing. Thank you. Many young people and youth support workers have persistently been excluded from having a voice and influence in the national and local decisions that directly affect them. The National Youth Strategy will help to change that.
It includes a commitment to placing young people's voices at its heart and explicitly, explicitly identifies youth workers as the people holding a fragmented system together. These are major shifts and a recognition the sector has fought hard for. To deliver this ambition. Youth participation must be built into implementation, not treated as a one off consultation. Young people should have meaningful opportunities to shape and monitor delivery of the strategy at national and local level. This should include long term, properly resourced mechanisms for youth voices and democratic engagement, particularly for those least likely to be heard.
And can I take a quick opportunity to give a shout out to my annual summer school of Young people from Huddersfield?It was great to welcome them to Parliament this week, and one of the main issues they raised in our sessions was the importance of their voices being central to the to the decisions that affect them. I've heard this message loud and clear. So can the minister also confirm what long term arrangements will be established to ensure young people are meaningfully involved in developing and implementing the delivery of the strategy at all levels?Can I thank the Minister for being here?Thank you, chair, and I look forward to all the contributions that will take place today.
But can the Minister confirm how this will align with the government's wider skills reforms to rebuild the workforce capacity at scale and improve job prospects in the industry?Can I also take this opportunity to highlight the importance of young future hubs?They reflect a growing understanding of the importance of youth services and provide accessible pathways into education, employment, volunteering, volunteering and community participation. However, to be a success, they must be. They must effectively support young people to re-engage with education and training and create collaborative working partnerships.
So again, can the minister outline the steps the government will be taking to deliver this long term approach to youth engagement?And can I reiterate my previous request for Huddersfield to be included in future phases of this programme?She may need to pass that on to someone else but that would be amazing. Thank you. Many young people and youth support workers have persistently been excluded from having a voice and influence in the national and local decisions that directly affect them. The National Youth Strategy will help to change that.
It includes a commitment to placing young people's voices at its heart and explicitly, explicitly identifies youth workers as the people holding a fragmented system together. These are major shifts and a recognition the sector has fought hard for. To deliver this ambition. Youth participation must be built into implementation, not treated as a one off consultation. Young people should have meaningful opportunities to shape and monitor delivery of the strategy at national and local level. This should include long term, properly resourced mechanisms for youth voices and democratic engagement, particularly for those least likely to be heard.
And can I take a quick opportunity to give a shout out to my annual summer school of Young people from Huddersfield?It was great to welcome them to Parliament this week, and one of the main issues they raised in our sessions was the importance of their voices being central to the to the decisions that affect them. I've heard this message loud and clear. So can the minister also confirm what long term arrangements will be established to ensure young people are meaningfully involved in developing and implementing the delivery of the strategy at all levels?Can I thank the Minister for being here?Thank you, chair, and I look forward to all the contributions that will take place today.
16:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I remind members that they should, if they wish to be called in this debate, we will go to the frontbench at 5:10. It's a very popular debate, so I'm going to set the time limit now at three minutes. And if I could remind members to keep intervention short, the question is that the House has considered National Youth Strategy for root for youth enrichment. Robbie Moore.
16:41
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Ben, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I thank the honourable member for Huddersfield for securing this really important debate, because we all know in this House ensuring the next generation has every opportunity to thrive, develop confidence and resilience is a responsibility that I am sure we can all advocate, because youth enrichment is a fundamental to building stronger communities, improving well-being, fostering social mobility and developing skills that employers, communities and of course the country need. But I just want to raise two points in this debate.
One which follows a conversation which I had with Go Wild Outdoors, a business that operates outdoor education activities for children and young people across my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley and beyond. They are extremely worried about the government's decision to end the primary PE and sport premium, which gives primary schools direct control over funding after the 2025 to 2026 academic year, and replace it with the PE and School Sports Partnership Network. This change, they have said to me, will not only see potential reduction in schools autonomy over how PE and sport provision is developed, but will also see a 22% drop in annual funding.
They have said to me that as a result, schools are already starting to cancel third party provider sessions because there is a lack of clarity from the government on how the new scheme will work. The PE and sports Um School Sport Partnership Network will work and how it will impact funding. So this is not just harming local businesses in my constituency already. And third party providers like Go Wild Outdoors, but it is also having a hugely negative impact on the children who benefit from additional non-classroom provision for their learning and wellbeing.
So they have asked me to ask the Minister for reassurance that the new primary PE and sport premium will not negatively impact the ability for third party providers to keep delivering for children and young people who so desperately rely on the programmes that they provide, because it is having a direct impact right now. And the second point that I wanted to raise was the rollout of the government's holiday tax or tourism tax, which is giving Mayoralties the ability to roll out that tax and apply it to accommodation for youth organisations like, um, like Girl Guides, scouts and the like.
I would like to seek reassurance from the government that it will not apply to those types of organisations that are providing youth enrichment by providing accommodation generally provided through charitable means, because that will have a direct impact on youth enrichment programs for many of those great volunteer organisations that I'm sure, um, many of us as members of Parliament interact with across our constituencies. And if the minister could respond in her summing up on those implications of tourism tax, I'd be greatly appreciated.
One which follows a conversation which I had with Go Wild Outdoors, a business that operates outdoor education activities for children and young people across my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley and beyond. They are extremely worried about the government's decision to end the primary PE and sport premium, which gives primary schools direct control over funding after the 2025 to 2026 academic year, and replace it with the PE and School Sports Partnership Network. This change, they have said to me, will not only see potential reduction in schools autonomy over how PE and sport provision is developed, but will also see a 22% drop in annual funding.
They have said to me that as a result, schools are already starting to cancel third party provider sessions because there is a lack of clarity from the government on how the new scheme will work. The PE and sports Um School Sport Partnership Network will work and how it will impact funding. So this is not just harming local businesses in my constituency already. And third party providers like Go Wild Outdoors, but it is also having a hugely negative impact on the children who benefit from additional non-classroom provision for their learning and wellbeing.
So they have asked me to ask the Minister for reassurance that the new primary PE and sport premium will not negatively impact the ability for third party providers to keep delivering for children and young people who so desperately rely on the programmes that they provide, because it is having a direct impact right now. And the second point that I wanted to raise was the rollout of the government's holiday tax or tourism tax, which is giving Mayoralties the ability to roll out that tax and apply it to accommodation for youth organisations like, um, like Girl Guides, scouts and the like.
I would like to seek reassurance from the government that it will not apply to those types of organisations that are providing youth enrichment by providing accommodation generally provided through charitable means, because that will have a direct impact on youth enrichment programs for many of those great volunteer organisations that I'm sure, um, many of us as members of Parliament interact with across our constituencies. And if the minister could respond in her summing up on those implications of tourism tax, I'd be greatly appreciated.
16:44
16:44
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
Can I thank the member for Huddersfield for securing this really important debate?Um, in my role as the chair for the Appg on Youth Affairs, I know how important services for young people is, and I really welcome the government's leadership on this, because when I meet young people within my constituency or through my work on the Appg, I am struck by how tough it is to be a young person in Britain today, whether it's through the 73% cut in youth services over the last decade, a housing crisis that, for some young people, prevents them moving on to the next stage of their lives and for others, means them growing up in temporary accommodation or youth unemployment.
Our young people are growing up in a world that is economically challenging, internationally volatile and often hostile to them. But our young people are just as ambitious, just as determined and just as willing to work for their future as anyone who has gone before them. And in that context of hope, opportunity, ambition for our young people, the National Youth Strategy is so important because after £1 billion being taken out of the sector since 2010, the closure of over half council run youth centres and a statutory framework that is often too weak, we are left with a postcode lottery for youth provision, where spending on youth services can range from as little as £1 in one area to £137 in another.
Co-created with young people and backed by £500 million in government investment, the National Youth Strategy is a ten year plan to provide young people with somewhere to go, something meaningful to do and someone who cares. And whilst I wholeheartedly welcome this landmark strategy, I believe for it to have a true, meaningful impact, it needs to be backed by statutory protections for the services that our young people rely on. That's why last year I introduced the Youth Services Bill. This bill aims to strengthen the statutory duty on local authorities by introducing clear, measurable benchmarks for which sufficient youth provision looks what looks like.
It includes expectations around qualified staff and accessibility. It embeds the conditions needed for long term improvement, with joined up safeguarding quality standards and meaningful youth voice in the design and delivery of services. I have seen first hand the impact of a lack of statutory protections for youth services because in London's youngest borough of Croydon, the council has shut down the youth engagement team. This youth engagement team of a group of wonderful youth workers was a critical link between the voluntary sector and the council, and the lack of statutory protections mean it was closed down without real consultation with young people or the NHS or the police.
Protecting our youth provision is not about placing unrealistic burdens on local authorities. It's about a practical investment in our young people's future and financial savings for our communities. As has been outlined with every £1 we spend on youth services, we save up to £6.40 in social value. So whilst I wholeheartedly recognise and welcome this strategy, I would urge the Minister and urge the government to again think about how we can provide statutory protections for our youth services.
Our young people are growing up in a world that is economically challenging, internationally volatile and often hostile to them. But our young people are just as ambitious, just as determined and just as willing to work for their future as anyone who has gone before them. And in that context of hope, opportunity, ambition for our young people, the National Youth Strategy is so important because after £1 billion being taken out of the sector since 2010, the closure of over half council run youth centres and a statutory framework that is often too weak, we are left with a postcode lottery for youth provision, where spending on youth services can range from as little as £1 in one area to £137 in another.
Co-created with young people and backed by £500 million in government investment, the National Youth Strategy is a ten year plan to provide young people with somewhere to go, something meaningful to do and someone who cares. And whilst I wholeheartedly welcome this landmark strategy, I believe for it to have a true, meaningful impact, it needs to be backed by statutory protections for the services that our young people rely on. That's why last year I introduced the Youth Services Bill. This bill aims to strengthen the statutory duty on local authorities by introducing clear, measurable benchmarks for which sufficient youth provision looks what looks like.
It includes expectations around qualified staff and accessibility. It embeds the conditions needed for long term improvement, with joined up safeguarding quality standards and meaningful youth voice in the design and delivery of services. I have seen first hand the impact of a lack of statutory protections for youth services because in London's youngest borough of Croydon, the council has shut down the youth engagement team. This youth engagement team of a group of wonderful youth workers was a critical link between the voluntary sector and the council, and the lack of statutory protections mean it was closed down without real consultation with young people or the NHS or the police.
Protecting our youth provision is not about placing unrealistic burdens on local authorities. It's about a practical investment in our young people's future and financial savings for our communities. As has been outlined with every £1 we spend on youth services, we save up to £6.40 in social value. So whilst I wholeheartedly recognise and welcome this strategy, I would urge the Minister and urge the government to again think about how we can provide statutory protections for our youth services.
16:46
16:47
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
A real. Pleasure to serve on your ship the third time today. Uh, I think we're getting to know each other quite well. And can I thank you, Madam Chair, for your courtesy and and guidance at all times. Uh, I'm also going to congratulate the lovely lady for Huddersfield for bringing this to the floor today. I spoke to her beforehand. When I've seen this title for the debate, I said I'm definitely going to Westminster Hall. People will say, of course you'll be in Westminster Hall anyway.
But but I was racing down for this debate for I love this debate, and I'm going to explain why that is the case. Also nice to see the minister in her place again. She gets all the good debates and today she's got to release her her one. So I look forward to her contribution. The 70th anniversary of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award in 2026 is this year, a new national Youth strategy will be in place. And this is, I believe, an opportunity to reshape what we offer to the next generation to ensure that every single child, regardless of their background, their postcode, their circumstances, is given the tools to become world ready.
The reason why I wanted to come and speak is because my three boys did it. Jimmy, Ian and Luke when they were young men. Uh, they they Jimmy got the the gold. The other two boys got the bronze. I watched them, uh, um, march off with their and possibly have a rucksacks, watch them march off in the Dortmund particular weather maps and and a handful of nervous energy. And I watched them return. Madam chair tired covered in mud but just standing a little bit taller.
I believe it taught them resilience. And I think the honourable lady outlined that incredibly well in her contribution. I taught them how to look at a challenge, look at their peers and say, this is something we have to do together, because it's not just about a single person, it's about doing together, and that's what it instills. I believe the Duke of Edinburgh Awards and as a father, I owe a great debt of gratitude to the legacy of the late Prince Philip and to the ongoing devotion of the Duke, Prince Edward and through the Duke of Edinburgh.
Of course, they made friends for life. Northern Ireland produces every year both some of the highest completion rates anywhere in the United Kingdom for gold, silver and bronze. Our schools and our uniform organisations, the Boys Brigade, the girls guides, local youth clubs, even the Farmers Club have been the engines driving the success. The charity's 70th anniversary goal is to reach 2 million more young people over the next five years. What a goal and what achievable goal as well, if they can do that in Northern Ireland, we have, unfortunately, with young people, we're dealing with a mental health crisis amongst our young people that is deeply concerning.
We're dealing with pockets of severe deprivation where a child might never otherwise get the chance to see the beauty of the Mourne Mountains, let alone hike across them. It was a framework that catches young people when formal education isn't enough, building their focus, their memory and their social awareness, and it does all those things and brings them together. And I believe for us, um, and I. City of Strangford and across Northern Ireland, the inner city of Belfast, the border regions, ensuring no child is left behind.
So let us see and let us use this 70th anniversary not just to celebrate the past, but to build a robust, unbreakable foundation for the future of our youth. My three boys did it. They did well, and the Duke of Edinburgh did it for them.
But but I was racing down for this debate for I love this debate, and I'm going to explain why that is the case. Also nice to see the minister in her place again. She gets all the good debates and today she's got to release her her one. So I look forward to her contribution. The 70th anniversary of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award in 2026 is this year, a new national Youth strategy will be in place. And this is, I believe, an opportunity to reshape what we offer to the next generation to ensure that every single child, regardless of their background, their postcode, their circumstances, is given the tools to become world ready.
The reason why I wanted to come and speak is because my three boys did it. Jimmy, Ian and Luke when they were young men. Uh, they they Jimmy got the the gold. The other two boys got the bronze. I watched them, uh, um, march off with their and possibly have a rucksacks, watch them march off in the Dortmund particular weather maps and and a handful of nervous energy. And I watched them return. Madam chair tired covered in mud but just standing a little bit taller.
I believe it taught them resilience. And I think the honourable lady outlined that incredibly well in her contribution. I taught them how to look at a challenge, look at their peers and say, this is something we have to do together, because it's not just about a single person, it's about doing together, and that's what it instills. I believe the Duke of Edinburgh Awards and as a father, I owe a great debt of gratitude to the legacy of the late Prince Philip and to the ongoing devotion of the Duke, Prince Edward and through the Duke of Edinburgh.
Of course, they made friends for life. Northern Ireland produces every year both some of the highest completion rates anywhere in the United Kingdom for gold, silver and bronze. Our schools and our uniform organisations, the Boys Brigade, the girls guides, local youth clubs, even the Farmers Club have been the engines driving the success. The charity's 70th anniversary goal is to reach 2 million more young people over the next five years. What a goal and what achievable goal as well, if they can do that in Northern Ireland, we have, unfortunately, with young people, we're dealing with a mental health crisis amongst our young people that is deeply concerning.
We're dealing with pockets of severe deprivation where a child might never otherwise get the chance to see the beauty of the Mourne Mountains, let alone hike across them. It was a framework that catches young people when formal education isn't enough, building their focus, their memory and their social awareness, and it does all those things and brings them together. And I believe for us, um, and I. City of Strangford and across Northern Ireland, the inner city of Belfast, the border regions, ensuring no child is left behind.
So let us see and let us use this 70th anniversary not just to celebrate the past, but to build a robust, unbreakable foundation for the future of our youth. My three boys did it. They did well, and the Duke of Edinburgh did it for them.
16:50
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Thank you. Very much, Mr.. With you in the chair this afternoon, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I really welcome this Labour Government's National Youth Strategy and how it recognises the importance of achieving good work and the emphasis that it places on trusted adults, because too often these relationships have been seen as a soft offer, a nice to have, when in fact I believe they are a key strategic asset in tackling youth unemployment, because today we risk a lost generation, a million young people, neither earning nor learning, hundreds of thousands of them disconnected from traditional employment support and hidden from the system entirely.
A growing evidence base suggests that trusted adult relationships, whether with youth workers, coaches, mentors, others, can act as the connective tissue to the wider support that will help to address the barriers. Locking young people out of education, employment and training. They can transform a young person's journey to employment through the continuity, advocacy and encouragement that many need to navigate. A system that is often confusing and isolating, and this consistent, person centred support can be vital in identifying those hidden needs to. On Monday, to mark Youth Employment Week, I hosted a roundtable with Youth Futures Foundation where we heard the powerful testimony of their youth ambassadors, Aria.
Elena. Neave, Serena, Shauna and Yusra. They talked about the impact, the presence or absence of a trusted adult had had on them. And chair, I am living proof that trusted adults can succeed where traditional provision falls short. When I dropped out of school feeling like the world had ended, it was a local youth worker called Russell who helped to rebuild my confidence and set me on a positive journey. I would not be here representing the home that I love without the support that he gave me.
In a fragmented and often confusing landscape, trusted adults can act as a golden thread bridging young people into the right support at the right time, and helping to draw this Labour government's offers together, aligning work across employment, education, skills, health and youth policy and deliver the systems change required to tackle the Neet challenge. I believe that young futures hubs can act as centres of excellence for relational practice, offering open access and coordinated support for young people across their employment, mental health and crime prevention in every community. And so I'd be grateful if the minister could set out in her response how she's working across government to deliver this manifesto commitment, and how she thinks we can strengthen and support the role of youth workers like Russell and trusted adults more generally across this important area of policy.
Thank you.
A growing evidence base suggests that trusted adult relationships, whether with youth workers, coaches, mentors, others, can act as the connective tissue to the wider support that will help to address the barriers. Locking young people out of education, employment and training. They can transform a young person's journey to employment through the continuity, advocacy and encouragement that many need to navigate. A system that is often confusing and isolating, and this consistent, person centred support can be vital in identifying those hidden needs to. On Monday, to mark Youth Employment Week, I hosted a roundtable with Youth Futures Foundation where we heard the powerful testimony of their youth ambassadors, Aria.
Elena. Neave, Serena, Shauna and Yusra. They talked about the impact, the presence or absence of a trusted adult had had on them. And chair, I am living proof that trusted adults can succeed where traditional provision falls short. When I dropped out of school feeling like the world had ended, it was a local youth worker called Russell who helped to rebuild my confidence and set me on a positive journey. I would not be here representing the home that I love without the support that he gave me.
In a fragmented and often confusing landscape, trusted adults can act as a golden thread bridging young people into the right support at the right time, and helping to draw this Labour government's offers together, aligning work across employment, education, skills, health and youth policy and deliver the systems change required to tackle the Neet challenge. I believe that young futures hubs can act as centres of excellence for relational practice, offering open access and coordinated support for young people across their employment, mental health and crime prevention in every community. And so I'd be grateful if the minister could set out in her response how she's working across government to deliver this manifesto commitment, and how she thinks we can strengthen and support the role of youth workers like Russell and trusted adults more generally across this important area of policy.
Thank you.
16:52
16:52
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Thank you. Mr.. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank my hon. Friend for Huddersfield for securing this really important today date debate. I also, if you'll allow me, Mr. McVey would like to thank my two work experience students, both from Harlow, Nicoletta and Lyra, who are in the public gallery today, who have prepared me a very thorough and informative briefing ahead of this debate. So I might be slightly more informed than with than my usual contributions, I might say.
Um, when I met with them before this debate, they spoke about their experiences in taking part in the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, which obviously celebrates its 70th anniversary this year. And I just want to read out some of their thoughts on the scheme and the difference that it made to them and, in fact, their friends and peers as well. Nicoletta completed the Duke of Edinburgh Bronze Award while she was studying at Burnt Mill Academy. Um and she described it. I'm going to do it in first person.
So apologies for that because I think it's easier. Um, I would describe it as a very insightful it very insightful and gave me an opportunity to give back to the community by mentoring primary school children as part of the volunteering section, Lyra completed the Duke of Edinburgh Bronze Award while she was at Stewards Academy, also in Harlow. And she said taking part in a local theater production as part of the skills section was very insightful, ignited a new passion as part of the volunteering. Be able to volunteer at Harlow Youth Council, improved improved political interests and involvement with, uh, with the town, which I think we can all agree is really admirable and fantastic.
I just want to read out a few points with regard to the National Youth Strategy. Obviously, I absolutely welcome the publication of the first long term youth strategy that we've had in over two decades, and I'm really pleased that following quite a lot of lobbying from myself and others, that young carers were included in that strategy, because it's hugely important that groups like that are listened to and their voices are heard. I would just emphasize to the minister the huge importance of it being about prevention rather than intervention, and also ensure that every young person has the opportunity to be involved in some of the schemes that have been mentioned, regardless of their their postcode, and I think we can all appreciate and it's been commented by members from across the House, the huge difference that taking part in schemes like the Duke of Edinburgh scheme can make on young people.
Their confidence and their ability to to to really be part of the community. Finally. Finally, um, chair, as I know I'm running out of time. I am really delighted that Harlow will be part of will be the home of a young futures hub funded by this Labour government. And it's and I'm really delighted that this Labour government has an ambition to halve the enrichment participation between disadvantaged young people and their peers.
Um, when I met with them before this debate, they spoke about their experiences in taking part in the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, which obviously celebrates its 70th anniversary this year. And I just want to read out some of their thoughts on the scheme and the difference that it made to them and, in fact, their friends and peers as well. Nicoletta completed the Duke of Edinburgh Bronze Award while she was studying at Burnt Mill Academy. Um and she described it. I'm going to do it in first person.
So apologies for that because I think it's easier. Um, I would describe it as a very insightful it very insightful and gave me an opportunity to give back to the community by mentoring primary school children as part of the volunteering section, Lyra completed the Duke of Edinburgh Bronze Award while she was at Stewards Academy, also in Harlow. And she said taking part in a local theater production as part of the skills section was very insightful, ignited a new passion as part of the volunteering. Be able to volunteer at Harlow Youth Council, improved improved political interests and involvement with, uh, with the town, which I think we can all agree is really admirable and fantastic.
I just want to read out a few points with regard to the National Youth Strategy. Obviously, I absolutely welcome the publication of the first long term youth strategy that we've had in over two decades, and I'm really pleased that following quite a lot of lobbying from myself and others, that young carers were included in that strategy, because it's hugely important that groups like that are listened to and their voices are heard. I would just emphasize to the minister the huge importance of it being about prevention rather than intervention, and also ensure that every young person has the opportunity to be involved in some of the schemes that have been mentioned, regardless of their their postcode, and I think we can all appreciate and it's been commented by members from across the House, the huge difference that taking part in schemes like the Duke of Edinburgh scheme can make on young people.
Their confidence and their ability to to to really be part of the community. Finally. Finally, um, chair, as I know I'm running out of time. I am really delighted that Harlow will be part of will be the home of a young futures hub funded by this Labour government. And it's and I'm really delighted that this Labour government has an ambition to halve the enrichment participation between disadvantaged young people and their peers.
16:55
16:55
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
To see you. in the chair. If we are going to make interventions which will have a real impact on lives, change opportunities and trajectories, we have to look at where we make those priorities. And of course, I say these transition points in life are those opportunities 1001 critical days, the start of school transition between primary and secondary and then youth services, and I believe we've made that juncture now where we need to bring our services together around our young people. In particular, I think we are doing incredible work around people not in education, employment and training.
We are doing incredible work in the criminal justice space, but also we've got the National Youth Strategy. And of course, looking at young people's wellbeing and mental health. So we need to bring that into one space. Um, because ultimately it is about the relationships that young people build with trusted adults and they don't compartmentalize themselves in these different areas are completely interwoven. And therefore, I really do urge that we see more joining up of the different strategies as we move forward.
But as part of that, seeing the statutory youth service being returned, local authorities having their obligation, but also the funding necessary, because often we're talking about the same children which need that security as they go through those teenage years in York. I am bringing the organisations together and we have got so many brilliant organisations from scouts and guides and churches and door 84, The Island. I could spend a few minutes talking about them, but ultimately they are working in silos because we haven't got that integration. I've got the Jobcentre coming, I've got the local authority coming and the police coming, and we want to ensure that in our city we are able to lead on having one integrated service for youth, and I look to the minister at this point in the debate, recognising the way that these services were ripped off its funding in 2011 and lost so many youth workers as well across the board, we lost 60% of our workforce that we can rebuild that again under her leadership, but more so that we will ensure that it's built by the young people as well themselves.
So it's co-produced that they can take a lead, determine what their future is, and also the outcomes that they want to see. And as we enter this conversation as a city, and I will be bringing it to the door of the minister as well, I want to ensure that we see young people transition well from that, from those years of exploration in teenagers into adulthood with the securities that are needed around them in every part of the system. But it is going to take funding. And I note the incredible 500 million, which is going to be transformative, but we need to ensure that that is sufficient in having the services that we need.
Young people need the opportunities and confidence as they grow into adults, and I want to ensure our government delivers that for them.
We are doing incredible work in the criminal justice space, but also we've got the National Youth Strategy. And of course, looking at young people's wellbeing and mental health. So we need to bring that into one space. Um, because ultimately it is about the relationships that young people build with trusted adults and they don't compartmentalize themselves in these different areas are completely interwoven. And therefore, I really do urge that we see more joining up of the different strategies as we move forward.
But as part of that, seeing the statutory youth service being returned, local authorities having their obligation, but also the funding necessary, because often we're talking about the same children which need that security as they go through those teenage years in York. I am bringing the organisations together and we have got so many brilliant organisations from scouts and guides and churches and door 84, The Island. I could spend a few minutes talking about them, but ultimately they are working in silos because we haven't got that integration. I've got the Jobcentre coming, I've got the local authority coming and the police coming, and we want to ensure that in our city we are able to lead on having one integrated service for youth, and I look to the minister at this point in the debate, recognising the way that these services were ripped off its funding in 2011 and lost so many youth workers as well across the board, we lost 60% of our workforce that we can rebuild that again under her leadership, but more so that we will ensure that it's built by the young people as well themselves.
So it's co-produced that they can take a lead, determine what their future is, and also the outcomes that they want to see. And as we enter this conversation as a city, and I will be bringing it to the door of the minister as well, I want to ensure that we see young people transition well from that, from those years of exploration in teenagers into adulthood with the securities that are needed around them in every part of the system. But it is going to take funding. And I note the incredible 500 million, which is going to be transformative, but we need to ensure that that is sufficient in having the services that we need.
Young people need the opportunities and confidence as they grow into adults, and I want to ensure our government delivers that for them.
16:58
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. McVey. It's always a pleasure to see you in the chair, and I thank my honourable friend for Huddersfield for bringing this really important debate on national youth strategy and youth enrichment. I very much truly welcome this because as a former teacher and deputy head teacher, I saw the transformative impact that youth work, enrichment activities, sport, volunteering, the arts and outdoor education can hang, can have on a young person's confidence, aspirations and life chances. But I also saw the consequences when those opportunities were decimated.
And we have a growing number of young people who only feel safe in their bedrooms on digital devices. So that has to change. But for too long, young people have paid the price for over a decade of austerity. Local authority spending on youth services in England and Wales has fallen by 74% in real terms since 2010, while the number of local authority run youth centres had fallen from 931 to 379. Investing in young people is smart economic policy too. I know that education never stops at the school gates.
Young people learn resilience through volunteering, volunteering, teamwork through sport and confidence through challenge. That is why I welcome the Labour government's commitment, through the National Youth Strategy, to ensure that every young person has somewhere to go. Backed by more than £500 million and includes investment in youth spaces, a new enrichment entitlement and an ambition to halve the enrichment gap by 2035. I particularly welcome the government's. Own of opportunities that shouldn't be based on family income, geography or background. I grew up in an area called Ashmore Park, and we had a youth club on my doorstep.
I spent many an evening there, but I will stop the conversation there. But it was one of those, one of 30 local youth centres that were lost over 15 years, and we felt that hole in the community. But recently, and despite those challenges, there are organisations in Wolverhampton and Willenhall that are delivering the vision that we are setting out in the strategy. I must mention the Walls Foundation, in conjunction with Wolverhampton City Council. A couple of weeks ago I went to one of their um community space um sport activities, had a go at basketball, shot a few hoops.
I don't know whether that's right phrase. Um, but I had a brilliant time. But more importantly, so did those 50 other young people with free activities in Heath town. But we're opening up the same in Tennyson Road in Low Hill, Scotland as well. I've got to mention the Loft Youth Club at The Hive in new, New Invention and across Wolverhampton, the way youth zone that has become a shining example of what investment in young people can really achieve. I'm going to finish by giving my thanks to the Duke of Edinburgh Award and all staff and volunteers that take part, giving young people a brilliant opportunity to really find themselves.
So I thank the member for bringing this important debate.
And we have a growing number of young people who only feel safe in their bedrooms on digital devices. So that has to change. But for too long, young people have paid the price for over a decade of austerity. Local authority spending on youth services in England and Wales has fallen by 74% in real terms since 2010, while the number of local authority run youth centres had fallen from 931 to 379. Investing in young people is smart economic policy too. I know that education never stops at the school gates.
Young people learn resilience through volunteering, volunteering, teamwork through sport and confidence through challenge. That is why I welcome the Labour government's commitment, through the National Youth Strategy, to ensure that every young person has somewhere to go. Backed by more than £500 million and includes investment in youth spaces, a new enrichment entitlement and an ambition to halve the enrichment gap by 2035. I particularly welcome the government's. Own of opportunities that shouldn't be based on family income, geography or background. I grew up in an area called Ashmore Park, and we had a youth club on my doorstep.
I spent many an evening there, but I will stop the conversation there. But it was one of those, one of 30 local youth centres that were lost over 15 years, and we felt that hole in the community. But recently, and despite those challenges, there are organisations in Wolverhampton and Willenhall that are delivering the vision that we are setting out in the strategy. I must mention the Walls Foundation, in conjunction with Wolverhampton City Council. A couple of weeks ago I went to one of their um community space um sport activities, had a go at basketball, shot a few hoops.
I don't know whether that's right phrase. Um, but I had a brilliant time. But more importantly, so did those 50 other young people with free activities in Heath town. But we're opening up the same in Tennyson Road in Low Hill, Scotland as well. I've got to mention the Loft Youth Club at The Hive in new, New Invention and across Wolverhampton, the way youth zone that has become a shining example of what investment in young people can really achieve. I'm going to finish by giving my thanks to the Duke of Edinburgh Award and all staff and volunteers that take part, giving young people a brilliant opportunity to really find themselves.
So I thank the member for bringing this important debate.
17:02
17:02
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. McVey, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I'd like to congratulate my hon. Friend for securing this incredibly important debate in Dartford and our towns and villages. We have an increasingly youthful population, with a quarter of households in the constituency, a family with children and our young people do our community proud from our brilliant Kent youth. County councillors, including Madeline, Amelia, Sam, Stephan and flourish. Our Dartford youth councillors heritage, who got to the final of Monday's Poetry by Heart National competition and so many others who star in our cultural and sporting life.
And let's not forget eight year old Ruth, who wrote a brilliant and persuasive handwritten letter to me last week about YouTube. So ahead of the government's very welcome National Youth Strategy last year, it was a pleasure for me to work with YMCA to host an event to discuss with our Dartford young people what they wanted to see in the strategy, the concerns they shared at the event were many and varied. They worry about their futures, how they'll find affordable housing, how they'll cope with the cost of living, deal with growing challenges to their mental health and to their sense of community in a digital age, there was a strong feeling in the room that their generation needed better public transport, access to more varied job opportunities locally, and more places for them and other young people to come together.
So last year's National Youth Strategy was a wonderful document. It rightly promised a place based approach to rebuilding a local offer for young people, and I hope for Dartford, this will mean more sports facilities like a rebuilt Swanscombe Pavilion and more youth provision in the town centre. I hugely welcome the Youth Guarantee. The challenges faced by young people getting into the early stages of a career come through in the people I meet and the stories I hear across Dartford, and it's welcome, then, that Dartford will host one of the government's new youth hubs, providing access to expanded employment and wraparound support services.
But we need to go further, as others have said, to rebuild youth services lost over the past decade and a half, and to give young people a chance to meet, create, play, sport and learn one of the great under-acknowledged dimensions to young people's excessive use of social media and its effect on mental health is the loss of these opportunities. We owe it to young people in Dartford and across the country to give them back the chance to grow, to take risks and to unlock their talents.
And let's not forget eight year old Ruth, who wrote a brilliant and persuasive handwritten letter to me last week about YouTube. So ahead of the government's very welcome National Youth Strategy last year, it was a pleasure for me to work with YMCA to host an event to discuss with our Dartford young people what they wanted to see in the strategy, the concerns they shared at the event were many and varied. They worry about their futures, how they'll find affordable housing, how they'll cope with the cost of living, deal with growing challenges to their mental health and to their sense of community in a digital age, there was a strong feeling in the room that their generation needed better public transport, access to more varied job opportunities locally, and more places for them and other young people to come together.
So last year's National Youth Strategy was a wonderful document. It rightly promised a place based approach to rebuilding a local offer for young people, and I hope for Dartford, this will mean more sports facilities like a rebuilt Swanscombe Pavilion and more youth provision in the town centre. I hugely welcome the Youth Guarantee. The challenges faced by young people getting into the early stages of a career come through in the people I meet and the stories I hear across Dartford, and it's welcome, then, that Dartford will host one of the government's new youth hubs, providing access to expanded employment and wraparound support services.
But we need to go further, as others have said, to rebuild youth services lost over the past decade and a half, and to give young people a chance to meet, create, play, sport and learn one of the great under-acknowledged dimensions to young people's excessive use of social media and its effect on mental health is the loss of these opportunities. We owe it to young people in Dartford and across the country to give them back the chance to grow, to take risks and to unlock their talents.
17:04
17:04
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, miss. Miss McVey, I'd like to congratulate my hon. Friend from Huddersfield for securing this really cool debate. And I would refer members to my register of interests. Now in Gravesham. We have a good track record of listening and working with our young people. Gravesham Youth Council is about to celebrate its 26th anniversary. The current chair is work shadowing with me this week and I am married to the first chair of that youth Council.
So he absolutely. Who was activated into politics by his youth club being closed by then, the conservative KCC Council. How things have changed or how not have changed. So under the last conservative government, this trend continued. Kent County Council used to have 36 youth centres down to 12. Now they're family hubs, so they are limited open access provision available. They're not available exclusively for young people, and you need a referral or targeted youth support in order to gain access to these services, rather than it be predominantly open access or youth services.
Now, the National Youth Strategy is aiming to reverse and enhance that, and I really, really welcome that. Last week I attended an event hosted by Gifted Young Gravesham by the Grand, which is a charity. Uh, and they had representatives from nearly every secondary school on the day. And it was a very hot day. And they spoke. And when I spoke to school councils during the consultation of growing up in the online world, I heard many of the same themes.
That is, social media disrupts sleep patterns, but there is a need for their their struggling inside. And they need somebody to talk to. They want somewhere to go. Where can they go?Now?This is the digital isolation paradox, which is again, across the UK. So, um, one young person said social media is so extremely flawed, but it's all we have. If we had more places to go outside of social media, we'd be happy. But adults build these toxic platforms then got angry when they hurt us.
They destroyed the places where we connect and got angry when we stayed home. This is the paradox. And this is where the National Youth strategy with more youth centres is coming. We have gratefully been able to receive a youth hub working with the DWP in Gravesham and working with the Youth Council now, and I'm fulfilling a promise by directly reporting back to the Minister and to you all here, decision makers, that we are listening to young people and we we are hearing them now.
I have to agree with the honourable member for Croydon about how we help to structure young people's voices. Young people's voices need that support around them, and we've heard some really amazing testimony from my hon. Friend here about the impact that youth work plays. That needs to be protected. Those are professionals that need to be protected by statutory requirements for local authorities to fund this quality professional service. This can be done. It has been done in Scotland with the Community Learning Development Standards Council, which is council run, and I would urge the Minister to look into this.
I will end with a quote. Young people are not a problem to be solved. They are a potential to be unlocked.
So he absolutely. Who was activated into politics by his youth club being closed by then, the conservative KCC Council. How things have changed or how not have changed. So under the last conservative government, this trend continued. Kent County Council used to have 36 youth centres down to 12. Now they're family hubs, so they are limited open access provision available. They're not available exclusively for young people, and you need a referral or targeted youth support in order to gain access to these services, rather than it be predominantly open access or youth services.
Now, the National Youth Strategy is aiming to reverse and enhance that, and I really, really welcome that. Last week I attended an event hosted by Gifted Young Gravesham by the Grand, which is a charity. Uh, and they had representatives from nearly every secondary school on the day. And it was a very hot day. And they spoke. And when I spoke to school councils during the consultation of growing up in the online world, I heard many of the same themes.
That is, social media disrupts sleep patterns, but there is a need for their their struggling inside. And they need somebody to talk to. They want somewhere to go. Where can they go?Now?This is the digital isolation paradox, which is again, across the UK. So, um, one young person said social media is so extremely flawed, but it's all we have. If we had more places to go outside of social media, we'd be happy. But adults build these toxic platforms then got angry when they hurt us.
They destroyed the places where we connect and got angry when we stayed home. This is the paradox. And this is where the National Youth strategy with more youth centres is coming. We have gratefully been able to receive a youth hub working with the DWP in Gravesham and working with the Youth Council now, and I'm fulfilling a promise by directly reporting back to the Minister and to you all here, decision makers, that we are listening to young people and we we are hearing them now.
I have to agree with the honourable member for Croydon about how we help to structure young people's voices. Young people's voices need that support around them, and we've heard some really amazing testimony from my hon. Friend here about the impact that youth work plays. That needs to be protected. Those are professionals that need to be protected by statutory requirements for local authorities to fund this quality professional service. This can be done. It has been done in Scotland with the Community Learning Development Standards Council, which is council run, and I would urge the Minister to look into this.
I will end with a quote. Young people are not a problem to be solved. They are a potential to be unlocked.
17:09
17:09
Speaker 31
-
Speaker 31
Thank you very much, miss McVey, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. And could I pay tribute to the honourable member for Huddersfield for securing this important debate and some really excellent speeches from all all the members involved making some very compelling points about the value and importance of youth services and youth enrichment, and no doubt my core belief is shared by many in this room that every child and young person has something innate and special in them in terms of talent and ability. And it's our job as families and as a wider society through both formal and informal support, we put in place to draw out that talent and ensure that every young person grows up to thrive and contribute to our society and our economy.
And youth services and youth enrichment are a key part of that, including, of course, the Duke of Edinburgh Award celebrating its 70th anniversary, which has helped so many young people improve their skills and equip them to make valuable contributions to their communities and societies. And I'd like to add my congratulations to all the young people across the country, and especially in my constituency of Twickenham, who have completed their bronze, silver or gold awards and also a huge thanks to all those who give up their time to make them happen, knowing some very, very hard working teachers who then also give up their weekends to go camping and doing all sorts of crazy things in all weathers, I am awestruck and I certainly would never do that.
But then I'm not a camper. Um, so thank you to all of them. These experiences don't just change individual lives, they strengthen our communities to and through volunteering in the community and completing those expeditions, young people are countering the rising tide of isolation. Last year alone, young people participating in the Duke of Edinburgh Award contributed to an impressive 6,000,000 hours of volunteering, with an estimated value of 45.4 million um and a number of honourable members have mentioned Alan Milburn's recent report on those not in employment, education or training and the scale of the challenge that we face.
But it's important that we challenge the narrative. We hear all too often that somehow young people are disengaged, lazy or selfish. Actually, uh, they're anything but. Um, and this generation is growing up in very much in an online world shaped by economic uncertainty, mental health challenges, rapid technological change, concerns about the future of our planet. But time and again, young people show us their determination, their creativity, their drive, especially when they're given the support, the space to and support to thrive.
Um, Madam Chair, the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a fair and long term funding settlement to support youth work, resources and infrastructure. So we very much welcome the government's national Youth Strategy, and particularly their promise to introduce multi-year funding settlements and halve the participation gap in enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers by 2035. I would note, however, the recent YMCA report that found that spending on youth services by local authorities in England and Wales fell by 10% in a single year. The largest annual reduction since 2016 2017.
Um, but, uh, and at the same time, we know that children from lower income backgrounds have less access to enrichment activities outside schools. Um, yet at the same time, we know that schools are facing tighter budgets than ever. And the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have reported that almost 1 in 5 schools have cut back and stopped enrichment activities and clubs in order to provide support for pupils experiencing hardship. I'd also like to draw the minister's attention to a briefing from the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, which notes the vital role that education providers play in successfully implementing enrichment targets, especially in light of some of the cuts we've seen in youth services and with both schools and youth providers stretched to the limit, I think the government's ambitions, you know, will be really challenged.
And they will, you know, achieving those ambitions will depend on practical support and sustainable funding and capacity. Um, we've already seen concerns emerging in West Sussex, where the county council has decided to stop centrally commissioning the award, leaving many schools unable to meet the administrative costs themselves. So I'd be grateful if the minister could share whether she's aware of similar situations arising elsewhere in the country, and I'd be keen to understand what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for education on the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards.
Ask of 80 hours of enrichment per year for every young person. Um, as we've heard today, the evidence for investment is compelling. Miss McVey. We know that enrichment activities can help improve school attendance. We've heard about the return on investment from youth services, reducing pressure on other public services. Um, and so without the funding certainty beyond three years currently promised, we know that youth organisations will struggle to run consistent programmes and be asked to wind up. So I would just reiterate it.
The consequences of underinvestment are clear. Um and youth services are not an optional extra. And we as liberal Democrats, stand ready to collaborate with government to ensure the right investment goes in for our young people and their future.
And youth services and youth enrichment are a key part of that, including, of course, the Duke of Edinburgh Award celebrating its 70th anniversary, which has helped so many young people improve their skills and equip them to make valuable contributions to their communities and societies. And I'd like to add my congratulations to all the young people across the country, and especially in my constituency of Twickenham, who have completed their bronze, silver or gold awards and also a huge thanks to all those who give up their time to make them happen, knowing some very, very hard working teachers who then also give up their weekends to go camping and doing all sorts of crazy things in all weathers, I am awestruck and I certainly would never do that.
But then I'm not a camper. Um, so thank you to all of them. These experiences don't just change individual lives, they strengthen our communities to and through volunteering in the community and completing those expeditions, young people are countering the rising tide of isolation. Last year alone, young people participating in the Duke of Edinburgh Award contributed to an impressive 6,000,000 hours of volunteering, with an estimated value of 45.4 million um and a number of honourable members have mentioned Alan Milburn's recent report on those not in employment, education or training and the scale of the challenge that we face.
But it's important that we challenge the narrative. We hear all too often that somehow young people are disengaged, lazy or selfish. Actually, uh, they're anything but. Um, and this generation is growing up in very much in an online world shaped by economic uncertainty, mental health challenges, rapid technological change, concerns about the future of our planet. But time and again, young people show us their determination, their creativity, their drive, especially when they're given the support, the space to and support to thrive.
Um, Madam Chair, the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a fair and long term funding settlement to support youth work, resources and infrastructure. So we very much welcome the government's national Youth Strategy, and particularly their promise to introduce multi-year funding settlements and halve the participation gap in enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers by 2035. I would note, however, the recent YMCA report that found that spending on youth services by local authorities in England and Wales fell by 10% in a single year. The largest annual reduction since 2016 2017.
Um, but, uh, and at the same time, we know that children from lower income backgrounds have less access to enrichment activities outside schools. Um, yet at the same time, we know that schools are facing tighter budgets than ever. And the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have reported that almost 1 in 5 schools have cut back and stopped enrichment activities and clubs in order to provide support for pupils experiencing hardship. I'd also like to draw the minister's attention to a briefing from the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, which notes the vital role that education providers play in successfully implementing enrichment targets, especially in light of some of the cuts we've seen in youth services and with both schools and youth providers stretched to the limit, I think the government's ambitions, you know, will be really challenged.
And they will, you know, achieving those ambitions will depend on practical support and sustainable funding and capacity. Um, we've already seen concerns emerging in West Sussex, where the county council has decided to stop centrally commissioning the award, leaving many schools unable to meet the administrative costs themselves. So I'd be grateful if the minister could share whether she's aware of similar situations arising elsewhere in the country, and I'd be keen to understand what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for education on the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards.
Ask of 80 hours of enrichment per year for every young person. Um, as we've heard today, the evidence for investment is compelling. Miss McVey. We know that enrichment activities can help improve school attendance. We've heard about the return on investment from youth services, reducing pressure on other public services. Um, and so without the funding certainty beyond three years currently promised, we know that youth organisations will struggle to run consistent programmes and be asked to wind up. So I would just reiterate it.
The consequences of underinvestment are clear. Um and youth services are not an optional extra. And we as liberal Democrats, stand ready to collaborate with government to ensure the right investment goes in for our young people and their future.
17:13
17:13
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
Madam chairman, as always, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, and I congratulate the honourable member for Huddersfield for securing this important debate. And it's an issue that I think we all recognise is increasingly important to our constituencies and to our constituents across the country, and an issue that I spend a lot of time discussing. As both a local MP in and as the shadow minister, and I've had the pleasure of having a work experience week with me, of young people this week keeping me on my toes.
So it's been a busy week. Um, under the previous government, um, we allocated £560 million back in 2022 over three years to fund the National Youth Guarantee, ensuring that young people aged between 11 to 18 in England had access to regular clubs and activities. Something to do after school experiences away from home and opportunities to volunteer. As part of this, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing 300 of them. Organisations such as the National Citizenship Service was established and cancelled by this government.
But more than three quarters of a million young people participated and which had a 93% satisfaction rate, something this government could only dream of. Madam chairman, as the government well knows, youth charities like all employers, are subject to National Insurance contributions and the increase in these contributions requires them to find additional funds to cover the cost of the rise. According to the Ncvo. These changes could cost the charity sector an additional £1.4 billion per year for smaller charities with limited reserves and core funding, this is going to seem like an insurmountable challenge that has led to a reduction in provision, which I believe has been referenced.
We know that youth work has huge economic benefits. Research has shown that for every £1 of government investment into youth work, the social return investment is between £3.20 and £6.40. Moreover, it saves around £500 million annually by preventing the likes of anti-social behaviour, knife crime and other associated criminal justice costs. As a government, we established the Use of Investment Fund, which delivered £300 million over approximately three years. However, this government has scrapped that and announced a new National Youth Strategy, which we understand, and our analysis shows cuts to funding by around £50 million each year over the life of the strategy yesterday.
Madam chairman, my hon. Friend the member for Meriden and Hull East and I hosted a round table with those from the enrichment sector, and it's great to see some of them in the audience today. It is clear that while the renewed national focus on enrichment is welcome and timely, access to enrichment remains uneven, and funding cuts by the government will only make that worse. We agree with those we heard from yesterday that the challenge is how we ensure that the fantastic youth enrichment provision that is available is now accessible for as many young people as possible across the country.
As other people have said, enrichment is not an optional extra. It's a vital way in which young people learn fundamental skills for life that often cannot be taught in a traditional learning environment. And I've seen with the Duke of Edinburgh some of this work happening in one of the local schools. I've had been putting up tents and camping provisions, and I know the Duke of Edinburgh, um, you know, celebrating a milestone of 70 years next next week. And I'm sure many members in the House will be there to support the Duke of Edinburgh in that tradition.
Yes.
So it's been a busy week. Um, under the previous government, um, we allocated £560 million back in 2022 over three years to fund the National Youth Guarantee, ensuring that young people aged between 11 to 18 in England had access to regular clubs and activities. Something to do after school experiences away from home and opportunities to volunteer. As part of this, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing 300 of them. Organisations such as the National Citizenship Service was established and cancelled by this government.
But more than three quarters of a million young people participated and which had a 93% satisfaction rate, something this government could only dream of. Madam chairman, as the government well knows, youth charities like all employers, are subject to National Insurance contributions and the increase in these contributions requires them to find additional funds to cover the cost of the rise. According to the Ncvo. These changes could cost the charity sector an additional £1.4 billion per year for smaller charities with limited reserves and core funding, this is going to seem like an insurmountable challenge that has led to a reduction in provision, which I believe has been referenced.
We know that youth work has huge economic benefits. Research has shown that for every £1 of government investment into youth work, the social return investment is between £3.20 and £6.40. Moreover, it saves around £500 million annually by preventing the likes of anti-social behaviour, knife crime and other associated criminal justice costs. As a government, we established the Use of Investment Fund, which delivered £300 million over approximately three years. However, this government has scrapped that and announced a new National Youth Strategy, which we understand, and our analysis shows cuts to funding by around £50 million each year over the life of the strategy yesterday.
Madam chairman, my hon. Friend the member for Meriden and Hull East and I hosted a round table with those from the enrichment sector, and it's great to see some of them in the audience today. It is clear that while the renewed national focus on enrichment is welcome and timely, access to enrichment remains uneven, and funding cuts by the government will only make that worse. We agree with those we heard from yesterday that the challenge is how we ensure that the fantastic youth enrichment provision that is available is now accessible for as many young people as possible across the country.
As other people have said, enrichment is not an optional extra. It's a vital way in which young people learn fundamental skills for life that often cannot be taught in a traditional learning environment. And I've seen with the Duke of Edinburgh some of this work happening in one of the local schools. I've had been putting up tents and camping provisions, and I know the Duke of Edinburgh, um, you know, celebrating a milestone of 70 years next next week. And I'm sure many members in the House will be there to support the Duke of Edinburgh in that tradition.
Yes.
17:16
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Used to say that for many of those young people, when they did the camping away, it gave them an opportunity to enjoy camping on, like the shadow minister of the Lib Dems, who wasn't really a camper. But for those who get the. The thrill in the first time of camping. It's something they always want to do. And does he feel that not only does it do that even in. My oldest boy who did it?See, he goes camping every summer with his wife and his children.
Just an example of those who acquire something and it lasts.
Just an example of those who acquire something and it lasts.
17:17
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
Well, I thank my hon. Friend for one of his famous interventions there. And. And I am pleased that his son enjoys camping. I'm not sure I'm as sold in this weather, in particular, of a camping holiday. Um, but he is right to make the main point which that it is about teaching young people key life skills which they can take forward for the rest of their life into adulthood. As we all know, there is a crisis in more than a million young people not in education, employment or training, and a good enrichment offer is a key part to reversing this alarming increase that we've seen in recent years.
The government's National Youth Strategy has some noble aims, including halving the participation rate in and enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers, and giving half a million more young people access to a trusted adult outside of the home by 2035. The power of role models is something that I believe passionately in, and I would love to go on about it longer, but I'm looking at the time, so I will not, Madam chair. Um, but the point I want to make is that the warm words, the strategy is all good and well, but the funding must match that.
And I think we can all see governments of all colours do this. They make the big announcement, but the funding doesn't always match. And I think that's the concern that I have, that with that money being put forward is is not enough. It's not enough to deliver the objectives that are being set out. Government can often be siloed. So I hope the minister will also commit to making a concerted effort to make sure that policies and programmes across government are put into practice in a more holistic and strategic way in this area there there ought to be an understanding that there is a need for funding pots and programmes and enrichment which complement each other, work in tandem and do not duplicate efforts or act in competition with other departments aims.
So in ending, I ask the Minister, will she please urge colleagues in the DfE to to reverse the 22% cut to school funding and also to reverse the opening, the opening, the cut to the Opening Schools Facilities Fund, which we believe would help many of these youth organization clubs have somewhere to provide this provision. Thank you.
The government's National Youth Strategy has some noble aims, including halving the participation rate in and enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers, and giving half a million more young people access to a trusted adult outside of the home by 2035. The power of role models is something that I believe passionately in, and I would love to go on about it longer, but I'm looking at the time, so I will not, Madam chair. Um, but the point I want to make is that the warm words, the strategy is all good and well, but the funding must match that.
And I think we can all see governments of all colours do this. They make the big announcement, but the funding doesn't always match. And I think that's the concern that I have, that with that money being put forward is is not enough. It's not enough to deliver the objectives that are being set out. Government can often be siloed. So I hope the minister will also commit to making a concerted effort to make sure that policies and programmes across government are put into practice in a more holistic and strategic way in this area there there ought to be an understanding that there is a need for funding pots and programmes and enrichment which complement each other, work in tandem and do not duplicate efforts or act in competition with other departments aims.
So in ending, I ask the Minister, will she please urge colleagues in the DfE to to reverse the 22% cut to school funding and also to reverse the opening, the opening, the cut to the Opening Schools Facilities Fund, which we believe would help many of these youth organization clubs have somewhere to provide this provision. Thank you.
17:19
17:19
Speaker 33
-
Speaker 33
Of course, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, miss McVeigh. I'd like to congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Huddersfield on securing this important debate, and I'm grateful to all those who have contributed to what is such an important conversation. We've had some brilliant contributions today, highlighting just how important supporting young people across the country is. We have the most connected but the most isolated generation and our National Youth strategy aims to tackle this and some of the challenges associated with it.
Members put a number of points to me on spaces, places and funding, and I'll address these throughout my contribution. Some specific points, though, were put to me, including the importance of providing streamlined funding, particularly access to both revenue and capital funding. And in response, we have merged some funding streams. I'm very happy to write to honourable members with more details. The Shadow Minister and indeed the member for Harlow made some important points, but also paid tribute and thanked their work experience.
And I'd like to add my thanks to to both of their work experiences for their contributions. The member for Keighley and Ilkley put two specific points to me about a go wild from his constituency and the changes to school sport, so I do understand the concerns raised regarding the decision to replace the existing premium. However, despite sustained investment through PE and Sport premium for over a decade, fewer than half the children are getting the chief medical officer's recommended 60 active minutes a day. Persistent inequalities remain for girls and people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and it's simply not good enough.
We are determined to close the gaps in participation that this causes, and that is why over £1 billion in funding for PE and school sport has been committed over the next three years. This includes £580 million for a new PE and school sport partnership network to replace the PE and sport premium, alongside investment for improvements to schools, sport facilities and transitional support for primaries. So this is a change. It does include secondary and primary. It does include capital and revenue. I'd be very happy to meet him to discuss it further if that would be helpful.
He asked about the overnight levy. This is a policy led by Mhclg, but of course the DCMs and of course the Treasury have a significant interest in this. I work very closely with ministerial colleagues. The consultation is yet to be published, but I will happily write to him in due course on that point. So I would like to now take the opportunity to celebrate the Duke of Edinburgh's Award 70th anniversary. Over the last seven decades, the award has changed the lives of countless young people, and I saw this first hand when seeing the awards in action.
Were visiting Barnsley Academy in Kendray.
Members put a number of points to me on spaces, places and funding, and I'll address these throughout my contribution. Some specific points, though, were put to me, including the importance of providing streamlined funding, particularly access to both revenue and capital funding. And in response, we have merged some funding streams. I'm very happy to write to honourable members with more details. The Shadow Minister and indeed the member for Harlow made some important points, but also paid tribute and thanked their work experience.
And I'd like to add my thanks to to both of their work experiences for their contributions. The member for Keighley and Ilkley put two specific points to me about a go wild from his constituency and the changes to school sport, so I do understand the concerns raised regarding the decision to replace the existing premium. However, despite sustained investment through PE and Sport premium for over a decade, fewer than half the children are getting the chief medical officer's recommended 60 active minutes a day. Persistent inequalities remain for girls and people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and it's simply not good enough.
We are determined to close the gaps in participation that this causes, and that is why over £1 billion in funding for PE and school sport has been committed over the next three years. This includes £580 million for a new PE and school sport partnership network to replace the PE and sport premium, alongside investment for improvements to schools, sport facilities and transitional support for primaries. So this is a change. It does include secondary and primary. It does include capital and revenue. I'd be very happy to meet him to discuss it further if that would be helpful.
He asked about the overnight levy. This is a policy led by Mhclg, but of course the DCMs and of course the Treasury have a significant interest in this. I work very closely with ministerial colleagues. The consultation is yet to be published, but I will happily write to him in due course on that point. So I would like to now take the opportunity to celebrate the Duke of Edinburgh's Award 70th anniversary. Over the last seven decades, the award has changed the lives of countless young people, and I saw this first hand when seeing the awards in action.
Were visiting Barnsley Academy in Kendray.
17:22
17:22
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Have on young people learning new skills, developing confidence and making friends are just a few of the benefits. Completing the D of E award can have. And I'm delighted to be attending the 70th anniversary Parliamentary reception next week, and it's great to see some representatives are joining us here today, and I would like to add my thanks to the teachers and volunteers and all those who have worked hard to achieve their awards across the country and indeed just outside the centre of Barnsley. I visited with Centrepoint, working with some homeless young people and the Duke of Edinburgh Award just a few months ago.
And as the member for Twickenham, I believe, referenced the 6,000,000 hours of volunteering is really phenomenal and just one of the small contributions that the Duke of Edinburgh Award makes. Now, as the minister responsible for youth, I am proud of the conversations we have had and continue to have with young people. Last month I signed the Power of Youth Charter to demonstrate our commitment to youth empowerment, and it is a clear message that we are listening and we will act, and it illustrates the importance we place on youth voice.
A point that has been made by a number of members today. We always said our youth strategy wouldn't be a strategy about young people, but a strategy with and by young people. We wanted to know what mattered. We listened, and the voices of young people are right at the heart of the decisions we have made. Our landmark National Youth strategy is ambitious. It is long term and it is cross-cutting. Youth matters radically transformed how we work to give every young person somewhere to go, someone who cares and a community they feel part of.
And we've been clear about what that means by 2035, we want to halve the participation gap in enriching activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers. For half a million young people, to have access to a trusted adult outside of their home. The first ambition halving the participation gap is because we do not believe that a young person's background should determine the opportunities they get. We are fiercely committed. We are fiercely committed to breaking down barriers, and we are working across government and with partners to make that a reality.
I'd happily give way.
And as the member for Twickenham, I believe, referenced the 6,000,000 hours of volunteering is really phenomenal and just one of the small contributions that the Duke of Edinburgh Award makes. Now, as the minister responsible for youth, I am proud of the conversations we have had and continue to have with young people. Last month I signed the Power of Youth Charter to demonstrate our commitment to youth empowerment, and it is a clear message that we are listening and we will act, and it illustrates the importance we place on youth voice.
A point that has been made by a number of members today. We always said our youth strategy wouldn't be a strategy about young people, but a strategy with and by young people. We wanted to know what mattered. We listened, and the voices of young people are right at the heart of the decisions we have made. Our landmark National Youth strategy is ambitious. It is long term and it is cross-cutting. Youth matters radically transformed how we work to give every young person somewhere to go, someone who cares and a community they feel part of.
And we've been clear about what that means by 2035, we want to halve the participation gap in enriching activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers. For half a million young people, to have access to a trusted adult outside of their home. The first ambition halving the participation gap is because we do not believe that a young person's background should determine the opportunities they get. We are fiercely committed. We are fiercely committed to breaking down barriers, and we are working across government and with partners to make that a reality.
I'd happily give way.
17:24
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I thank the Minister for giving way, and it's going to be a really brief point about closing the gap. Um, the research shows places like Stoke on Trent, Kidsgrove, for every £1 spent on a young person in a London gets £10 per young person per year spent on them. So I really welcome all of the investment coming in via the youth strategy, but how can we use the National Youth Strategy to close that gap to make sure we lift people in Stoke, young people from Stoke and Staffordshire up to those levels?
17:24
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Well, I totally appreciate the point that he makes, and my own area of Barnsley saw some of the worst cuts in the country under the last government, and despite that, the Labour Council has invested in the youth zone, for example, and free transport for under 18 seconds. I know the challenges in Stoke will be similar to Barnsley and of course there'll be pockets of deprivation in London and other areas. We want to make sure that every young person, whatever their postcode, gets, the support they need and obviously this is in the context of 73% cuts in England over the last so many years.
That won't be reversed overnight, but we do have an ambition to work towards that because the strategy is backed by £500 million of DCMs funding. It will include funding for new builds, refurbishments and capital equipment so organisations can improve or expand their services. And I've seen the impact of schemes like this from the reopening of the Double Six youth club in Sheffield to eloquent dance in Birmingham. Now the second ambition increasing access to trusted adults. And that's something that the member for Hertford and Stortford spoke about, is because we know how important it is for young people to have someone in their corner as minister for youth, but also civil society and sport.
I often hear about the fantastic work of youth workers, volunteers, sport coaches and many others, and I've seen it firsthand as well in places such as East Bierley Community Sports Association in Kirklees, where I visited a few weeks ago just down the road from the honourable lady's constituency. And I won't mention any more in the interest of time, but I've seen so many, but still, as many as 1 in 5 young people do not have a trusted adult outside the home to talk to. We want to change this.
Our recent joint investment with the King's Trust of £10 million will expand young people's access to a trusted adult. This money will be matched with corporate and philanthropic investment, bringing the total to £20 million to build young people's skills and tackle youth unemployment. We will follow this with £15 million over the next three years for youth workers, volunteers and others who work closely with young people, and an additional £5 million which will help organisations spread good practice and improve data and build strong local partnerships. Now, expanding enrichment is a key aim of our strategy.
Young people have told us they want more in-person opportunities, whether that be through arts, culture, sports, volunteering or being outdoors in nature. We know those experiences are invaluable for wellbeing, belonging, school attendance and future employment opportunities. This is especially true for disadvantaged young people. Those who attend after school clubs achieve, on average, a two point higher total score in their key stage two assessments in English, maths and science. At the end of primary school. That is the value of enriching activities, and that is why the government recently published the enrichment framework to give every school and college the tools to offer high quality enrichment.
This framework is for all pupils to ensure access is not limited because of who you are or where you are from. Building on the enrichment framework, my department will invest £22.5 million to support up to 400 schools. To meet these benchmarks. It will help listen to pupils in their school about what they really want and act on it. We will work with schools in some of the most deprived areas of England to ensure that where young people live is not a barrier anymore.
And we've announced that every child can. An investment of £132.5 million of dormant assets, funding to fund opportunities across the five key categories of enrichment. And this includes ensuring every school has access to a library. Now, when talking about enrichment, I think of organisations in my own area, such as the Barnsley Youth Choir, with hundreds of young people being given amazing experiences, opportunities or skills, or beat the street where primary schools get together and get kids more active, or to our brilliant new Bay 71 youth zone.
Now, as a number of members, including the member from York, spoke about the cross-government work, we have a young Futures ministerial group. Delivering for young people is our shared responsibility and we are not doing it alone. Across government, we are working with incredible partners who are delivering on the ground and galvanising action. Organisations like the Uniformed Youth and of course, the Duke of Edinburgh Award and many others. We are working closely with local authorities, developing a network of up to 50 youth hubs.
We've already opened eight pilot hubs and these learnings will inform the remainder of the programme. This includes how we align with other government initiatives, such as the Young Futures Panels and the DWP youth hubs. Now the members for Huddersfield Croydon, of course, who is the chair of the all party group, and Gravesham, as well as others, spoke about strengthening the statutory duty on local authorities to provide sufficient youth offer. We are already taking steps to address this. Our Local Outcomes Framework outlines key priorities and accountability for local government.
We will explore reviewing the statutory duty, but we must make sure any change is properly funded to empower, not burden local authorities. Every time a young person discovers their passions and pushes themselves outside of their comfort zone, it has an impact that goes far beyond the youth club or the sports pitch. It is a step towards them becoming a more resilient, positive, connected adult and it is a powerful reminder of our nation's story, one that has produced world famous musicians, actors, athletes, inventors and entrepreneurs. They all started as a young person who was told they could reach their potential.
This government is making sure young people hear that same message again, and I would like to thank my hon. Friend and all those who have contributed today.
That won't be reversed overnight, but we do have an ambition to work towards that because the strategy is backed by £500 million of DCMs funding. It will include funding for new builds, refurbishments and capital equipment so organisations can improve or expand their services. And I've seen the impact of schemes like this from the reopening of the Double Six youth club in Sheffield to eloquent dance in Birmingham. Now the second ambition increasing access to trusted adults. And that's something that the member for Hertford and Stortford spoke about, is because we know how important it is for young people to have someone in their corner as minister for youth, but also civil society and sport.
I often hear about the fantastic work of youth workers, volunteers, sport coaches and many others, and I've seen it firsthand as well in places such as East Bierley Community Sports Association in Kirklees, where I visited a few weeks ago just down the road from the honourable lady's constituency. And I won't mention any more in the interest of time, but I've seen so many, but still, as many as 1 in 5 young people do not have a trusted adult outside the home to talk to. We want to change this.
Our recent joint investment with the King's Trust of £10 million will expand young people's access to a trusted adult. This money will be matched with corporate and philanthropic investment, bringing the total to £20 million to build young people's skills and tackle youth unemployment. We will follow this with £15 million over the next three years for youth workers, volunteers and others who work closely with young people, and an additional £5 million which will help organisations spread good practice and improve data and build strong local partnerships. Now, expanding enrichment is a key aim of our strategy.
Young people have told us they want more in-person opportunities, whether that be through arts, culture, sports, volunteering or being outdoors in nature. We know those experiences are invaluable for wellbeing, belonging, school attendance and future employment opportunities. This is especially true for disadvantaged young people. Those who attend after school clubs achieve, on average, a two point higher total score in their key stage two assessments in English, maths and science. At the end of primary school. That is the value of enriching activities, and that is why the government recently published the enrichment framework to give every school and college the tools to offer high quality enrichment.
This framework is for all pupils to ensure access is not limited because of who you are or where you are from. Building on the enrichment framework, my department will invest £22.5 million to support up to 400 schools. To meet these benchmarks. It will help listen to pupils in their school about what they really want and act on it. We will work with schools in some of the most deprived areas of England to ensure that where young people live is not a barrier anymore.
And we've announced that every child can. An investment of £132.5 million of dormant assets, funding to fund opportunities across the five key categories of enrichment. And this includes ensuring every school has access to a library. Now, when talking about enrichment, I think of organisations in my own area, such as the Barnsley Youth Choir, with hundreds of young people being given amazing experiences, opportunities or skills, or beat the street where primary schools get together and get kids more active, or to our brilliant new Bay 71 youth zone.
Now, as a number of members, including the member from York, spoke about the cross-government work, we have a young Futures ministerial group. Delivering for young people is our shared responsibility and we are not doing it alone. Across government, we are working with incredible partners who are delivering on the ground and galvanising action. Organisations like the Uniformed Youth and of course, the Duke of Edinburgh Award and many others. We are working closely with local authorities, developing a network of up to 50 youth hubs.
We've already opened eight pilot hubs and these learnings will inform the remainder of the programme. This includes how we align with other government initiatives, such as the Young Futures Panels and the DWP youth hubs. Now the members for Huddersfield Croydon, of course, who is the chair of the all party group, and Gravesham, as well as others, spoke about strengthening the statutory duty on local authorities to provide sufficient youth offer. We are already taking steps to address this. Our Local Outcomes Framework outlines key priorities and accountability for local government.
We will explore reviewing the statutory duty, but we must make sure any change is properly funded to empower, not burden local authorities. Every time a young person discovers their passions and pushes themselves outside of their comfort zone, it has an impact that goes far beyond the youth club or the sports pitch. It is a step towards them becoming a more resilient, positive, connected adult and it is a powerful reminder of our nation's story, one that has produced world famous musicians, actors, athletes, inventors and entrepreneurs. They all started as a young person who was told they could reach their potential.
This government is making sure young people hear that same message again, and I would like to thank my hon. Friend and all those who have contributed today.
17:29
17:29
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:30