Dame Chi Onwurah
MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West · Labour · United Kingdom
“An extraordinary debate is going on right now inside and outside AI companies about whether the possibility of AI destroying humanity is more or less than 10%. The European Union is moving ahead with a comprehensive AI regulatory framework, but the UK continues to rely on existing regulation.”
“The Pope also highlighted how the billions of online digital twins constitute an unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of a small number of men. Among the many consequences of the 40 years of neoliberalism repeatedly called out by the Prime Minister is a libertarian attitude to technology.”
“But this stealth digital twinning violates the integrity, uniqueness and very personhood of our constituents and of all of us. Digital twins can take many forms, from content creation algorithms and deepfakes to chatbots that reflect aspects of our personalities back at us. It is particularly worrying when children are the target.”
“The automated version of our kids will grow with them, using the power of AI to target advertising and products at them, and worse. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has heard about some of the tragic consequences of online grooming by algorithms and chatbots—a vulnerable boy persuaded to kill himself; a vulnerable girl fed…”
“In the arts, entertainment and tech industries, many performers are agreeing to the creation and use of digital replicas as part of their work—think of ABBA Voyage. But performers increasingly encounter unauthorised digital replicas of themselves, which pose a threat to their career, livelihood and reputation.”
“Since then, deepfakes have proliferated. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) was shown crossing the Floor in Parliament to join Reform, to his constituents’ consternation and his own—it was a fake. Then there were the horrendous photos of naked women and girls that Elon Musk’s AI created on demand.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,139 lines we hold for Dame Chi Onwurah, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 103.
“The Chartered Trading Standards Institute estimates that local trading standards services have lost 56% of their full-time equivalent staff since 2009, and 20 services have had their funding reduced by more than 60% since 2011. That has left 44% of local authorities lacking the expertise needed to enforce legislation, because staff are having to perform other duties. We would like to ensure that those services have the resources and funds that they need in order to carry out their duty to protect consumers from rogue traders. Not only have the Government failed to support local authorities in this respect, but their funding cuts have made it harder for those who do have the powers to enforce existing legislation.”
“It should not be the job of a Conservative Back Bencher, however well respected, to rectify the mistakes of his own Government. Bodies such as the FMB and Which? have been calling on the Government to act on this issue. The chief executive of the FMB, Brian Berry, has said: “Licenses for the building trade are long overdue and have widespread support in the industry. They will protect consumers, enhance the reputation of the industry, and provide a significant boost to the economy.” Which? says that the enforcement of rogue traders falls to local authority trading standards services, but as we have heard, they are not always able to inspect buildings as they would like to, because their budgets are not ring-fenced, and their funding has been cut for several years.”
“According to research conducted by Which?, consumers are more than twice as likely to choose poor-quality products after being exposed to fake reviews. The Federation of Master Builders has been warning consumers about customer review sites promoting rogue traders since 2015. This cannot be allowed to continue. In 2018, the FMB found that 32% of homeowners were discouraged from arranging home improvements requiring a builder because they feared hiring a rogue builder, and it estimated that this was causing the economy to lose £10 billion of construction activity a year. That figure was also quoted by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest. This is not only about protecting homeowners; it is also an economic issue for our country. We welcome the intention behind the Bill, but the Government should have acted sooner.”
“It is an issue that must be familiar to MPs up and down the country, and indeed to many homeowners. Earlier this year a constituent of mine applied for heating work to be carried out under the Government’s green homes scheme, but the builder left her home in a completely unacceptable state. She was unable to use her living room for five months, and mice—which featured in a debate earlier today—started coming in because the floorboards had not been replaced properly. Consumers like my constituent are unable to find appropriate redress. They are also faced with scam ads and fake reviews online, which makes the task of finding a reputable builder even harder. I commend the campaign launched by Which? earlier this year, calling on the Government to introduce laws that would force tech giants to protect consumers online.”
“The only legal protection for consumers is contract law, but that is not a viable option for many, for the reasons the hon. Member set out, meaning that cowboy builders can largely get away with shoddy work. This Bill sets out to provide greater protection for homeowners by requiring builders to get licensed and by outlawing cowboy builders, who would face fines. It also makes provision for consumers to get compensation, as well as for a licensing service to oversee the scheme and an ombudsman service to resolve disputes between traders and consumers. We very much welcome the intention behind the Bill, and we will not be opposing it. Although there are some schemes to help consumers find legitimate and reputable builders, such as TrustMark, they are voluntary and therefore cannot fully tackle this issue.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on bringing forward the Bill. I very much join him in his opening tribute to the building trades, which are not always as much valued or appreciated as they should be. Particularly now, after two years of pandemic times, our homes are very important to us. We have spent a lot of time looking at our walls and imagining how we can improve them. Unfortunately, however, people have often been put off by rogue traders, for the reasons the hon. Member laid out. Currently, anyone can call themselves a builder. They are not required to provide any evidence of training, qualifications or experience. This makes it really difficult for homeowners to know which traders are legitimate, and it allows cowboy builders to undercut legitimate builders.”
“It is not rocket science: the road to levelling up, however we define it, goes by rail. That is the only way the north can achieve the level of economic integration necessary to deliver the high-pay, high-productivity jobs that my constituents deserve. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this watered-down, broken-promise plan, made in Whitehall, not the north, means that every single Tory MP with a seat in the north-east will go into the next election on a platform of “We did you over last time; please let us do you over again”?”
“The Leader of the House has said that the reason the Government tried to tear up the rulebook was that their and his judgment was clouded by the situation of a friend. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason we have standards in public life is so that our judgment is not clouded by sympathy and that, more importantly, our judgment should always be influenced by the situation of our constituents, not the situation of our mates?”
“The “Life Sciences Vision” has dementia as its first mission. The Conservative manifesto committed to doubling research funding in a dementia moonshot, but the Budget ignored it. The UK Dementia Research Institute called this “a major blow to UK neuroscientists racing to find cures for these devastating diseases”. Alzheimer’s Research UK said that this “lets down the nearly one million people in the UK affected by this devastating condition.” So will the Secretary of State now set out a clear timetable for doubling dementia research funding, as Labour has? Or is the “Life Sciences Vision”, like the R&D road map, the industrial strategy, the innovation strategy, the grand challenges and Northern Powerhouse Rail, all talk and no action?”
“Just last week, I asked her what funding was available for 5G diversification, and she talked about “a Future RAN Competition (FRANC) and opening the doors of the SmartRAN Open Network Interoperability Centre (SONIC Labs).” I want to know how diversification is being achieved and how local sovereign UK capability is being built, not an acronym soup that is ad hoc, hard to digest and dangerously complacent.”
“The Minister’s second argument seems to be that this is too technologically specific. Lords amendment 4 says: “The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the impact of progress of the diversification of the telecommunications supply chain on the security of public electronic communication networks and services.” Would the Minister tell me what in that is specific as to the technology? Indeed, the only specific aspect of technology is a requirement to include future technologies that may be used as a platform, such as cloud computing. I find the Minister’s reasons for not supporting this amendment concerning. I fear that the Government are just not serious about diversifying our supply chain, and that they do not really have a plan for it. The Minister mentioned asking parliamentary questions.”
“However, we are left with only two providers, and as we heard repeatedly at every stage of this Bill’s progression, two providers is not diverse, is not resilient and is not secure. We cannot ensure national security without a diverse supply chain, but I fear that the Government still just do not get it. Let me just take two of the Minister’s arguments. The first argument seems to be, as far as I could comprehend it, that requiring reporting would be “restrictive and premature”, but surely if the Government’s intention is to diversify the supply chain—and we have heard that we cannot have a secure network without a diversified supply chain—the only way a reporting requirement would be limiting is if the Government have no actual intention of doing anything about diversifying it.”
“We are not calling for a similar immediate ban, or an eventual ban, we are just saying let us review it and come to a conclusion.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2021; Vol. 815, c. 99.] We will support the amendment. Lords amendment 4 requires the Secretary of State to report on the diversification strategy’s impact on the security of telecommunications networks. It would also allow for a debate in this House on the report to further strengthen parliamentary scrutiny. Labour supports the removal of high-risk vendors from our telecoms networks, and given the grave situation into which successive Conservative Governments have allowed our networks to fall, it is essential that the Government have the powers to remove Huawei at speed.”
“We support the amendment and find the Government’s opposition concerning, as we believe it could threaten our national security. I find the Minister’s arguments against the amendment somewhat confused. She claims that the amendment is unnecessary because we already monitor Five Eyes countries and would always respond to the actions of our closest intelligence partners, but if that is true, why not formalise it? We are stronger together, specifically with our Five Eyes allies. Instead of putting forward further arguments, I turn to the eloquent explanation of Conservative peer Lord Blencathra: “All it asks the Government to do…is to review the security arrangements with a telecoms provider if one of our vital, strategic Five Eyes partners bans its equipment.”
“As the Comms Council UK said, “the Minister will be able to unilaterally make decisions that impact the technical operation and direction of technology companies, with little or no oversight or accountability.” The House has a duty to ensure that those powers are proportionate and accountable, so we are happy that the Government have bowed to pressure from Labour to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny, even if, in our view, it does not go far enough. Two consequential amendments to Lords amendment 1 set out the conditions for the 40-day scrutiny period and ensure that that time cannot be disrupted by recess or Prorogation so that this House and the other place have sufficient time to scrutinise the code. Lords amendment 5 is cross party and designed to ensure that the Government review a vendor that is banned in a Five Eyes country.”
“I am pleased that the Lords amendments that we are discussing reflect issues that Labour has been raising. Lords amendment 1 seeks to improve transparency in the use of the Secretary of State’s powers to issue codes of practice to communications providers through the negative procedure. It reflects amendments that we tabled in Committee in response to the sweeping powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State and Ofcom.”
“I thank colleagues in the other place who have worked hard to improve the Bill. National security is the first duty of any Government and Labour will always put our country’s security first. The pandemic has shown how important telecommunications networks are. I declare an interest as a former telecoms engineer, but I am sure I speak for the whole House in thanking all those who have kept our networks going during the pandemic. We have been dependent on them to work from home or to keep in touch with family and friends. This House could continue its important work thanks to telecommunications networks, as well as the hard work of House staff and the Speaker’s support. A secure network is of the utmost importance. Labour welcomes the Bill’s intention while recognising its limitations.”
“Rather than having just one vendor supplying a whole network, as has been the case with Huawei and others, we would have a diverse mix of vendors at every stage of the network—the core and so on—which would enable much greater resilience. We could be doing that. The technologies are there now, and with the support of a forward-looking Government, we could ensure that leaders in those technologies were UK companies. We would therefore have not only a resilient network, but a network with local capability, because I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is no UK capability or UK vendor in this area right now. That is what I hope to see from the Government. Network diversification should be a fantastic opportunity to support innovative start-ups around the country.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I promise not to take advantage of it to set out at length what we could be doing to diversify. I would just say to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we only have two suppliers for 5G now, but the technology is evolving and there are new technologies for the next generation of networks—6G. As he will well remember, we have gone through generations of technology at quite a pace over the last 20 years. Right now, we should be investing in great UK technologies from companies and start-ups that are working in the field of open RAN and other technologies.”
“As always, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and as a telecoms engineer, it has been sad to see the lack of an industrial strategy for our telecommunications capability, which strengthens our UK capability. We have excellent engineers and excellent research. We should be leading in future telecommunications capability, and an industrial strategy would ensure that was the case. It would also help collaboration with our allies. For example, the US does not have a vendor that can provide our 5G networks at the moment, and collaboration with our allies and an industrial strategy or plan could make such a difference globally and locally to our security and economic strength.”
“I both agree and disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree totally that national security is not a function of the market, and the fact that we have a network that is not secure is not a market failure but a failure of government and foresight. China had an industrial strategy. That is why it has a vendor in all the networks across the world—”
“Not to break the rules, but to work with other nations whose values we share, and in the long term to develop and support companies in this area.”
“The Government have wasted 11 years, with huge delays in the second and third-generation fixed broadband roll-out, pushing us down the bottom of the OECD tables. Telecommunications are essential to our national security and economy, and we hope the Government will take this opportunity to recognise that.”
“My right hon. Friend, as always, makes a really good point. That is where an industrial strategy would have come in. It was predicted and we had time to build up alternatives. To go from having Huawei as one vendor among others that had small parts of our network, to our network being so dependent on it, took time. We could have used that time better to secure our networks and our own capability. The Government are bodging this. They are leaving it to the market when national security is not a market function. Labour has consistently welcomed the Bill, but it is only a small step towards achieving a truly secure and robust telecommunications network. In 2010 the Tories inherited a secure, competitive and world-leading network. It is now insecure, uncompetitive and bumping along the bottom.”
“We want empowered citizens who do not merely have access to the internet as passive consumers but who are equipped with the skills and tools to make the most of technology, and who are protected from those who use technology to cause harm. To achieve this aim, we support a robust regulatory framework that protects users, and enhances individual and national security. Labour will consider whether we need a Minister whose portfolio is entirely focused on digital inclusion, to ensure proper digital access and bring everyone online. That is what closing the digital divide requires.”
“However, I hope that the Minister will appreciate what I mean when I say that it should not be up to charities to ensure digital equity, and I think the hon. Member for West Bromwich West highlighted that. Labour decided, because of the lack of action from this Government, to take matters into our own hands. After months of consultation with a wide range of stakeholders— including businesses, platforms, individuals, charities, citizen organisations, trade unions and other groups—we published our report, “Our Digital Future”, in the summer. It set out the ways in which we can beef up digital skills, confidence and infrastructure, and improve digital public services to ensure digital inclusion. Labour wants Britain to be the best place to grow up in, to work in, to raise children in and to grow old in.”
“Two million households struggle to afford their internet bills. We have also heard that the universal service obligation is an obligation to provide service at whatever ridiculously high price it may be calculated at. To deliver a high-skilled, high-wage economy, all corners of the UK need to be able to access world-class digital infrastructure at affordable rates. Without it, we are pricing out a significant proportion of the population from the digital world. As we have also heard today, charities and some businesses are working to address data and device poverty. The Good Things Foundation has built a national data bank to provide free mobile data for people on low incomes who need it, working with local community partners and mobile network operators.”
“Internet access is an essential utility but, again, many households in this country do not have reliable broadband. The Prime Minister promised full fibre for everyone—I hope the Minister will tell us what happened to that promise—and then in 2019 that was downgraded to nationwide gigabit broadband coverage by 2025. Two years on, we now have a target of 85% gigabit broadband by 2025, but the actual plan shows that the Government will spend only £1.2 billion of the promised £5 billion to achieve that. No doubt the Minister will mention the rural broadband scheme, but the number of times it has been announced is, I think, greater than its number of users. We need infrastructure to be affordable. A third of adults who are not online cite cost as a reason, according to research carried out by Lloyds.”
“Nearly half of young people feel isolated, and one third of 17 to 19-year-olds say the internet has a negative impact on their mental health, but the online safety Bill does not prioritise action against racism, misogyny or homophobia. The draft Bill also manages to shift—this is quite an achievement—more power to the tech platforms, allowing them to mark their own homework without giving their executives any legal liability. It does give plenty of power to Ministers, but does not give the regulator the resources or powers necessary to guard against tomorrow’s future harms such as algorithmic control—a harm that is very much here, but is growing in scale. Finally, I come to digital infrastructure. As we have heard, we have had another wasted decade.”
“They see their phone used as an instrument of surveillance by their employers and their employment cancelled by text message. Ensuring digital confidence means supporting and empowering our digital citizens. It means introducing legislation that protects people online, but for 11 years that is exactly what successive Tory Governments have failed to do. Even now, four years after they finally promised legislation, we have the online safety Bill only in draft form, and that is inadequate on so many levels. The Nominet Digital Youth Index, published today for the first time, highlights that nearly three in five young people in the LGBTQ+ community have experienced hate speech online.”
“Friend the Member for East Ham mentioned the call for greater help in the community, and closing and reducing the opening hours of so many libraries has not helped there. Will the Minister say whether we will have a digital strategy for small business inclusion as well? Digital skills and confidence are related, but are not quite the same thing. As a chartered engineer, I have been deeply disturbed by the way in which so many of my constituents are now fearful of technology. They are forced to claim benefits online when they cannot afford broadband, and required to sit on hold for hours as an algorithm determines their future. They see their children bullied online and their favourite footballers trolled online. They see public figures, particularly women in the public eye, attacked and often threatened online.”
“During the pandemic, many small businesses could survive only if they moved online. Grainger Market in my constituency—a historic and iconic covered market with many stallholders, none of whom were online when lockdown started in March 2020—moved online within three weeks, offering all kinds of produce and services to my constituents across the city, but it did not follow from that that they had the necessary digital skills, cyber-skills in particular, to maintain a sustainable and secure business. Yet the Government’s flagship Help to Grow digital scheme provides only £8.30 for each UK small and medium-sized enterprise. That is a missed opportunity to empower small businesses and workers to succeed in the digital age. My right hon.”
“Professor Arpana Verma found that digital inequalities have been increased by the digital revolution, and has noted an inextricable link between health literacy, digital literacy and financial literacy. Digital illiteracy also leaves people excluded from employment, and lower-income households are one of the groups most likely to face digital exclusion. I agreed with the Scottish National party’s spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), when she said that we have to think about the people behind these statistics and examples. The cost to society and individuals could not be greater, but the Government’s investment in digital inclusion is ad hoc and limited. Also, digital inclusion must include businesses, who must be able to do business in digital markets.”
“That included a target of 90% online, which has largely been achieved. Is the Minister’s position then “job done”? Is it okay that 10 million people still lack the basic digital skills needed to function in today’s digital world, according to the Good Things Foundation? Is it acceptable that families have to choose between food and mobile data, and saw their children left without access to education every time there was a covid case at their school? Is it fine and dandy if small businesses cannot compete online? Will the Minister say when we will have a digital inclusion strategy? A lack of digital skills can have wide-ranging implications, as we heard during this debate.”
“I start from the position that access to the internet should be a right, not a privilege, and I ask the Minister directly to tell us whether she believes that as well. Ensuring that access is a right and not a privilege means providing people with the skills and confidence to use the internet, as well as the necessary infrastructure, and ensuring that no one is priced out of important digital products and services. Unfortunately, digital skills, digital confidence and digital infrastructure are exactly what the Government have been getting wrong for the past 10 years, overturning the world-leading position they inherited from the last Labour Government. Let me take each in turn. On digital skills, all I need to say is that the Government’s last digital inclusion strategy was published in 2014.”
“Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), we heard what I can only describe as damning examples of the digital divide in their constituencies, about which they feel very strongly, and rightly so. The Labour party believes that technology can change lives for the better, and it already has. Families separated by geography are now connected online, and a world of experiences, advice and memes are available to everybody from their smartphone. In 2020, the pandemic placed technology firmly at the heart of our working and social lives: last year, the average UK adult spent about a quarter of their working life online. We are all digital citizens now, but that is a truth that cuts two ways, given the digital inequalities that so many face.”
“It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ali. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for having secured this debate with the support of the APPG. He has long been an exceptional champion for digital inclusion. I welcome the Minister to her position: this is the first time we have met on this brief, as it were. I hope that when addressing this critical issue, she will show similar passion to that of my right hon. Friend, and indeed the other Members who have contributed to today’s interesting and well-reasoned debate. From the hon. Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) and the right hon.”
“On the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) about the holding factors in rolling out superfast broadband, the Minister mentioned skills. I understand that the skills necessary to dig up so many roles may be limited at the moment. What is she doing to increase the number of skilled engineers needed for the roll-out?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way and making such efforts to communicate with us. With regard to her comments about the public switched telephone network, while it is true that they will not be ripping the lines out of people’s homes, as I hope she knows well one of the features of the PSTN is that it carries power down the lines, which is not a feature of VOIP. People will find that some aspects of the reliability of their telephones will change—if there is a power outage, for example. What proportion of people are aware that the PSTN will be switched off?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way again. I hope that she will not finish without addressing my question about a digital inclusion strategy. The vast majority of her speech has been on infrastructure but, as we know very well, skills and confidence are going to drive the take-up of digital services and digital inclusion.”
“The Secretary of State and the Chancellor press-released that the Budget would invest in northern transport, but once again the north-east was entirely overlooked. It costs more for a Geordie to go four stops up the West Road on a bus than it does for a Londoner to traverse the whole of London city, so when will the Secretary of State level down bus prices?”
“All this comes while across Newcastle children play in litter because the Government will not take plastic pollution seriously or give our council the powers it deserves. The Tories came into power in 2010 and wrecked our recovery from the financial crisis in the name of austerity. This Budget is an attempt by the Chancellor to position himself for the next Tory leadership election, claiming the credit for repairing the damage of his Tory predecessors while actually entrenching inequality and further neglecting the north. But the north will remember.”
“This Budget did nothing to make our communities safer by tackling the root causes of antisocial behaviour, which mars the life of so many of my constituents. Youth services are still waiting for the £500 million funding they were promised more than two years ago, which is leaving frontline youth services on their knees and young people without vital support and guidance that they need. However, the Chancellor expects council tax payers in Newcastle to pay more, having cut central Government funding for Newcastle City Council in half. This council tax rise, made in Whitehall, will not begin to make up for the impact of inflation, never mind a decade of austerity and the demands of the social care system.”
“I have said many times in this House, and I will say it again, that it costs more to go four measly stops up the West Road in Newcastle than it does to traverse the whole of London on a bus. Lucy Winskell, the chair of the North East local enterprise partnership, was clear that “government has announced significant transport investment across the rest of the North but not in the North East”. Communities in Newcastle expect to feel safe and protected—this is the first duty of a Government—yet even when the Government’s promised police officer recruitment is completed we will still have fewer officers than we did in 2010, while police community support officer numbers have fallen by 40%.”
“The Chancellor’s £1.4 million global Britain investment fund purports to spread economic opportunities across the UK by investing in life sciences, the automotive industry and manufacturing. Those are all sectors the north-east has considerable strengths in and they are critical for addressing climate change. Yet, for example, Government investment in life sciences is just £22 per person in the north, which is two fifths of the £55 per person invested in the south—in the midlands, it is just £16 per person. How will we deliver good, green, sustainable jobs across the north-east, and indeed in all our regions, without investment in science? The north-east also lost out on transport.”
“That is all we really need to know about this Government: they are making the poorest poorer while cutting taxes on Amazon and champagne. Fortunately, in Newcastle, we have generous Geordies who will support our local food bank, but they should not have to. We do not generally think of science as a public service, but it is certainly a public good and the foundation of our future economic prosperity and global competitiveness. The Chancellor echoed the Prime Minister’s talk of a science superpower, but he went quickly over the bit where he actually broke the Prime Minister’s commitment to doubling the science spend by 2024-25, delaying it by two years at a cost of £8 billion in private sector investment. In science, as elsewhere, levelling up is nothing but a slogan.”
“There is so much wrong with this Budget, but in the short time I have today, I will highlight five areas: universal credit, science, transport, local government and protecting our communities. Last week, the Chancellor tried to present a benefit change as a tax cut, as he was no doubt embarrassed at imposing the highest tax burden in 70 years. But the Resolution Foundation calculates that three quarters of the 4.4 million households on universal credit will be worse off due to the Chancellor’s choices, including taking £20 per week away from each and every one of the 16,000 families on universal credit in Newcastle Central. And that is with real wages having fallen in every region of England by over £23 per week on average since the Tories came to power.”
“It is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) and her incisive comments. I grew up in a council house in North Kenton, in Newcastle. I went to excellent local state schools, and the NHS made me well when I was ill and saved my mother’s life when she had cancer. I start with that to acknowledge the personal debt I owe to public services. It is a debt that we surely all feel all the more deeply, given the dedication of public service workers during this pandemic, but apparently the Chancellor does not. Yes, he talked about public services. Indeed, he mentioned them 13 times, but unfortunately this Budget is all talk, smoke and mirrors from a Government with no plan to address the three critical crises we are facing: the cost of living crisis, the climate crisis and the covid crisis.”
“1. What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of reductions in funding for arts courses in higher education on the provision of those courses.”
“I know that the Secretary of State studied engineering, and as a chartered engineer myself, I believe it is essential to invest in STEM skills. However, doing so at the expense of arts subjects shows that the Government really are not serious about our future economy. How will he ensure that our £111 billion creative industries have the skills and people they need when he is cutting in half the subsidy for arts subjects? Is he aware that only a fifth of our artists, performers and so on are from working-class backgrounds as it is?”