1-20 of 81 results for primarymember:"Viscount Camrose"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.333 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.008 seconds
- Search query
- primarymember:"Viscount Camrose"
- We searched for
- primaryMember_ses:446608
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill on 8 July (HL1838), what are the specific punctuality, cancellations, and passenger experience metrics which the Department for Transport is using to monitor the performance of South Western Railway following its transfer into public...
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill on 8 July (HL1838), what are the specific punctuality, cancellations, and passenger experience metrics which the Department for Transport is using to monitor the performance of South Western Railway following its transfer into public...
The Department monitors Southwestern Railway’s performance through a range of operational measures covering punctuality, cancellations, passenger experience and service quality. The principal operational performance metrics are:
- Punctuality (Time to 3), measuring the percentage of recorded station stops made within three minutes of the planned time.
- Reliability (All Stations Cancellations), measuring the percentage of planned station stops cancelled; and
- Passenger experience, including overall customer satisfaction and satisfaction with disruption handling.
Customer satisfaction metrics are:
- Service Quality Regime (SQR) measuring the condition, performance, and availability of a range of assets at stations and on trains.
- Overall Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Disruption Handling using the Voice of Customer survey.
In the latest reporting period, Southwestern Railway did not meet its punctuality or cancellations targets. It also did not meet its customer experience targets for overall satisfaction and satisfaction during disruption. Whilst a number of Service Quality station measures remained below benchmark, performance in all train areas exceeded the benchmark.
Whilst SWR’s performance before and after public ownership has been below standard passengers deserve, particularly with rolling stock issues and driver shortages inherited from the previous owning group, progress is being made under public ownership. Since their transfer to public ownership, SWR have unlocked their Arterio programme, with fifty-two daily service diagrams compared to just six when SWR entered public ownership.
To improve performance, Southwestern Railway and Network Rail's integrated Wessex team are focused on reducing delays and cancellations caused by infrastructure, fleet and operational issues. This includes investment in more reliable infrastructure, deployment of technologies to improve monitoring of track conditions, improvements to service recovery and disruption management through the Major Disruption Taskforce, and delivery of customer information improvements. The Department monitors progress through regular performance reviews and engagement.
Information on punctuality and reliability and improvement activity can be found on the SWR website.
My Lords, we understand the Government’s policy of placing most of the burden of AI regulation on to existing sectoral regulators, but the cyber security and resilience Bill will create new burdens for those regulators. The Minister will accept that this is collectively an extremely significant expansion of those regulators’ powers and workload. First, are any further additions planned? Secondly, are the Government taking steps to ensure those regulators have the necessary skills and resources? Thirdly, is the new Prime Minister aware of and supportive of this approach?
My Lords, we understand the Government’s policy of placing most of the burden of AI regulation on to existing sectoral regulators, but the cyber security and resilience Bill will create new burdens for those regulators. The Minister will accept that this is collectively an extremely significant expansion of those regulators’ powers and workload. First, are any further additions planned? Secondly, are the Government taking steps to ensure those regulators have the necessary skills and resources? Thirdly, is the new Prime Minister aware of and supportive of this approach?
The noble Viscount is right that the cyber security and resilience Bill will indeed place new obligations on regulators, but that goes hand in hand with the support and the changes in funding and fee recovery that they will be able, after consultation, to enact. They are also supported by the technical authority of the NCSC, which provides them with advice on this. It is obviously the nature of all regulatory activities that they must take into account developments in society and the economy, and the transformative impact of AI. The Regulatory Innovation Office supports regulators to look at how they can adopt AI themselves to improve their regulatory efficiency, as well as looking at developments in their own sectors.
I welcome the Government providing a great deal of skills education, but I do not see how the Government know what skills the marketplace is looking for in AI, particularly in the situation in which we find ourselves, where the recruitment marketplace has been so badly damaged by the misapplication of AI that the market signals on what skills are actually required are not getting through. What does the AI Economics Institute think about this and how will the incoming Prime Minister take this forward?
I welcome the Government providing a great deal of skills education, but I do not see how the Government know what skills the marketplace is looking for in AI, particularly in the situation in which we find ourselves, where the recruitment marketplace has been so badly damaged by the misapplication of AI that the market signals on what skills are actually required are not getting through. What does the AI Economics Institute think about this and how will the incoming Prime Minister take this forward?
The Government have set up the future of work unit and have built on that with the AI Economics Institute precisely to examine the changes in the labour market and the changes to jobs—whether that is sector-specific changes or changes to particular cohorts, such as if women are particularly affected—and to then determine what action should be taken in that resolve. That is exactly what we are doing; we are being very active in understanding the technological change coming.
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the real threat to reliable information is not news publishers but weaponised disinformation published by our enemies using bots? The scale of that is far in excess of anything that Mr Musk might promote or anything that any individual news provider here might promote.
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the real threat to reliable information is not news publishers but weaponised disinformation published by our enemies using bots? The scale of that is far in excess of anything that Mr Musk might promote or anything that any individual news provider here might promote.
The noble Viscount is absolutely right. When Iran shut down its internet to try to stop proper, fair protests in that country, we saw how many cybernats and other accounts went down in the UK for people who were seeking to sow division and separation in the United Kingdom. We know that bad faith actors try every day to undermine the very values for which we stand. That is why we have the Government’s media literacy action plan and why we are working at every level of society to highlight these issues. It is also, from my perspective, one of the reasons why we need to work every day to make things clear and to ensure that platforms take their responsibilities seriously.
My Lords, to pick up on the point that was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, sellers of unapproved SARMs routinely use labels in their advertising such as “not for human consumption”, while simultaneously promoting their physique-enhancing effects elsewhere on social media. Since sophisticated AI advertising tools allow sellers to target consumers with almost perfect precision, these tricks are actually no less effective than openly advertising illegal products. Can the Minister tell us who is responsible for enforcing against this and what progress they are making?
My Lords, to pick up on the point that was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, sellers of unapproved SARMs routinely use labels in their advertising such as “not for human consumption”, while simultaneously promoting their physique-enhancing effects elsewhere on social media. Since sophisticated AI advertising tools allow sellers to target consumers with almost perfect precision, these tricks are actually no less effective than openly advertising illegal products. Can the Minister tell us who is responsible for enforcing against this and what progress they are making?
Where it is claimed that products are sold for research purposes only, that does not prevent regulatory action where the available evidence suggests that they are in fact unauthorised medicines intended for human use. If the product is classified as a medicine and is not appropriately authorised, the MHRA can take compliance and enforcement action.
My Lords, online hate speech is not solely created by individual users. It is also generated and amplified by malicious state actors using algorithmic methods to inflame tensions and to undermine our social cohesion. So as the Government prepare to strengthen the Online Safety Act to require platforms to act more quickly during a crisis, can the Minister give us some idea of what might constitute such a crisis? In particular, do the criteria include evidence of co-ordinated algorithmic attacks, increasingly referred to as “cognitive warfare”?
My Lords, online hate speech is not solely created by individual users. It is also generated and amplified by malicious state actors using algorithmic methods to inflame tensions and to undermine our social cohesion. So as the Government prepare to strengthen the Online Safety Act to require platforms to act more quickly during a crisis, can the Minister give us some idea of what might constitute such a crisis? In particular, do the criteria include evidence of co-ordinated algorithmic attacks, increasingly referred to as “cognitive warfare”?
The noble Lord raises the importance of being attentive and aware of the potential for foreign states to spread disinformation online, and through the Online Safety Act we have made the foreign interference offence from the National Security Act a priority offence that places clear legal duties on services to proactively assess risks, prevent users encountering foreign interference content and remove it swiftly where it appears. Ofcom set out in its publication last week some of the answers to the specific questions about definitions that the noble Viscount raises, but I am happy to write to him afterwards if that does not fully complete the answer to his question.
My Lords, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. We should be cautious about the assumption that improved AI skills alone will enable job seekers to adapt to a changing labour market. The misapplication of AI in recruitment often generates unmanageable volumes of synthetic job applications, making it impossible to identify genuinely qualified candidates. Without an efficiently functioning recruitment market, the Government’s efforts to boost employment will be even less effective than they currently are, so will the Minister please encourage the future of work unit to look into the matter urgently?
My Lords, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. We should be cautious about the assumption that improved AI skills alone will enable job seekers to adapt to a changing labour market. The misapplication of AI in recruitment often generates unmanageable volumes of synthetic job applications, making it impossible to identify genuinely qualified candidates. Without an efficiently functioning recruitment market, the Government’s efforts to boost employment will be even less effective than they currently are, so will the Minister please encourage the future of work unit to look into the matter urgently?
The noble Viscount has rightly highlighted the importance of responsible AI in recruitment guidance. As he knows, the Government have set out good practice for recruitment practitioners and agencies in procuring and deploying AI systems for HR and recruitment. I am sure that this will be a topic that the future of work unit will consider as it takes forward its work.
My Lords, events in Ukraine and Iran are showing the growing military defence importance of satellite communication, navigation and earth observation systems. Given our strengths here in the UK in satellite manufacture and space data services, does the Minister agree that the UK space sector is particularly well suited to dual-use applications that support both economic growth and defensive capability? If so, is now the moment for the Government to look for further ways to promote investment in our satellite manufacturing sector?
My Lords, events in Ukraine and Iran are showing the growing military defence importance of satellite communication, navigation and earth observation systems. Given our strengths here in the UK in satellite manufacture and space data services, does the Minister agree that the UK space sector is particularly well suited to dual-use applications that support both economic growth and defensive capability? If so, is now the moment for the Government to look for further ways to promote investment in our satellite manufacturing sector?
The noble Viscount makes an important point. The two priorities of our space policy are economic growth and national security; they are priorities for the whole of government and are central to our approach to space. I co-chair the Space Ministerial Forum with my colleague from the Ministry of Defence, bringing that whole-of-government approach to this important issue. In the speech I made last week on our four priorities, satellite communication was one of them; it is a real priority for the Government.
My Lords, many digital harms such as disinformation and illegal or fraudulent content operate across borders. In that light, can the
Minister enlarge on the practical measures the Government are pursuing with the European Union to assure effective cross-border enforcement of our respective digital regulations, particularly with respect to Ofcom’s work with those responsible for enforcing the Digital Services Act?
My Lords, many digital harms such as disinformation and illegal or fraudulent content operate across borders. In that light, can the
Minister enlarge on the practical measures the Government are pursuing with the European Union to assure effective cross-border enforcement of our respective digital regulations, particularly with respect to Ofcom’s work with those responsible for enforcing the Digital Services Act?
Ofcom and the EU have an agreement and talk frequently about regulatory co-operation. Ofcom is also a member of a global network of regulators, so it can share best practice and welcome further co-operation.
My Lords, the misguided use of AI in the recruiting marketplace is deeply and unnecessarily disruptive. Mass automation of largely synthetic job applications means that there are far too many applications for most jobs, often by tens of thousands. These applications are, in turn, assessed often only by AI agents, with the result that the marketplace for jobs has become slow, inefficient and ineffective. Does the Minister agree that fixing the recruiting marketplace may be the quickest way to increase employment prospects and productivity for everyone, and can he outline what steps the Government plan to take to do so?
My Lords, the misguided use of AI in the recruiting marketplace is deeply and unnecessarily disruptive. Mass automation of largely synthetic job applications means that there are far too many applications for most jobs, often by tens of thousands. These applications are, in turn, assessed often only by AI agents, with the result that the marketplace for jobs has become slow, inefficient and ineffective. Does the Minister agree that fixing the recruiting marketplace may be the quickest way to increase employment prospects and productivity for everyone, and can he outline what steps the Government plan to take to do so?
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his long-standing work in this field and for the consistent attention that he has brought to this very important matter.
We have published the Responsible AI in Recruitment guidance, which sets out good practice for procuring and deploying AI systems for HR and recruitment. This guidance highlights the mechanism that can be used to ensure the safe and trustworthy use of AI in recruitment. As highlighted in the AI Opportunities Action Plan: One Year On, where we have achieved some 38 out of 50 commitments that we set ourselves, we have taken steps to build the AI assurance ecosystem that underpins safe and responsible use of AI. I will reach out to the noble Lord and meet up with him, together with my officials, to explore this further.
My Lords, I want to build on the very important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Given that AI research and development can be conducted, in effect, anywhere, regulation of the development of superintelligent AI is going to have to be global. Does the Minister feel that the UK is genuinely taking full advantage of our considerable convening power in this space to drive forward the global AI safety agenda? Further, might there be grounds for concern that our convening power may be diminished over time by the emerging political uncertainty that came to the fore over the weekend?
My Lords, I want to build on the very important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Given that AI research and development can be conducted, in effect, anywhere, regulation of the development of superintelligent AI is going to have to be global. Does the Minister feel that the UK is genuinely taking full advantage of our considerable convening power in this space to drive forward the global AI safety agenda? Further, might there be grounds for concern that our convening power may be diminished over time by the emerging political uncertainty that came to the fore over the weekend?
The Government have forged many extremely successful relationships; as evidenced, for example, by the number of trade deals secured over the past 18 months or so. These
relationships with the EU, the US, India, France and many other countries include discussions on AI. In addition, the UK is the co-ordinator on related questions for the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, which aims to shape and advance the science of AI evaluations globally. Our engagement is on all levels, and specifically on the technical level. The noble Viscount makes an extremely important point. This is an effort of global development, so it is important that we engage with developers globally and with other countries.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to my technology interests, as set out in the register. What assessment have the Government made of the critique of the CBI and others that their technology adoption plans are too fragmented? Does the Minister agree that, without strong co-ordination across different technology adoption initiatives, we will be unable either to assess their collective impacts or to learn their individual lessons?
I draw noble Lords’ attention to my technology interests, as set out in the register. What assessment have the Government made of the critique of the CBI and others that their technology adoption plans are too fragmented? Does the Minister agree that, without strong co-ordination across different technology adoption initiatives, we will be unable either to assess their collective impacts or to learn their individual lessons?
The technology review and many others have identified that there is no silver bullet in respect of technology adoption. What is needed in the creative industries is perhaps completely different from what is needed in the energy sector, for example. The review’s approach and its adoption into the industrial strategy is to match the needs of a particular sector with a set of technological or digital approaches. Beneath that are some common themes—for example, on skills, connectivity or
infrastructure. We have to look at it in that way: measures cut across the economy and specific measures are suited to subsectors.
My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords would agree that, whatever the merits of diversity in its own right, it cannot be a substitute for academic excellence. If so, does the Minister accept, in this light, that the more research funding is seen to be granted for reasons other than quality and impact, the more we risk loss of confidence in scientific research done in the UK?
My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords would agree that, whatever the merits of diversity in its own right, it cannot be a substitute for academic excellence. If so, does the Minister accept, in this light, that the more research funding is seen to be granted for reasons other than quality and impact, the more we risk loss of confidence in scientific research done in the UK?
Yes, I do agree with that, and that is why it is very clear that there is a focus on excellence in the very scheme that has been referred to, which is among the most excellent in the world in terms of what it searches for. It is worth going back to 2020-21, when the then Science Minister, Amanda Solloway, said: “We recognise that people from minority ethnic backgrounds, as well as other underrepresented groups, face systemic barriers to entering and progressing in R&D careers. We are committed to tackling these barriers to ensure that talent is not lost”. I agree with the last Government on that.
My Lords, screen addiction is a growing problem for all ages, but far more so for children. In July, Peter Kyle, the former Secretary of State for DSIT, committed to bringing forward proposals in the autumn to restrict children’s screen time. Since the reshuffles, we have heard no more about those proposals. Can the Minister clarify this point today? Will the Government be bringing forward a package along the lines set out by the former Secretary of State?
My Lords, screen addiction is a growing problem for all ages, but far more so for children. In July, Peter Kyle, the former Secretary of State for DSIT, committed to bringing forward proposals in the autumn to restrict children’s screen time. Since the reshuffles, we have heard no more about those proposals. Can the Minister clarify this point today? Will the Government be bringing forward a package along the lines set out by the former Secretary of State?
We are focusing on implementation of the Online Safety Act: protecting children from harmful content, backing Ofcom as it goes through the children’s risk assessments of the platform operators, and ensuring that the duties that came in in July are effective. That is the priority for the time being. As I said, we are looking at the evidence and assessing what other measures may be needed. If we need to do so in due course, we will do so.
My Lords, in May, the Vodafone-Three merger was completed, reducing the number of mobile operators in the country from four to three. Building on the question from my noble friend Lord Vaizey, six months on from the merger, what is the Government’s assessment of its impact, first on consumer prices and secondly on investment in the infrastructure that improves both the digital economy and rural connectivity?
My Lords, in May, the Vodafone-Three merger was completed, reducing the number of mobile operators in the country from four to three. Building on the question from my noble friend Lord Vaizey, six months on from the merger, what is the Government’s assessment of its impact, first on consumer prices and secondly on investment in the infrastructure that improves both the digital economy and rural connectivity?
As part of that merger, there was a commitment to invest £11 billion in infrastructure. That is a very important part of the continued rollout of our digital infrastructure, and it is monitored through Ofcom’s Connected Nations report, which is published regularly.
My Lords, in September the Government announced plans for a national digital identity system—a policy that will have very profound implications for the safe use of AI, particularly agentic AI. Can the Minister confirm that the interaction between the Government’s digital identity scheme and AI systems will be explicitly included within the scope of the consultation? If not, can the Minister commit to ensuring that it is?
My Lords, in September the Government announced plans for a national digital identity system—a policy that will have very profound implications for the safe use of AI, particularly agentic AI. Can the Minister confirm that the interaction between the Government’s digital identity scheme and AI systems will be explicitly included within the scope of the consultation? If not, can the Minister commit to ensuring that it is?
The noble Viscount asks about digital ID, as he highlights a proposal which was announced a few months ago. Digital ID will help make it easier for people to access the services they are entitled to and prevent illegal working. It will streamline interactions with the state, saving time and cutting frustrating paperwork. A public consultation on the digital ID will launch in the coming few weeks, to ensure the system is secure, trusted and inclusive. I will take back his specific question on the coverage of the consultation coming up.
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest as a director of Lumi Network, as set out in the register. Whether someone is building or using AI, it is far from clear that there is a finite set of teachable skills that keeps them productive in the workplace, or even employable, particularly given the pace of change of the technology itself. In light of the rapid evolution of skills requirements, can the Minister set
out some of the Government’s thinking on how to create and maintain an AI workforce on an ongoing basis?
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest as a director of Lumi Network, as set out in the register. Whether someone is building or using AI, it is far from clear that there is a finite set of teachable skills that keeps them productive in the workplace, or even employable, particularly given the pace of change of the technology itself. In light of the rapid evolution of skills requirements, can the Minister set
out some of the Government’s thinking on how to create and maintain an AI workforce on an ongoing basis?
The noble Viscount has asked the same question that I answered when I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We will be upskilling some 7.5 million workers right across the country. I can also share what we are doing with public sector workers: across the department we are working on AI adoption right across government. We back the Government Digital Service’s AI playbook and its 4,000-strong community of practice, which is helping teams use AI effectively and efficiently. We are skilling up early exemplars, such as AI tools for probation caseworkers and tax investigation, to demonstrate how AI can enhance services. A new £42 million fund will support frontier AI exemplars to boost productivity in HR, finance and policy. Through i.AI—the Incubator for Artificial Intelligence—we are also building reusable AI tools and upskilling civil servants right across the country.
My Lords, to build on the excellent question of my noble friend Lord Holmes, I was concerned this morning to be presented with some research to the effect that Britons are among the most nervous about AI of any population. To what does the Minister attribute this falling off in our level of confidence about AI, and what steps do the Government envisage taking to address it going forward?
My Lords, to build on the excellent question of my noble friend Lord Holmes, I was concerned this morning to be presented with some research to the effect that Britons are among the most nervous about AI of any population. To what does the Minister attribute this falling off in our level of confidence about AI, and what steps do the Government envisage taking to address it going forward?
I am tempted to refer back to surveys I used to see when I worked in a global company, which always came out worse for the UK than anywhere else in the world. But this is a very real issue, and there are major concerns about some aspects of AI. My worry is that we do not concentrate enough on the benefits and articulate those. We have work to do to make it clear that this is going to benefit
people and is not just something to worry about; it is going to be beneficial right across the sectors, including in health. We have work to do to get that message out and to ensure that it is understood and believed.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of productivity gains across the Civil Service resulting from the deployment of artificial intelligence; and how they are measuring and evaluating these gains.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of productivity gains across the Civil Service resulting from the deployment of artificial intelligence; and how they are measuring and evaluating these gains.
My Lords, in May, the Government announced a rightly ambitious plan to drive tens of billions of pounds per year in Civil Service productivity savings through AI. In June, they estimated that use of AI tools was saving civil servants 26 minutes a day. Even if that is true, the Minister will agree that time savings, however welcome, do not equate to productivity. Now that the Government have spent £573 million on AI tools and consulting for the Civil Service, how will they measure productivity gains to rapidly build on successes and shut down failures?
My Lords, in May, the Government announced a rightly ambitious plan to drive tens of billions of pounds per year in Civil Service productivity savings through AI. In June, they estimated that use of AI tools was saving civil servants 26 minutes a day. Even if that is true, the Minister will agree that time savings, however welcome, do not equate to productivity. Now that the Government have spent £573 million on AI tools and consulting for the Civil Service, how will they measure productivity gains to rapidly build on successes and shut down failures?
The figure of £573 million is, of course, forward spend, so that is not what has been spent; it is a commitment over the next few years. It is important that we measure this. Guidance on how to measure the impact of AI tools was issued last year; there is a rigorous process for doing that. On the 26 minutes that has been picked up by the Copilot study, it is of course a general AI tool. Much greater savings come with specific uses in specific areas, which will not be general across the Civil Service.
The noble Lord is quite right to point out that time saving is not productivity, but what we do know from studies elsewhere and across business is that, when you get those time savings, about half of it goes on core tasks, about a quarter is on other strategic and creative work and about 25% goes on enhanced well-being. That is what we might expect as a result. There is a lot to do to make sure that we implement this properly across the Civil Service.