Category Archives: Hansard

My Lords, with individuals having loan applications rejected off the back of AI decisions and creatives having their works ingested by GenAI with no consent or remuneration, would not the Minister agree that we need economy-wide and society-wide AI legislation and regulation for the benefit of citizens, consumers, creatives, innovators and investors—for all our AI futures?

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to regulate artificial intelligence and, if so, which uses they intend to regulate.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my technology interests as set out in the register.

My Lords, with individuals having loan applications rejected off the back of AI decisions and creatives having their works ingested by GenAI with no consent or remuneration, would not the Minister agree that we need economy-wide and society-wide AI legislation and regulation for the benefit of citizens, consumers, creatives, innovators and investors—for all our AI futures?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the Minister for his response and for the helpful clarification between the framework document and the MoU. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Amendments 17 to 26 not moved.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this group of amendments. In moving Amendment 16, I will give a nod to the other amendments in the group.

This amendment is incredibly straightforward; it simply seeks to assert that generation must match grid capacity and that we should always consider, when moving to these new modes of generation, who pays and when. I say that generation should match grid capacity, but perhaps that should be put the other way around to make the point that grid capacity must be in place before generation, particularly from offshore wind, comes on stream. I would welcome the Minister’s response as to what is currently set out in the Bill to guarantee that grid capacity will be in place and that we will not have a situation whereby there will be surplus generation that is unable to be taken up by the grid and is still paid for and unused—and that pay comes from the energy customers themselves.

How will it be ensured, as we move to this right green transition for energy production, that where the costs fall does not have catastrophic consequences? Presently, it seems unclear in the current structure of the Bill how this grid connectivity and capacity will come online to match the potential race for supply, particularly from offshore.

Amendment 16, in simple terms, would ensure that grid capacity exists before generation can come onshore and, in that, would ensure that payment is spread fairly across the bill payers—and that those at the sharpest end do not feel the most extreme cost as a result of this transition, as often happens. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this incredibly important debate, and the Minister for his thorough answer. All I would gently suggest is that if all those provisions, policies and words are having impact, how come the scarring, scraping, defacing and destruction of the seabed continues? Not being one to shy away from sporting analogies, I hazard a guess that the issues raised in this group of amendments could well bring the Government to their first game of ping-pong in this new Session; but for now, until Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Amendment 15 not moved.

House resumed.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to begin the next group of amendments. I shall move Amendment 14 and speak to Amendments 15 and 17 in my name. In doing so, I draw attention to my technology interests as set out in the register. I also had a Private Member’s Bill, the Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill, in the last Session.

We have already covered a wide range of incredibly important issues pertaining to the activities and operations of the Crown Estate. I gently and delicately suggest that Amendment 14 goes to perhaps the most significant issue that we could consider: the protection of the seabed around the United Kingdom. It is not an asset, nor a funding decision or a piece of plant or machinery, but the very bedrock of the ocean—one of the most important parts of our planet. There are currently practices, business and otherwise, carried on daily that temporarily and permanently damage the seabed. If such activities were taking place on the Crown Estate’s lands—for example, stripping away all the topsoil or taking away all the foundations of the buildings—it would of course not be permitted and be swiftly stopped, so why can the seabed which comes under the custody of the Crown Estate be so abused? Again, it is not an asset or a property, or a piece of land, but Poseidon’s pastures, and we must take this opportunity to protect them.

Amendment 15 sets out some objectives for the Crown Estate, not least around the potential role it could play with innovation and new technologies such as artificial intelligence. We have already seen in so many ways this afternoon the unique role and position the Crown Estate occupies. It seems only right and proper to take the opportunity for the Crown Estate to play a key role in the development of these technologies. These technologies in our human hands, and which are human led, will be the deliverers of growth we so need in this nation at any time, but especially in this time.

Similarly, the Crown Estate should have an objective around food security if we consider the carbon miles and the cost to the planet of importing foods from around the world. It is worth taking a moment to give more than a congratulatory nod to the Netherlands, which is the second largest exporter of food stuffs—not in Europe but in the world. It got to that position because it intended it, willed it and brought it into being, largely with similar soils, outlook and climate to the United Kingdom. Due to the carbon miles and the geopolitical situation we find ourselves in and will certainly find ourselves in going forward, the Crown Estate could play a key role partnering around the whole issue of food security.

Amendment 17 deals with nature prescribing and the positive impact that could have across our society. We are currently suffering a mental well-being epidemic in this nation—a nation which has some of the most spectacular woodland and stunning shoreline on the planet. It would be positive if the Crown Estate could partner with other agencies and work with NHS England and the bodies in the devolved nations to come up with a major UK-wide nature prescribing programme for the benefit of all of us. It would put those natural assets to such a positive use, with relatively no cost involved.

Amendments 14, 15 and 17 are about protecting the seabed, our population, mental well-being, and putting positive objectives forward for the future. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this group of amendments, not least to give full-throated support to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who gave us an excellent lesson in escheat and how it is being applied by the Crown Estate. He took us on a whirlwind journey, from “Monty Python” to “Yes, Minister”, without needing at any point to go near Mornington Crescent. He also added greatly to the work of land law scholars across the country with the new common-law concept of the resting parrot freehold. I hope the Minister will respond in the only way possible to such a clear and erudite presentation from my noble friend—with a clear, unequivocal agreement to every last word.

I will speak to Amendments 18 and 19, which are in my name. In many ways, they are underpinned by a simple connection: it is all about the people involved. Amendment 18 looks at the issues of governance and those inside the Crown Estate—the stewards of the land and ocean. It suggests that, as the remit and in many ways the extent of the Crown Estate’s activities are being significantly and materially changed by this Bill, this would seem an opportune moment to review all the practices, policies, procedures, assets and investments of the Crown Estate. This would be to assess how they shape up around the principles of inclusion and inclusive by design, and ensure that they reflect what we want from 21st century Britain. Similarly, on the new appointees at the board table, we should look at those appointments and ensure that, when they come about, they really deliver on all the elements of inclusion in its broadest conception.

Amendment 19 is about the people who are impacted by the Crown Estate land, those who butt up against it, and who are on Crown Estate land and properties. They are the stakeholders. It seems to me that, again, this Bill offers the opportunity to completely reimagine that relationship between the Crown Estate and its stakeholders for the benefit of both. These are the people who understand the issues at the sharp end. As part of their daily experience, they come across the highs and lows of working the land and the ocean or being in the energy field. Crucially, they see where the difficulties and shortcomings are. I suggest to the Minister that, with modern technology, there is potential to engage with all these stakeholders in a completely reimagined fashion in real time if so required. This would really transform that relationship, drive greater benefits for both parties and completely change the sense of how those on the land and in the properties connect to the Crown Estate. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend and agree with many of his comments, and to give more than a nod to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Baroness Vere of Norbiton.

I rise to speak to Amendment 20 in my name. The Crown Estate has a unique position in our society, our economy, across many of our communities and right around our shoreline. This position will only be increased and enhanced through many of the measures set out in this Bill, not least the yet to be discovered tie-up with GB Energy. To this end, my Amendment 20 seeks to put in statute the principle of additionality for all spending decisions of the Crown Estate. It seems sound that, given the potential not least of offshore wind, the activities of the Crown Estate cannot at any point be seen to be crowding out other private funds. An additionality principle which seeks to apply measures on crowding out and ensure crowding in, and a report to that effect, would be not just a principle of additionality but a good addition to this Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.