Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 13 January.

“With permission, I would like to make a Statement about the Government’s AI opportunities action plan.

This Government were elected on a programme of change. Today, we are publishing the latest step in delivering our plan for change with the AI opportunities action plan. Our plan for change is clear: we will grow the economy, backing British business, with good jobs putting more money in working people’s pockets; and we will rebuild our crumbling public services, too, providing our people with world-class healthcare and education. That ambition shapes our approach to artificial intelligence—the technology set to define our shared future economic and social progress.

AI is no longer the stuff of sci-fi movies and ‘Dr Who’; the AI revolution is right here and right now. In NHS hospitals, AI is helping doctors to detect and treat disease faster and more effectively, reducing patient waits and saving more lives. In local schools, AI is equipping teachers with the tools to spend more time helping every pupil to achieve their full potential. In high streets across the country, small businesses have started using AI to grow their companies and compete on the global stage.

The applications are boundless and the opportunities profound, but only those countries with the courage to seize them will fully benefit. We do not get to decide whether AI will become part of our world—it already is; the choice is between waiting for AI to reshape our lives, or shaping the future of that technology so that the British economy and working people reap its maximum benefit. We choose fully to embrace the opportunity that AI presents to build a better future for all our citizens. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.

Since the first Industrial Revolution, science and technological progress has been the single greatest force of change. Once again, a reforming Labour Government are called to harness the white heat of scientific revolution in the interests of working people. From ending hospital backlogs to securing homegrown energy and giving children the best start in life, AI is essential to our programme of change.

Championing change is in Britons’ DNA—we pioneered the age of steam. I believe that Britain can be a leader now, in the AI age. With world-class talent, excellent universities and an unrivalled record of scientific discovery, we can do so. Home to success stories such as Google DeepMind, ARM and Wayve, we have the third largest AI market in the world.

Just as we have been on AI safety, I believe that Britain has a responsibility to provide global leadership by fairly and effectively seizing the opportunities that AI presents to improve lives. That is why in July last year I asked Matt Clifford to prepare the AI opportunities action plan. Across 50 recommendations, that plan shows how we can shape the application of AI in a modern social market economy, anchored in principles of shared prosperity, improved public services and increased personal opportunity. Through partnership with leading companies and researchers, we will strengthen the foundations of our AI ecosystem, use AI to deliver real change for our citizens, and secure our future by ensuring that we are home to the firms right at the frontier of this technology.

Change has already started. Our transformative planning reforms will make it easier to build data centres —the industrial engines of the AI age. Skills England will prepare British people to be active participants in tomorrow’s business successes. The digital centre of government will use technology to transform the relationship between the modern state and citizens. However, faced with a technology that shows no signs of slowing, we must move faster and further. We are taking forward recommendations to expand Britain’s sovereign AI compute capacity by at least 20 times by 2030, ensuring that British researchers can access the tools they need to develop cutting-edge AI.

We will create AI growth zones to speed up the construction of critical compute infrastructure right across the United Kingdom. With enhanced access to power and streamlined planning approvals, those zones will bring faster growth and better jobs to communities which have missed out in the past. The first pilot AI growth zone will be at Culham in Oxfordshire, a world-renowned hub for clean energy and fusion research. They will pioneer innovative partnerships with business to deliver secure dedicated computing capacity that supports our national priorities. We will also seek a private sector partner to develop one of the UK’s largest AI data centres, beginning with 100 megawatts of capacity, with plans to scale up to 500 megawatts.

One of the biggest barriers to success in the AI age is the immense amount of energy that the technology uses. The Energy Secretary and I are convening and co-chairing a new AI energy council to provide expert insight into how to meet this demand, including opportunities to accelerate investment in innovative solutions, such as small modular reactors.

Infrastructure alone, though, is not enough. To deliver security, prosperity and opportunity for every citizen into the long term, we must be makers of this technology, and not just takers. Britain needs our own national champions—our own Googles and Microsofts. We are launching a new dedicated team with a mandate to strengthen our sovereign AI capacities by supporting high-potential frontier AI companies in the UK. This team will work across and beyond government, partnering with the fast-growing firms to ensure that they can access the compute capacity, the data and the global talent they need to succeed in Britain.

We have already seen how a small number of companies at the frontier of AI are set to wield outsized global influence. We have a narrow window of opportunity to secure a stake in the future of AI. By acting now, we can secure a better future for the British people in the decades to come, but this is just the start. We will safely unlock the value of public sector data assets to support secure, responsible and ethical AI innovation. We will overhaul the skills system to safeguard our status as a top destination for global talent, with a workforce ready for the AI age. We will use a scan, pilot and scale approach to quickly identify and trial ways of using AI to transform our economy and improve our public services.

The stakes just could not be higher. This is a top priority for the Prime Minister and across government. We will harness the power of AI to fulfil our promise to the British people of better jobs, better public services and better lives. We have attracted more than £25 billion-worth of investment into AI since we took office. This week alone, global giants have committed a further £14 billion-worth of investment. Phase 2 of the spending review will see every department using technology to drive forward our national missions to deliver better value for taxpayers. AI will also be fundamental to the industrial strategy to attract investment, to grow the economy and to create high-quality, well-paid jobs across the country.

The AI revolution is now. This Government are determined to fully harness this opportunity for British businesses and working people right across the United Kingdom. I commend this Statement to the House”.

12:25:00

I welcome the Secretary of State’s Statement in this space, and I start with an apology. When I agreed to speak to this, I was told it would be first business after Questions, and I am afraid I have to leave for a flight midway through, so I apologise to noble Lords and hope that they understand. My colleague will be here all the way through. As I say, we welcome the Statement and we welcome the Matt Clifford plan, which my noble friend Lord Camrose kicked off when he was leading these efforts in government, so we see this as a positive step forward. As Health Minister during that time, I saw first-hand the potential of AI, how it can really transform our services and how the UK really does have the potential for a leadership role. Matt Clifford's plan, we believe, is right that the role of the Government in this is really to establish the foundations for growth: namely, making sure we have an AI-skilled workforce, the computing power, the energy needs to drive that computing power and the right regulatory framework. Then we use the assets we have, such as the data, to create the right datasets and use our public sector to help the rollout in many of them. I will focus my comments and questions on how we are going to make sure that those things happen. Turning to the first one, the AI-skilled workforce, I must admit that when I read in the report that 5,000 AI jobs were being created in this, like most of us, I thought “5,000—that is great.” Then you realise that, actually, 4,500 of those are in construction and only 500 are in AI itself, and you start to get worried that maybe this is a bit style over substance. I am very keen to understand from the Minister here what we are specifically doing in this space. I am mindful, for instance, that we talk about having government develop training for the universities with a delivery or reporting date of autumn 2027. We all know how quickly AI is moving in this space, and we are saying we are just going to have the training in place for the universities to give these courses in two and a half years’ time. I think we all know that, in two and a half years’ time, the world will have moved on massively from that, and no doubt the training will be out of place. I hope the Minister can come back on that and give us some reassurances that we will actually have an accelerated process—I am afraid this will be a bit of a recurring theme. On computing power, my noble friend Lord Camrose, when he was in government, had secured an £800 million commitment to build a supercomputer in Culham. Now I read, in the Government’s action plan, that they will “start to develop the business case process” for an AI computer. Unfortunately, like many noble Lords, I know what that means: a Treasury business case process, so you are talking about a year and a half to two years, at least. All I can guarantee is that, if you take that length of time to produce a business plan, whatever you were planning in terms of a supercomputer will be superseded by advancements and events. What is the Minister doing to streamline that business plan process and get action on this front so that we can get that new supercomputer fast? On energy, we all accept there is a desperate need for energy; again, that is laid down in the action plan. The Government’s answer to that is to set up an AI energy quango. I think most of us would say that we need to set out what our energy needs require, but then surely it is up to the network or GB Energy to fulfil that. Why do we need another quango and another layer of bureaucracy? What powers is that quango going to have if it will not be commissioning these facilities, which I assume GB Energy will do? On regulation and governance, the regulatory framework is another very important part of the foundation. I know the Government have plans for an AI Bill, but what is the timeline for it? Again—this is a recurrent theme—it needs to be quick so we can keep up with events. Moving on to AI datasets, I know that this is something that the Minister is very keen on in the health space, as am I, being the former Health Minister responsible for this area. We have the best health data in the world; the beauty of having a National Health Service is that we have data on primary and secondary care going back to the Second World War. We have data coming in from the UK Biobank and other sources, such as retina scans from opticians which, we are hearing, can be used for stroke detection or maybe the early warning signs of dementia. There are fantastic opportunities for this, and we can already see its applications around the health service today. We have been doing the research with focus groups to bring the public with us on the use of their healthcare data. We have the potential to create the UK Silicon Valley in the life sciences on the back of the data that we have. We had in place a data for R&D programme, which was looking to utilise and create datasets in the health space. Could the Minister update us on where we are with that, and whether it is going to be his focus? As we discussed, that is something I would be very happy to work on together. The last part of the foundations is to use the assets that we have in the public sector as a rollout plan for that and, again, health is a perfect place for this. We have seen brilliant applications already in cancer treatment and in overprescriptions; there are possibilities with the NHS app, which is really taking off, and to use AI in the 111 service to help triage; these are all fantastic opportunities. We put in place an NHS productivity plan which was very AI driven and AI heavy. Could the Minister update us on the AI productivity plan for the NHS and what progress we are making on it? To conclude, we are very positive about the opportunities AI provides to transform the whole country’s economy and public services in ways that we cannot even imagine. However, it is businesses that need to drive this. It is the role of the Government to set the foundations to allow business to deliver; it is not the role of quangos, which are not going to deliver it. This area will need a Minister to drive it through and make it happen. Is the Minister the one who will do that? If he is, I give him all our support and wish him the best of luck with it.

My Lords, I also welcome this plan, perhaps with rather less baggage than the Conservative Benches. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State invoked Babbage, Lovelace, Turing, the pioneering age of steam and even the white heat of the technological revolution, but at its core there is an important set of proposals with great potential. However, it is a wish list rather than a plan at present. I particularly welcome the language in the plan around regulation, particularly where it refers to regulation assisting innovation, which is a change of tone. However, the plan and Statement raise many questions. In particular, how will the Government ensure that AI development mitigates risks beyond just safety to ensure responsible AI development and adoption, especially given the fact that a great deal of UK development will involve open-source applications? On the question of the introduction of AI into the public sector, the Government are enormously enthusiastic. But, given their public sector digital transformation agenda, why are the Government watering down citizens’ rights in automated decision-making in the Data (Use and Access) Bill? We welcome the recognition of the need to get the economic benefits for the UK from public sector data which may be used to develop AI models. What can the Minister tell us at this stage about what the national data library will look like? It is not clear that the Government yet know whether it will involve primary or secondary legislation or whatever. The plan and response also talk about “sovereign compute”, but what about sovereign cloud capability? The police cannot even find a supplier that guarantees its records will be stored in the UK. While the focus on UK training is welcome, we must go beyond high-level skills. Not only are the tech companies calling out for technical skills, but AI is also shaping workplaces, services and lives. Will the Digital Inclusion Action Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, have a role in advising on this? Do the changes to funding and delivery expected for skills boot camps contribute to all of this? On the question of energy requirements for the new data centres, will the new AI energy council be tasked with ensuring that they will have their own renewable energy sources? How will their location be decided, alongside that of the new AI growth centres? The plan cannot be game-changing without public investment. It is about delivery, too, especially by the new sovereign data office; it cannot all be done with private sector investment. Where is the public money coming from, and over what timescale? An investment plan for compute is apparently to be married to the spending review; how does a 10-year timescale fit with this? I am very pleased that a clear role is identified for the Alan Turing Institute, but it is not yet clear what level of financial support it will get, alongside university research, exacompute capacity, and the British Business Bank in the spin-out/start-up pipeline support. What will the funding for the Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult and the design and manufacturing ecosystem consist of? The major negative in the plan for many of us, as the Minister already knows, is the failure to understand that our creative industries need to be able to derive benefits from their material used for training large language models. The plan ominously recommended reforming, “the UK text and data mining regime so that it is at least as competitive as the EU”, and the Government have stacked the cards in the consultation over this. We on these Benches and the creative industries will be fighting tooth and nail any new text and data mining exemption requiring opt-out.

My Lords, I anticipated that this Statement would attract interest from Members of this House, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Clement-Jones, for their comments and their broad welcoming of the report. I will try to respond to as many points as I can, but first I will reiterate the importance of this announcement. Through the publication of the AI Opportunities Action Plan and the Government’s response, we are signalling that our ambition is high when it comes to embracing the opportunities presented by AI. This is a plan to exploit the economic growth that AI will bring and to drive forward the Government’s plan for change. Training the UK’s workforce is a key part of the plan, and there are steps with clear timelines as to when we will do that. I will come back to training a little later. We need to diffuse AI technology across the economy and public services for better productivity and opportunity, and embrace the transformational impact it is going to have on everyday lives, from health and education to business and government services. As has rightly been pointed out, AI is advancing at an extraordinary pace. That is why you will see in this response very tight timelines for actions. The one that was picked out on training, which is 2027, is only one part of the response; you will see that Skills England is due to report very shortly with the first phase of its recommendations and will follow that in autumn with further work. So most of the timelines are very tight, recognising the challenge that the pace of advancement in AI brings. The benefits extend far beyond economic growth. It is the catalyst that we need for a public service revolution, including, of course, in the NHS. It will drive growth and innovation and deliver better outcomes for citizens. It also lies at the heart of two important missions for the Government: kick-starting economic growth and delivering an NHS fit for the future. By investing in AI now, we are ensuring that the UK is prepared to harness the transformational potential that undoubtedly exists. This will improve the quality and delivery of public services. The plan is a way to do that with real speed and ambition. The issue of regulation has been raised and there is no doubt that the regulatory environment will be critical in driving trust and capitalising on the technology offers that arise. By bringing forward the recommendations in the plan, we will continue to support the AI Safety Institute and further develop the AI assurance ecosystem, including the small companies that will arise as a result, to increase trust in and adoption of AI. The Government are committed to supporting regulators in evaluating their AI capabilities and understanding how they can be strengthened. Part of this is the role of the regulatory innovation office. The vast majority of AI should be regulated at the point of use by the expert regulators, but some relates to fast-evolving technology. That is why we will continue to deliver on manifesto commitments by placing binding requirements on the developers of the most powerful AI models. Those commitments will build on the work that has already been done at the Seoul and Bletchley AI safety summits and will be part of strengthening the role of the AI Safety Institute. This issue of making sure that we get the safety side of this right as we develop opportunities is of course key. The question of copyright was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I know that this is an extremely hot issue at the moment, which will be discussed many times over the next few days and weeks. The Government have issued a consultation, in which there are three principles: the owners of copyright should have control; there should be a mechanism to allow access to data to enable companies to develop their models in the UK, rather than elsewhere in the world; and, critically, there must be transparency. Where does the data flow and how can you work out the input from the output? Those three areas are a key part of the consultation and the consultation is crucial. We have a session planned for next week to go through this in some detail, and I invite and welcome all noble Lords to it, because getting this right will be important for the country. I look forward to discussing those proposals over the next few days and weeks. Delivering the AI Opportunities Action Plan will require a whole-of-government effort. We are starting that work immediately to deliver on the commitments, build the foundations for AI growth, drive adoption across the economy and build UK capability. We are already expecting initial updates on a series of actions by this spring. For instance, DSIT will explore options for growing the domestic AI safety market and will provide a public update on this by spring this year. Turning to some of the very specific points, I completely agree that training is crucial and we have to get it right. There are several recommendations and, as I said, the earliest will give a readout this spring. I do understand that this is not something that can wait until 2027; it has to start immediately. It is important to lay out for the House the situation with compute. This spring, there will be access to two new major compute facilities for AI: Dawn in Cambridge and Isambard-AI in Bristol. When fully active this year, they will increase the AI compute facility something like thirtyfold, instantly. Those are the types of compute infrastructure that are needed. It is AI-specific compute infrastructure. It is not the case that the plan for the future starts now; it is happening now and those compute infrastructures will be used by academia, SMEs and others over the course of the year and beyond. The plan beyond that is to increase the compute infrastructure twentyfold by 2030. That requires a 10-year plan and for us to think into the future about what will be needed for us to be at the forefront of this. Exascale of course is different; it is being looked at as part of that, but it is not the same. On energy, the noble Lord recognises that one of the most difficult things in government is to join up across departments. That is why it is important. The national data library will be essential. I welcome the offer of help on health from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and I will certainly take him up on that; this is an important area to look at. Noble Lords will be hearing much more about the national data library over the next few months. I completely agree that, as we develop this technology, we will need to ensure that citizens’ rights are properly protected. That is something that we will continue to discuss as part of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, among other issues. Funding will be picked up; it is a fully funded programme, but then we will need to go into a spending review, as Governments always have to. I will wrap up there to leave plenty of time for others to ask questions, but I hope that I have addressed some of the initial questions.

12:46:00

My Lords, on behalf of the Communications and Digital Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, I am pleased to welcome the AI Opportunities Action Plan, with the exception of the recommendation that relates to copyright. We will come back to that. It is important to emphasise the extent to which change will be necessary to deliver on this plan. In particular, the Government have to acknowledge a change in mindset across Whitehall and the public sector. Perhaps I could ask the Minister how the Government will ensure that the action plan benefits UK start-ups and scale-ups and does not entrench market dominance by the established players in this area.

I thank the noble Baroness for her input to date and on the important copyright issue. The question of market dominance is important. It is worth reflecting that Matt Clifford is an entrepreneur who deals with start-ups; the report is very strong on start-ups and what needs to be done to make sure that they are part of this, including what regulatory change needs to take place to encourage start-ups to do this. At the moment, it is quite difficult for them to navigate the system, including procurement. Government procurement is notoriously difficult for start-ups, and many of the specific aims of the plan pull that together to allow start-ups to access government procurement plans. So there are very clear ambitions here to make this about growing an ecosystem of companies in this country, while recognising that many of the existing major companies, with which we will also have to work, are not here. Driving this forward will be a key task for DSIT right the way across government. It will need all-of-government activity, as outlined in the report.

My Lords, the Minister talked about the national data library, which is very welcome, but data in the library needs to be safe and its use carefully thought through. What role does the Minister think public interest thresholds should play in deciding what data is collected and how it should be used?

Noble Lords will hear much more about the national data library over the coming months, but it is important to recognise that data is valuable only if it is collected well, curated properly and is interoperable and accessible. We need to ensure that it is properly protected, both for individual privacy, which is the point the noble Lord raises, and to make sure that we get the appropriate valuation of the data and that that value flows back into the UK and into public services. These will all be key features of the national data library.

My Lords, I welcome the Statement, but I draw my noble friend’s attention to the element which refers to the “immense” energy used by this new technology. Is the AI energy council already in the process of estimating the quantity of energy required, and am I right in thinking that the data centres will be placed around the country in locations that enable them to have access to sufficient energy for them to work?

My noble friend is quite right. The energy issue is crucial for any plan for AI, and that is why the energy council is being set up. It is precisely why Culham is the first place identified; it has a significant energy supply already. We anticipate that the centres will be based around the country in places where there is renewable energy or where other sources of energy can be accessed easily in order to provide the power the centres require. It is also important that the council looks at the overall environmental impact, which will be part of this. On energy consumption, it is known what is required for a single data centre and, as we need multiple data centres, the type and amount we will require is known. It is crucial that this is done on top of everything else that the energy is required for. This is a big and difficult problem, but we can already see an answer to it with the first identification of a site for the AI growth zone.

My Lords, I declare my technology interests as set out the register. I welcome the plan; it has 50 excellent recommendations, but does the Minister not agree that to bring these to life we need an arrowhead focus from government on broad AI legislation—much broader than what is currently planned—that includes an AI authority that is agile, nimbly focused and horizontally applicable; AI-responsible officers; the protection of creatives; and right-sized regulation that is good for citizens, innovators and consumers, in order to deliver according to the fundamental truth that these are our data, our decisions and our AI futures?

I certainly agree that it is a significant challenge, and I add one other thing. The challenge is not only one of regulation of procurement and making sure that we have the data systems correct; it is one of making sure that we actually deliver, rather than talking about it. Delivery will be key, and we need a proper mechanism to deliver this in the form of a mission with real delivery outcomes. That is why I was pleased to see that we have very tight timelines on all the recommendations in the report. We must make sure that that happens and, as we do so, that we bring in the other necessary controls and actions to propel every part of this, from funding start-ups right the way through to procurement, and, as the noble Lord said, ensuring that we look after the privacy and autonomy of the data.

My Lords, the Minister acknowledged the importance of the data collected being interoperable and very reliable. With that mind, what discussions has he had with the First Ministers of Wales and Scotland to ensure that data such as NHS data is collected in a fashion that is comparable and therefore usable?

Clearly, this is a UK-wide issue. I am pleased that Scotland has been at the forefront of data in health for many years and has done an extremely good job of getting that into the right place. As we develop the national data library, these questions of data collection, interoperability, curation—which is incredibly important—and systems to ensure privacy and protection will be discussed widely right across the UK. We need to make sure that everything is interoperable, otherwise we will undo the value that we are creating.

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s focus on delivery, which is vital if we are to make an impact in AI. I say with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Holmes that legislation is the last thing we need. The coalition Government’s experience with the Government Digital Service was to find that we made rapid progress before powers were devolved down to individual departments, which then did everything in their power to make sure that nothing worked. While the Minister focuses on the delivery of the AI action plan, could he sort out the confusing quango landscape that now exists after 14 years of endless initiatives, and perhaps have a central function which relentlessly pushes through this excellent plan?

I thank the noble Lord very much. I will not add to his comments about the 14 years of endless initiatives, but it is crucial that when we do something such as this, we do it properly. Obviously, my experience was in setting up the Vaccine Taskforce to do just that, and this is the same sort of problem. We have to get everybody across government working on this; there is a big delivery task. Delivery should be our focus and we should keep holding ourselves to account for timelines and deliverables.

My Lords, Monday’s Statement on the AI Opportunities Action Plan highlighted the Government’s ambitious vision on AI adoption across the UK, and I welcome it. While the plan outlines significant investment and initiatives to boost AI infrastructure and capabilities, there are concerns about how SMEs will fare in this rapidly evolving landscape, which is largely dominated by the big tech companies. Recent data shows that only 25% of SMEs are currently using AI, despite 42% of them wishing to use it to increase their productivity. However, these small companies often lack the resources and the expertise to fully benefit from AI adoption. What specific measures will be implemented to protect SMEs from being squeezed out by the larger AI companies, and how will the Government facilitate meaningful collaborations between SMEs and the AI giants to foster the innovations and maintain a diverse, competitive AI infrastructure?

I thank my noble friend. There are two different aspects to his SME question—the SME use of AI, and the AI SMEs—and both are dealt with in the report, I think. Many of the recommendations indicate what would be done, but I will outline some of the points on SMEs for AI. There is an important join-up task to be undertaken, which is part of what this plan does: the things we fund at the beginning of the process, such as grants from Innovate UK to get companies off the ground, to supporting that funding through BBB and beyond, linking to regulation to make it as simple as we can to enable innovation, and linking in turn to procurement to ensure that there are procurement signals to allow these companies to get the investment to grow and to scale into the companies they could be. On the adoption side, there is a specific group working on adoption of AI technologies across the UK and a report is due out by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and the National Technology Adviser on adoption of technologies more broadly, which is about ensuring that we get uptake of new technologies in companies. We know that we have a long tail of companies that do not do that in the UK, and it will be an important part of making sure that the entire economy benefits.

My Lords, I am sure the Minister has noted that the Statement he has given us has a certain flavour of the 1960s about it, with the talk of harnessing the “white heat” of revolution, and all that, but from the point of view of those of us who went through that period, it might be helpful to know one or two of the things that went wrong, because it did not end terribly happily the last time we had this revolution of white heat. The problem then was that the Government’s PR people became a little too enthusiastic, and the Minister might discourage them today from phrases about seizing the future, embracing this, that and the other, and other generalities, of which there were plenty last time, but none of them led to the results that people wanted. There is a repeat of the old fallacy that the Government deliver growth. It does not. We know that the Government can facilitate growth and can stop growth, and certainly that has happened in the past, but the idea that the Government alone are somehow going to lead, rather than develop entirely new relationships with the private sector as the digital age demands, is one that needs to be examined carefully before the Government rush into more mistakes. There is another problem, which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, reminded me of—it was not quite so intense then but it is intense now. This whole revolution and the data centres demand enormous amounts of electricity—far more than seems to be planned by the energy department. It talks about 200 gigawatts, moving up from 65 gigawatts, but data centres can drink whole communities’ electricity, just like that. The Statement mentioned 500 megawatts, but we are really talking about gigawatts of a kind for which no planning is in place at the moment. Can we be assured that the SMR side of the Government’s energy transition gets a push? Will the Minister talk to the energy people and tell them that, unless they bring forward the SMR revolution, which is going on in many other countries, and go slow on the white elephant technologies such as Sizewell C—

Question.

I will finish my sentence. Unless that is done, we will not get the necessary electricity to drive through this revolution. Obviously one welcomes it, but there are many snags ahead.

I thank the noble Lord for his enthusiasm for the white heat of SMRs, which is an important point. There is a very clear set of recommendations, from an entrepreneur who understands how to set up and run companies. The approach is one of ensuring that there is funding for start-ups, innovation, regulatory clearance and a procurement pool, which are exactly the types of things that will deliver growth. They are facilitators of growth, because the noble Lord is right that growth comes from the private sector. That is what must be supported and that is what this plan aims to do. On the power supply, I have already said that the join-up between DSIT and DESNZ in the energy council is exactly the right approach to make sure that we get a joined-up government approach to this. I suspect that it will require SMRs, among other approaches to getting energy in the right place.

My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention The AI Mirror, a book by Shannon Vallor, who holds a chair at the Edinburgh Futures Institute. It makes the crucial point that generative so-called artificial intelligence is not intelligent or creative but only reflects back to us—hence the mirror metaphor—what we have previously created. Will the Government acknowledge that one of the great risks of the explosion in the use of AI is stagnation—a building in and entrenching of the discrimination, racism and inequalities that already exist across our public and private systems, as was infamously demonstrated in Australia in the Robodebt scandal?

It is important to recognise that there is more than one type of AI, including generative AI and specific models. It is the case that AI is very dependent on the data put in, and there are risks of bias being entrenched. That is an important safety issue that must be looked at and that we must be aware of. On whether it is intelligent, the answer is that we are not in the era of general artificial intelligence but at an earlier stage. These are not yet fully intelligent machines. Whether they get to that and over what time period is something of an unknown, but we are in an era where we can do pretty remarkable things, and we should harness that.

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there has been a tendency for high-tech and research investment to go overwhelmingly to the south and east of England in recent decades. I want to underline the regional dimension of AI. The supercomputer was going to be in Edinburgh, which has an excellent computing faculty and a large element of highly trained people. Leeds and Manchester also have useful workforces already trained for this. The renewable energy and the water—which I understand is necessary to cool these computers—is much more easily available in the north and west of the United Kingdom than in the south and east. Can the Minister ensure, to the best of his ability, that we do not yet again have facilities built in the south and east of England, thus increasing the pressure on housing and everything else in the south and east and leaving the north and west in poverty?

I absolutely assure the noble Lord that he will see growth zones in those areas. They will not be concentrated in the south-east. The reason the first one happened to be in Culham was to do with the immediacy of potential private sector interaction and the power supply. On the compute facility in Edinburgh, ARCHER2, the very important computer there, will be extended to the end of 2026, and we are looking actively at what happens next. I reiterate that that computer is not primarily about AI, although it will have AI capabilities.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, it is the turn of this side.

My Lords, I reassure my noble friend on the Liberal Democrat Benches that he should not worry too much about this. In September, I spent a significant amount of time in Ayrshire, in the company of a representative of one of the largest asset managers in the world. They were looking for a site in Ayrshire, thankfully, for what has become known as critical compute infrastructure. I was in the company of the local Member of Parliament, who was very keen to get this infrastructure there. In the first conversation we had with this investor, it was clear that access to energy was the most important factor as to whether we got this substantial investment. It was equally clear that global competition for this sort of investment was going to be dependent on the comparative rollout of newer advanced reactors. We have a particular problem with this in Scotland. The current Scottish National Government are in opposition to building new nuclear power stations. When they were in coalition with the Scottish Greens, the position of the Scottish Greens was that there was nothing safe or secure about nuclear power. The point is that the new advanced reactors are much safer than they were. Will the Government, and the Minister in particular, come to Scotland to talk to SNP politicians and explain that this nuclear power is much safer, and that investment in it will bring this sort of investment into the country, so that we will not be left behind?

I reiterate that SMRs are part of the solution to this: they have lower core power and lower pressure, use a large fraction of coolant, and have safety advantages over traditional approaches. That will be made clear. That is why the AI energy council is so important, to make sure that this is properly thought-through and that we get these in the right place to support the data centres that are required.