Markus Andrews

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailAs many as eight million jobs in the UK could be lost to artificial intelligence in a “worst case scenario”, according to a report.Analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said the UK was facing a “sliding doors” moment around its implementation of generative AI, and called on the Government to ensure that a fair industrial strategy was in place.The report identified two key stages of generative AI adoption: the first wave, which is already under way, and a second wave in which companies will more deeply integrate AI tech into their processes – a stage at which it suggests as many as 59% of tasks done by workers could be vulnerable to being replaced by AI automation if no intervention occurs.History shows that technological transition can be a boon if well managed, or can end in disruption if left to unfold without controlsCarsten Jung, Institute for Public Policy Research It said that back office, entry level and part-time jobs were at the highest risk of being disrupted during the first wave – including secretarial, customer service and administrative roles – with women and young people the most likely to be affected as they are more likely to be in those roles.Those on lower wages were also identified as being the most exposed to being replaced by AI.The study’s worst case scenario for the second wave of AI would be around 7.9 million job losses and no GDP gains.However, the report suggests that if government and industry are proactive in protecting workers as the use of AI increases, there could be substantial economic benefits.Its best case scenario for the second wave said no jobs would be lost as they are augmented to work alongside AI, which it claimed could lead to an economic boost of 13% to GDP, around £306 billion a year.Carsten Jung, senior economist at the IPPR, said: “Already existing generative AI could lead to big labour market disruption or it could hugely boost economic growth, either way it is set to be a game changer for millions of us.“Many firms are already investing in it, and it has potential to speed up many more tasks as more businesses adopt it.“Over the next five years it could transform knowledge work.Technology isn’t destiny and a jobs apocalypse is not inevitable – government, employers and unions have the opportunity to make crucial design decisions now that ensure we manage this new technology wellCarsten Jung, Institute for Public Policy Research “The question now is less whether AI can be useful, but rather how fast and in what manner employers will use it.“History shows that technological transition can be a boon if well managed, or can end in disruption if left to unfold without controls.“Indeed, some occupations could be hard hit by generative AI, starting with back office jobs.“But technology isn’t destiny and a jobs apocalypse is not inevitable – government, employers and unions have the opportunity to make crucial design decisions now that ensure we manage this new technology well.“If they don’t act soon, it may be too late.”The IPPR report recommends a job-centric industrial strategy for AI be put in place, including tax incentives and subsidies to encourage training of staff in AI so they can work alongside the technology rather than be replaced by it, as well as regulatory change to ensure human responsibility of key issues, such as in healthcare.The Government is yet to bring forward any legislation specifically aimed at the rise of AI, but last month did announce plans to spend more than £90 million on new AI research hubs across the UK that will look into ways of using AI responsibly across areas such as healthcare, chemistry and mathematics.Those plans were announced as part of a wider package of more than £100 million in the Government response to a consultation on its own AI Regulation White Paper, which was first published last year. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailNearly one in six adolescents have experienced cyberbullying, an international study has found.More school-aged children have reported being cyberbullied compared to before the Covid-19 pandemic, according to a report by the World Health Organisation (WHO) Regional Office for Europe.A study, which looked at bullying among adolescents from 44 countries and regions, including England, Wales and Scotland, found 15% reported being cyberbullied at least once or twice in the past couple of months.The Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) survey, of more than 279,000 people aged 11, 13 and 15 years old in 2021/22, suggests the proportion of adolescents who reported being cyberbullied has increased since 2018, from 12% to 15% for boys and 13% to 16% for girls.On average, across all the participating countries and regions in Europe, central Asia and Canada, around one in eight (12%) adolescents reported cyberbullying others at least once or twice in the past couple of months.This is both a health and a human rights issue, and we must step up to protect our children from violence and harm, both offline and onlineDr Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO regional director for EuropeIn England, where more than 4,200 young people were surveyed, nearly one in five (19%) reported being cyberbullied at least once or twice in the past couple of months, and 11% reported cyberbullying others.In Scotland, where more than 4,300 young people were surveyed, 18% said they had experienced cyberbullying and 11% reported cyberbullying others.Meanwhile, in Wales, where nearly 37,000 young people were surveyed, 17% reported experiencing cyberbullying and 9% reported cyberbullying others.The report said there was an “urgent need” to educate young people, families and schools of the forms of cyberbullying and its implications as it is now a “dominant form of peer violence” among young people.Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO regional director for Europe, said: “As young people’s social engagement switched to the online environment during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, so it appears that perpetration and experience of cyberbullying increased.“Focusing on virtual types of peer violence is now an urgent priority to safeguard the health and wellbeing of populations of adolescents and young people, and cyberbullying must be viewed as a major issue for societies.”It’s crucial for governments, schools, and families to collaborate on addressing online risks, ensuring adolescents have safe and supportive environments to thriveDr Joanna Inchley, international coordinator of the HBSC studyHe added: “With young people spending up to six hours online every single day, even small changes in the rates of bullying and violence can have profound implications for the health and wellbeing of thousands.“From self-harm to suicide, we have seen how cyberbullying in all its forms can devastate the lives of young people and their families.“This is both a health and a human rights issue, and we must step up to protect our children from violence and harm, both offline and online.”Dr Joanna Inchley, international coordinator of the HBSC study, said: “The digital world, while offering incredible opportunities for learning and connecting, also amplifies challenges like cyberbullying.“This calls for comprehensive strategies to protect our young people’s mental and emotional wellbeing.“It’s crucial for governments, schools, and families to collaborate on addressing online risks, ensuring adolescents have safe and supportive environments to thrive.”Sarah Hannafin, senior policy adviser for school leaders’ union NAHT, said: “These figures showing an increase in cyberbullying among children are a real concern, and while schools work hard to help keep pupils safe, online bullying can take place anywhere, at any time.“Schools alone cannot tackle the issue and the Government must ensure the Online Safety Act is implemented swiftly and properly enforced, while social media platforms must do much more to provide a safe online environment.“This must include better monitoring, robust age verification, clear ways to report concerns and more transparent codes of conduct, setting out the implications of misuse.”A Government spokesperson said: “The Online Safety Act will make the UK the safest place in the world for children to be online, requiring companies to take robust action to protect children from harmful content, illegal activity, and abuse – including keeping children safe from bullying.“Companies that do not comply with the new can face fines of up to 10% of their global annual revenue, potentially up to billions of pounds.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailThe chief executive of GB News has defended employing serving politicians as presenters, insisting he wants to recruit more MPs of other parties to join the fray. Angelos Frangopoulos, appearing in front of the House of Lords communications and digital committee hearing on Tuesday, said the channel has been trying to encourage MPs of other parties to join them.Questioned on the lack of political diversity among GB News presenters, Mr Frangopoulos said: “This is not by design, we would love to have a wide range of MPs on our channel in the same way that stations like LBC do, etc. We’ve had discussions with political parties, some say ‘well, we’re not encouraging our MPs to take second jobs.’”Among the lineup is Reform Party leader Richard Tice; former Tory deputy chairman Lee Anderson, who has recently defected to Reform UK; and Conservative MP Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg.Former Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, former Conservative MP Michael Portillo and former Labour MP Gloria De Piero are also among its on-screen presenters.Angelos Frangopoulos is a former Sky News Arabia journalist and is now CEO of GB News “It’s purely because we’re yet to find someone who will say yes,” he added.The channel has come under fire from communications regulator Ofcom after it found that five episodes of GB News programmes presented by Tory MPs were found have broken broadcasting rules.Two episodes of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s State Of The Nation, two of Friday Morning With Esther And Phil, and one of Saturday Morning With Esther And Phil, broadcast during May and June 2023, broke due impartiality rules, Ofcom said.It comes six months after the regulator found an episode of GB News’s The Live Desk, aired in July 2023, broke the same rules.Ofcom said: “We found that host politicians acted as newsreaders, news interviewers or news reporters in sequences which clearly constituted news – including reporting breaking news events – without exceptional justification.Serving politicians Esther McVey and Phillip Davies were two politicians named in the Ofcom ruling against GB News “News was, therefore, not presented with due impartiality.”Ofcom added that politicians played a “partial role in society”, and news content presented by them was “likely to be viewed by audiences in light of that perceived bias”.“In our view, the use of politicians to present the news risks undermining the integrity and credibility of regulated broadcast news,” it added.The channel was also recently rapped by Ofcom after it ruled misogynistic comments made by actor Laurence Fox about a female journalist had broken broadcasting rules that protect “viewers from offensive content”.The communications regulator has warned that further breaches by GB News could result in a statutory sanction, which range from an order not to reuse the offending content, to revoking a broadcaster’s licence.Mr Frangopoulos told peers that his channel had received 50 inquiries from Ofcom over the past three years and said the channel had cooperated with each one.He also argued that audiences have “different expectations” for impartiality from different channels and that GB News is part of the “ecosystem” of news and he maintained that “our brand has trust”. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailThe UK’s approach to China is “more robust” than most of its allies, the Prime Minister has insisted following demands for a tougher line on Beijing.At one of his regular grillings by select committee chairs, Rishi Sunak was challenged on the Government’s reluctance to act on a number of Chinese-owned companies such as Bytedance, which owns TikTok.He rejected the suggestion from Liam Byrne, Labour MP and chairman of the Commons Business and Trade Committee, that while other nations acted to protect themselves against China, the UK was merely “thinking about it”.Mr Sunak told the Commons Liaison Committee: “Our approach to China is undoubtedly more robust than, I’d say, most of our allies.”He pointed to European countries not removing Huawei equipment from their telecommunications networks, not placing similar restrictions on exports of sensitive technology to China and said the UK’s foreign investment regime was the most recently implemented and therefore the most robust, among other examples.He added: “I am entirely confident that our approach to dealing with the risk that China poses is very much in line with our allies and in most cases goes further in protecting ourselves.”Mr Byrne, who has raised concerns about the influence of Chinese-owned businesses such as Bytedance, replied: “It clearly doesn’t.”The Prime Minister’s defence of the UK’s China policy comes after the Government blamed Beijing for “malicious” cyber attacks on parliamentarians and the Electoral Commission, sanctioning some of those involved.Backbench Conservatives, however, criticised the Government’s actions, saying it had not gone far enough, while others renewed their calls for China to be labelled a “threat”.Education Secretary Gillian Keegan told Times Radio on Tuesday morning that China was “obviously a security threat”, but Downing Street has been keen to play down the possibility that the Government could change its language on the country, which it currently calls as an “epoch-defining challenge”.The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “There isn’t a mechanism under UK law or indeed in our G7 or Five Eyes countries that has a designation process like that.”Cabinet tensions have reportedly surfaced over the issue, with some ministers pushing for tougher action on Beijing while others are resistant over concerns it could harm economic and trade relations.Tuesday also saw the charge d’affairs at the Chinese embassy attend the Foreign Office following a formal summons to account for his country’s actions.The Foreign Office said it had set out an “unequivocal condemnation” of “malicious cyber activity” by organisations affiliated to Beijing, saying it “would not tolerate such threatening activity, and would continue to take strong action with partners across the globe to respond”.The attribution of the cyber attacks to the APT31 hacking group, believed to be under the control of the Chinese Ministry of State Security, was part of a coordinated effort with the UK’s allies, including the US and New Zealand.US authorities announced sanctions against the same front company and individuals as the UK, and also said it had charged seven individuals with computer misuse and fraud offences.New Zealand alleged hackers linked to the Chinese government launched a state-sponsored operation that targeted the country’s parliament in 2021 but said it lacked the legal powers to impose sanctions.The Chinese government has strongly denied that it has carried out, supported or encouraged cyber attacks on the UK, describing the claims as “completely fabricated and malicious slanders”.A spokesman for China’s embassy in London said: “China has always firmly fought all forms of cyber attacks according to law.“China does not encourage, support or condone cyber attacks.“At the same time, we oppose the politicisation of cyber security issues and the baseless denigration of other countries without factual evidence.“We urge the relevant parties to stop spreading false information and stop their self-staged, anti-China political farce.” More