Britain has a bad habit of turning policy debates into battles – one side pitched against the other. The discussion around text and data mining (TDM), the process by which AI uses data, has become the latest example, creating a false choice between innovation and creativity.

That framing is wrong. Britain’s creative industries are one of the country’s great success stories. So too is British tech and innovation – an area where we shine on the world stage. Policymakers should not force a choice between them, but create the conditions for both to grow together.

This matters because TDM is no longer a niche technical issue, nor is it confined to major technology firms. It is now widely used across the economy and sits at the heart of how modern businesses use AI, analyse information, develop new products and raise productivity – from Britain’s car industry to new medicines for the NHS.

Public First research shows that one in five UK businesses already use TDM tools. In sectors central to the UK’s industrial strategy – life sciences and financial services – that figure rises to a third. If we want the UK to lead in AI adoption, scientific discovery, advanced services and digital innovation, we cannot ignore that access to AI tools will determine whether British firms can compete.

More than half of British businesses want to move from basic to advanced integration of AI and cloud technologies within two to three years. Yet many told us that legal risk is holding them back. Seventy‑four per cent of businesses performing TDM said access to external data is essential to their operations.

That should concern ministers. Britain’s growth outlook is far from rosy. Productivity remains weak, fiscal headroom is tight, and every serious economic strategy relies on far faster diffusion of AI and digital technologies. In these circumstances, we cannot afford to close off potential growth by making it harder for UK businesses to compete in a global economy that is only becoming more cut‑throat.

The decisions the government takes now have major consequences. If Britain creates an environment where companies have clear permission to embrace new technology, our modelling suggests AI‑powered businesses could contribute as much as £510 billion to UK GDP by 2035. But under a highly restrictive path, that falls to £290 billion – a £220 billion gap, roughly equivalent to Scotland’s GDP (including oil and gas).

None of this is to dismiss the legitimate concerns of rights holders. Creators should be confident their work is respected and rewarded. But we should not respond by building a regime so restrictive that businesses from biotech to education hesitate to use AI.

Licensing is one obvious part of the solution. Voluntary commercial agreements are beginning to emerge and can offer value for rights holders while giving technology firms access to high‑quality, curated data. Both tech companies and rights holders are already investing in licensing tools. Developing workable models is far preferable to a prolonged policy battle.

Yet licensing alone will not be enough. If companies lack confidence that they can use AI for commercial advantage, the framework becomes too cumbersome and too uncertain. That would throw grit into the gears of UK innovation at exactly the moment growth is needed most – leaving the country poorer, less productive and less competitive.

Creative industries would feel those consequences too. Many of the UK’s most dynamic creative sectors – from video games to visual effects – have themselves argued for commercial TDM exemptions. Britain does not need to choose. It can build a framework that gives both sectors the confidence to invest, experiment and work together.

Other countries have already made that choice, from the EU to Singapore and Japan. Yet a polarised domestic debate risks leaving Britain behind. The Government should aim for a settlement that supports both creativity and innovation – and look at how widely this kind of AI innovation is already being used across the economy to give them the confidence to act.

Neil Ross is Director at Public First and leads its Technology, Media and Telecoms practice.

4 min read11 min

The proposals now before Parliament are the result of years of detailed analysis, technical studies, and independent expert assurance. It is right that work of this scale has prompted wide debate, particularly given the very significant costs involved.

There is, however, a broad consensus on one central point: the Victorian building requires major work to address fundamental issues such as fire safety, ageing infrastructure, asbestos, and deteriorating stonework. Without decisive action, these challenges will continue to grow.

Most of the proposed investment—around 85 per cent of construction costs for the Palace of Westminster—is focused on priority works. This includes replacing mechanical, power, water, sewage and heating systems; improving fire safety; managing asbestos safely; and repairing extensive stone damage. These are not optional enhancements but core requirements to keep a complex, heavily occupied historic building functioning safely and effectively.

One of the biggest costs is linked to the extensive network of increasingly outdated services embedded throughout the Palace. The steam heating system for example was installed in the 1950s and has become increasingly unreliable. Recent years have seen up to 80 leaks annually and just a few weeks ago it took several days to fix a major failure.

Ensuring that heating, power and water systems can operate dependably across a 150-year-old building with more than 1,100 rooms is a basic necessity. Improved energy efficiency would be a welcome and sensible byproduct of modernising these systems.

Fire safety is another critical area. Proper fire zoning in a building used daily by thousands of people is essential. In fact, these measures will build on the original fire safety principles in Sir Charles Barry’s design, which have been compromised over time by successive alterations. Restoring that integrity and improving fire protection is both achievable and vital.

Alongside these priority works, the proposals also deliver important benefits for everyone who uses the building. Improving step-free access to around 60 per cent would make Parliament more usable for those who work here and for visitors. In many cases, accessibility improvements are a welcome benefit of safety upgrades—for example, the installation of fire evacuation lifts gives an in-built accessibility improvement. 

The plans also include a permanent education centre for the tens of thousands of children on school visits every year as well as an improved visitor entrance and visitor routes. These changes are designed to enhance security and safety for visitors and those who work in Parliament. Basement visitor routes and education centre would make use of existing, underused spaces that would be repurposed with sympathetic restoration that respects the Palace’s historic fabric.

Importantly, these education and visitor improvements represent a modest proportion of the budget— between 0.8 and 2.7 per cent of Palace construction costs—yet they deliver significant benefits for security, safety, and public access.

No one underestimates the scale or cost of a programme of this complexity and duration. That is why extensive parliamentary scrutiny has already been applied and will continue throughout the project. Robust accountability for public spending is essential.

What is equally clear is that delaying decisions comes at a price. Putting off a decision will add many hundreds of millions to the costs of doing the work due to the impact of inflation. As the report warns, continuing with this approach will lead to managed decline of one of the most recognised buildings in the world as it becomes increasingly unfit for the country it serves. It will mean higher maintenance costs, and increasing safety and operational risks for those who visit and work in the building.

After more than a decade of studies, committees and analysis, it is evident that there is no perfect or low cost option. The recommended way forward is a pragmatic one: approval for seven years of work to begin now, with costs capped at £3 billion, averaging £429 million a year (both figures exclude inflation). This approach allows work to proceed while continuing to bear down on costs while testing and assuring designs with MPs and Peers before decisions on the longer term work need to be taken.

Investment in the Palace will also support thousands of jobs and apprenticeships from modern construction and engineering to traditional crafts. The restoration will need the skills of businesses and people in nations and regions across the UK in this national endeavour to preserve one of the world’s most recognised and cherished buildings.

As custodians of this national symbol, we have a responsibility to act. Continuing to defer decisions only increases risk and cost. The sensible way forward is to begin the work now, safeguard the future of the Palace of Westminster, and ensure it remains a safe, functioning home for UK democracy. It is time to get on with the job.

What did the paper find?

Positive views about ageing seemed to be linked to these results

Illustration by Tracy Worrall

9 min read20 min

Across the world, politicians are getting tough on short-term holiday lets. Barcelona plans to ban all self-catering rentals from 2028, while in New York it is already illegal to list your property online unless you are staying with your guest throughout their visit.

Concerns about holiday lets have grown as their popularity – and importance to tourism economies – has soared. Platforms like Airbnb, Vrbo and Booking.com have been variously blamed for hoovering up housing supply, hollowing out communities and driving up prices among the few homes that remain. Neighbours, meanwhile, complain about holiday lets being used as party houses, pop-up brothels or drug dens.

While still in opposition, Labour promised to establish a “licensing system” for holiday lets, though details of how it would work were never fleshed out.

In a 2022 speech, then-shadow housing secretary Lisa Nandy said this system would “protect the spirit” of rural and coastal areas, ensuring people were not “priced out of their own neighbourhoods just for homes to stand empty for months”, and ending “the scourge of communities becoming ghost towns when holidays end”.

Yet Labour’s election manifesto did not mention holiday lets once. After taking office, the party confirmed it would proceed with plans started by the Tories for a national mandatory register of holiday lets across England. References to a “licensing system” have been dropped by ministers, however, and they refuse to provide any firm detail as to whether councils will be empowered to control or cap holiday let numbers.

While the register is due to launch this year, several Labour MPs tell The House they are sceptical about whether it will make any substantial difference, particularly as it is set to be a “light-touch” scheme, with holiday let owners not required to upload any documentation proving the safety of their properties.

Under the registration scheme, it is thought that, after paying a small fee, each holiday let will be given a unique ID number, with the owner identified and the data made available to local authorities.

It is hoped that for the first time this will provide a comprehensive picture of just how many holiday lets there are in different parts of the country, and will help councils understand how their housing stock is being used.

But in some of England’s coastal towns, national parks and cathedral cities that attract high numbers of tourists, Labour MPs are starting to call more loudly for tougher action.

Lizzi Collinge, who represents Morecambe and Lunesdale, says hotels and B&Bs in her constituency have complained that they must jump through many more regulatory hoops than their self-catering competitors.

“They don’t have the same safety regulations, they don’t have the same taxation levels, and they don’t always have the same protections for consumers as well,” she says.

“Registration’s a really good start, and it will help us gather data on what the problem is. What it doesn’t necessarily do is give us all the solutions.”

Markus Campbell-Savours, the Penrith and Solway MP who has just had the Labour whip returned to him after it was suspended for rebelling over inheritance tax for farmers, puts it more starkly.

“The scheme does nothing in areas like mine in the Lake District, other than allow us to count how many [holiday lets] there are, and we already have proxies for doing that through things like the business rates system, where we can see how many have registered for self-catering accommodation.

“For me, unless it’s beefed up and turned into a licensing scheme, it’s of little value.”

Nor has the government apparently succeeded in keeping the holiday let industry entirely on side.

Andy Fenner, CEO of the Short Term Accommodation Association (STAA), says holiday lets are “an easy football” for politicians searching for things to blame for the housing crisis.

If you kill the holiday let sector… you kill the tourism industry

Advertisement

STAA, a trade body that counts Airbnb and Vrbo among its members, has been calling for a registration scheme for almost a decade. They believe it will contribute to the sector’s professionalisation and help deter “bad actors”. It will also mean councils are not overestimating the number of holiday lets in their areas, as any given property will often be listed on multiple websites.

“We know that in most cases the problem is massively overblown,” says Fenner. While he acknowledges that an excess of holiday lets can cause issues in some places, he is concerned that the government is failing to properly recognise tourism’s economic contribution to communities across the country.

“It employs people in our towns, rural communities, in beach resorts, where no other business is ever going to be,” he says.

“We need the government to support that, and when it puts legislation through like this registration scheme, work with us to ensure that the word ‘balance’ is the most important one – that, yes, we’re looking at what tourism does to housing, but we’re also looking at what tourism does to jobs, to local economies.

“If you kill the holiday let sector, which is the demand sector of tourism, you kill the tourism industry. We can’t afford to do that.”

STAA has been in weekly talks with officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) about the register’s development. But Fenner is frustrated by the fact that he and his association have not been able to secure a single meeting with tourism minister Stephanie Peacock.

“We’ve asked on numerous occasions to meet her and talk to her. We feel this is one of the biggest issues in tourism at the moment, but we’ve never met her.”

Peacock’s predecessor, Chris Bryant, said last year that the registration scheme would go live in April 2026. Yet despite the scheme having undergone testing for several months, Fenner’s understanding is that the launch has been delayed and could be as late as October 2026. Peacock says the register will launch “later in 2026”, without naming a month or season.

It also appears the scheme will not require holiday lets to upload any documentation – such as gas, fire or electrical safety certificates – as a condition of registration.

“What we’ve campaigned for, and to be fair this government has agreed with us on, is for no document uploads – and we can’t complain about that,” says Fenner. “They’ve told us that isn’t going to be part of the scheme.”

He adds that while holiday lets should “of course” have that documentation, the problem with requiring them to upload it is that it would place a responsibility on whichever body is running the scheme to validate it as genuine.

Instead, Fenner understands the scheme will simply ask those registering to confirm that they have those documents, in the knowledge that they could be asked to produce them if any issues arose in future.

The lack of any document upload requirement would tally with Peacock’s own description of the scheme in answer to a December written question, when she said the register would take a “light-touch” approach.

For MPs most concerned about holiday lets squeezing the supply of homes and displacing local populations, this does not inspire confidence.

“It’s pretty meaningless then, isn’t it? It’s a toothless tiger,” says Neil Duncan-Jordan, Labour MP for Poole.

“Let’s be clear about this. When the government’s been trying to get tough on disabled people on benefits, on pensioners with their winter fuel allowance, on farmers and their inheritance tax and employers when it comes to national insurance rates and so forth – and yet we’re not being tough on this sector?

“Why is that? Why are we being so light-touch on this, but so heavy-handed on all the other things?”

Without a “more robust approach” to control holiday let numbers, Duncan-Jordan fears the registration scheme may simply be “window dressing”.

The government really needs to engage with all of those MPs who have long been calling for a proper licensing scheme

Advertisement

Rachael Maskell, Labour (Co-op) MP for York Central, is similarly unimpressed, saying that registration alone is “just not going to cut the mustard”.

 “The government really needs to engage with all of those MPs who have long been calling for a proper licensing scheme to get this right,” she says.

“If you live among short-term holiday lets, or have a prevalence in your constituency, you really understand the impact it has… There hasn’t been a reach-out from government to MPs, and it’s about time they did.”

Nor should the government allow holiday lets to operate without uploading proof of their safety credentials, she argues.

“We cannot have a two-tier system where hotels, guesthouses, B&Bs are held to a higher standard than short-term holiday lets. We need to ensure that level playing field.”

Will the register pave the way for tougher action in years to come? Scotland has already instituted a licensing system, with councils able to establish short-term let control zones in their areas. Wales, meanwhile, has more than doubled the number of nights that holiday lets must be rented out for before they can qualify for business rates rather than having to pay council tax.

In England, Keir Starmer told the BBC last year that his government is “going stage-by-stage, so this [registration scheme] is basically stage one. We’ll then carefully review what stage two should look like.”

While in opposition, the now-housing minister Matthew Pennycook made clear his support for changes to the planning and licensing systems.

He told a Westminster Hall debate in 2023 that Rishi Sunak’s government should “legislate for the introduction of a new planning use class for short-term lets without delay”, and give “serious consideration to other measures, whether on taxation or licensing, that will almost certainly still be required”. That, he added, “is what a Labour government would do”.

Pennycook is said to have privately indicated over recent days that he remains personally supportive of giving councils more control over holiday lets, and he would like to dedicate time to the issue in the next parliamentary session.

Approached for comment, Pennycook’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) did not deny this.

A MHCLG spokesperson said: “We know that too many second homes and holiday lets can be harmful for communities, so we’ve given councils powers to introduce a council tax premium for second homes, abolished the furnished holiday lets tax regime and removed incentives for landlords to prioritise short-term holiday lets.

“We recognise that further action may be necessary and are actively considering what additional powers could be granted to local authorities.”

DCMS refused to confirm whether the registration scheme has been delayed or will require holiday let owners to upload any documents.

The department referred The House to a recent Commons statement from Peacock, in which she said: “The new national short-term lets registration scheme entered user testing at the end of October to ensure that it is robust and easy to use and meets the needs of the scheme ahead of its planned launch later in 2026.

“Secondary legislation will be required to enact the scheme and we intend to bring that forward when parliamentary time allows.”

The Conservative Party should abolish National Insurance Contributions, shift candidate selection away from “gold star councillors” toward “intellectual seriousness”, and be honest with voters that without growth the triple lock risks unsustainability.

Those are among the more eyebrow-raising recommendations in a new report from Next Gen Tories – a group launched in 2023 to highlight how millennials have been hardest hit by today’s challenges – exclusively seen by ConservativeHome ahead of its official launch this week.

Titled Conservative Revival: A New Radicalism, the paper is one of the more ambitious, and potentially internally combustible, pieces of Conservative thinking to emerge since the 2024 defeat.

As James Cowling, founder and managing director of Next Gen Tories – and author of the report, alongside director of policy Josh Smith – tells me: “The risk of inaction and not showing change is greater than the risk of staying still.

“Kemi is doing well, they’re almost there, it’s just turning the dial up. The party needs to set the vision and up the boldness.”

The paper has attracted backing from both ends of the party’s generations. Established shadow cabinet ministers Andrew Griffith and Claire Coutinho have provided supportive quotes, as have three MPs of the new intake recently tipped for promotion: Katie Lam, Blake Stephenson and Jack Rankin.

It was Rankin who perhaps captured the paper’s spirit most directly: “From a single planning code across the UK, to an acknowledgment that the triple lock will be unsustainable without policies that achieve growth.

“This paper signals a clear break from the Conservative Party of the past. This is a blueprint for a party which confronts this country’s issues from core principles first.”

It is hard to cover each recommendation of the 32 page report but the core principles, intended as the golden thread running through Conservative policymaking and communications, are framed through three pillars: wealth creation, aspiration and community.

On economics, the diagnosis is stark. They note that real GDP per capita was barely higher in 2023 than in 2007, with Britain caught in a self-reinforcing loop of high spending, rising taxes and anaemic growth.

“For too long, debates about public spending have been conducted in isolation from economic reality,” the report reads. “Policies such as the triple lock can illustrate the point. While politically sensitive and unlikely to be scrapped, it should be stated plainly that without stronger economic growth, long-term guarantees of this kind become increasingly difficult to sustain.”

The remedy involves tackling three structural constraints: the failure to build housing and infrastructure at scale; public spending weighted toward consumption over investment; and an uncompetitive tax system. France’s nuclear build-out and New Zealand’s planning liberalisation are cited as models of what political courage can achieve. Hinkley Point C – “the most expensive nuclear project in the world” – is the counterexample.

On aspiration, the paper identifies the nearly nine million voters expected to be paying higher or additional rate income tax by the next election as natural, underexploited Conservative territory. “Aspiration,” Cowling tells me, “is open goal territory for the Party”. The ‘HENRY’ voter – High Earner, Not Rich Yet – is heavily taxed, priced out of housing and, the paper argues, ripe for conversion. Hence the pitch to abolish NICs and roll them into income tax to “reinforce the stance of supporting work”.

The community chapter calls for a “civic nationalism rooted in shared values, equal citizenship and common responsibility,” with enforceable language requirements and welfare access linked to integration milestones – an answer, the authors argue, to the fact that “high levels of immigration have been met with almost no policies to promote integration.”

“Framed positively,” the report says, the approach is not about exclusion but “fairness, cohesion and equal citizenship”.

It also makes a more pastoral argument: that pubs, sports clubs and community centres are “civic infrastructure” whose decline has “hastened the atomisation of our society,” drawing a direct line between pro-growth economics and keeping the local high street alive.

One of the paper’s most striking contributions is its diagnosis of “the seven deadly sins” of modern politics – failings attributed not just to the Conservatives, but to British political culture more broadly.

The first and most fundamental is a failure of political courage: the tendency to downplay the scale of national problems during a campaign, only to discover in government that you lack the mandate to fix them. Labour’s ‘Ming Vase’ strategy in 2024 is the cautionary tale – by declining to level with voters about the structural challenges, the paper argues, the government entered office without the authority to act.

The message to Conservatives is clear: don’t make the same mistake in reverse. The paper recommends spending 2026 and 2027 making a frank public case for the scale of change required, without needing to announce bold policies immediately.

The remaining sins – short-termism, institutional sclerosis, stakeholderism, hyperlocalism, demographic targeting and over-reliance on polling – are each dissected in turn. The critique of demographic targeting may act as a wake-up call. The 2024 election saw the party pander so visibly to older voters that it alienated younger ones it needed to win.

Citing Nuffield College research, the report notes that voters in their fifties and sixties actually turned away from the Conservatives partly out of concern that their children are worse off – a cohort potentially representing 17 per cent of the electorate. “Baby boomers,” the paper drily notes, do not in fact have “saturnine desires to eat the young”.

Hyperlocalism is a clear target for Next Gen Tories: the drift toward MPs as “gold star councillors” rather than legislators. They want to see candidate selection, training and parliamentary management refocused – prioritising “intellectual seriousness and communicative strength” over local activism alone.

They propose a Future Leaders Scheme for the best candidates with a proven record of party involvement as part of the selection process, designed to identify stronger prospects without repeating the mistakes of the old A-list. Local constituencies could be offered benefits for picking one of these candidates, like earlier selection and additional resources, to maintain choice but incentivising “better choices”.

The paper also recommends moving the current fresh talent in the parliamentary party up the ranks into shadow ministerial and cabinet level as a way to “demonstrate that the party has changed” and prove there is “a bedrock of talent that Reform simply doesn’t have”. (A subject I have written on before.)

A “Bond with Britain” announcement this summer should be used as a first public statement of renewed purpose, and the 2028 London Mayoral election could road test the new approach among HENRY voters and affluent suburbanites the party needs to recover.

The dividing line the authors want drawn is “serious change with Conservatives versus chaotic change with Reform UK”. Whether the party has the collective discipline to hold that line – rather than retreating, as its own seven deadly sins suggest it historically does, into short-termism and timidity – is the question Conservative Revival asks, but can’t yet answer.