Tourism Industry

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson]

That is a fantastic idea. I was travelling just yesterday on the Eurostar and thinking to myself how great it would be if the train stopped at Ashford and Ebbsfleet and passengers could get off, having come from the Netherlands, to savour the delights of Kent, a county that I know very well. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; it is a fantastic idea. Perhaps the Minister will have an update on what is happening with Eurostar.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

He might.

[Blake Stephenson]

He might.

[Chris Bryant]

Or he might not.

[Blake Stephenson]

He also might not. Let us see.

Better transport infrastructure across the whole country would help our tourism industry, which would include Luton airport expansion in Bedfordshire—perhaps the Minister has an update on that; or maybe he does not.

That will mean finding the right mixture of development in areas like mine to allow for some of the things that we need to take advantage of the opportunities of tourism. In particular, in Bedfordshire we need more accommodation to ensure that people stay awhile in our communities, rather than visiting for a day and going somewhere else for the bulk of their visit. We will also need to protect and enhance some of our beautiful countryside and landscapes, which distinguish our country and our counties from our international competitors.

The Greensand Ridge national character area in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire is characterised by its ancient and modern woodlands, farms and parkland and the historic look and feel of its small settlements, often former estate villages. Many of those settlements are distinctive Bedfordshire “ends” villages—hamlets or small villages built in a line along the road—but development within the national character area is threatening the character of many of those small settlements. We must make sure that delivering new development does not come at the expense of maintaining our communities as places where people from far and wide will be able to feel a sense of unique local character and pride. If our countryside and our towns become identikit places that we could see anywhere, people who want to experience them can go anywhere. We must embrace what makes Britain, and in my case Bedfordshire, a great place to spend time.

I hope it has come across in this debate that I wish the Government the very best in their ambition to deliver their national visitor economy strategy later this year and to achieve 50 million visitors per year. In me they will find a constructively critical friend willing to work across the House to deliver on the promise of the tourism industry for my local economy in Mid Bedfordshire and the UK’s economy as a whole. I hope that as the Minister continues to shape his thoughts on his strategy, he will consider my remarks in that spirit. I hope that his strategy will set out how the Government will protect and enhance the attractiveness of the UK offer to visitors from overseas and domestic holidaymakers. That means protecting the things that make Britain great, from the high street, the local pub and the beautiful countryside to the many set-piece tourist attractions that we are known for the world over. I hope that his strategy will also set out a coherent plan to make the UK more price competitive with our major international competitors. The Government cannot simply talk growth into being. It takes real decisions—tough decisions—on competing priorities to make the UK more competitive and bring about growth.

I mentioned electronic travel authorisations, but the industry also raised with me things such as tax-free shopping, visa costs and air passenger duty in preparation for this debate. It is clear that more must be done to bring the cost of visiting the UK down to deliver growth in tourism. I hope that the Minister’s strategy will set out, alongside the work his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are doing, how the Government’s plans for English devolution will empower local communities like mine to drive our local tourism agendas. In particular, I would like to see the completion of the roll-out of local visitor economy partnerships so that counties like Bedfordshire can take our place at the tourism table and shout more easily about all the fantastic things to come and do in our county.

I would also like to see the new mayors and local authorities backed with a framework and real funding from Government to deliver local tourism strategies. I believe that it is desirable to tie all these strands together for the Government to commit to tourism as a priority. Including tourism in the industrial strategy and having a dedicated tourism Minister working cross-departmentally —not, as he currently is, a tourism Minister stretched across multiple portfolios and Departments—would be a positive first step towards that.

Finally, the Minister knows that I cannot end my speech without a final expression of hope that we will one day be able to cut the ribbon on a new Universal Studios theme park at Kempston Hardwick in Mid Bedfordshire. I know the Government remain locked in negotiations with Universal, and both parties continue to have my full support to do whatever it takes to secure this fantastic investment in my community. I look forward to hearing ideas from colleagues about how we can best support our tourism industry across the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Edward—I will certainly try. I want to make two general points and then a specific point about my constituency. First, I very much welcome the announcement that the Tour de France will begin in Edinburgh. As I represent a very large constituency in the south of Scotland, it seems to me inevitable that it would have to proceed through my constituency in order to reach England. I therefore make that plea, particularly given that cycling has become so important to the Borders part of my constituency, with the Tweed valley being a world-class mountain biking venue. The mountain biking community has transformed the economy, particularly of the former mill town of Innerleithen.

My second point is a more general one. I think the Government and others can do more to ensure that tourists come out of London. The majority of tourists come into London. We all pass this crowded centre around Parliament and see the streets teeming with people. Of course London has great attractions, but so does the rest of the United Kingdom. We have heard about Dudley and Bedfordshire. We need to encourage tourists to leave London and see the rest of the United Kingdom. In that regard, I hope the Minister and the Government will continue to work with the Scottish Government on their objectives of promoting Scotland. As the Minister would expect, my view is, of course, that it should be Scotland within the United Kingdom, not Scotland as a separate entity, as sometimes they have been moved to suggest.

Like other Members, I obviously advocate the benefits of my constituency. Because it is very large, if I tried to list the attractions and facilities there I would run the risk of missing some, but it is a very scenic, rural area. I am very pleased that Government support is continuing for the Clydesdale Way, which will link cycle and walking routes in the south Lanarkshire part of my constituency, and for the redevelopment of the Crook Inn, a historic inn in the Borders, which will now have a bunkhouse to support walkers and cyclists.

Recently, the Dumfries and Galloway part of my constituency received a disappointing setback when an article appeared in The Times on 26 February by a journalist called Gabriella Bennett, in which she said:

“I hate to say it, but I won’t be rushing back to southwest Scotland.”

Journalists in national newspapers sometimes do not realise the impact they can have on local businesses and communities. The article is not just wrong but ill researched, because Ms Bennett says:

“Once you get to Dumfries and Galloway and moon over the nature, there isn’t an awful lot left.”

Well, she obviously took no time to find out about the plethora of distilleries, art galleries, delis, cafés, restaurants, museums, outdoor activity centres, off-road cycle centres, castles, public gardens, National Trust houses, farm parks, children’s activity centres, history tours, guided art tours, golf courses, independent retailers, the planetarium and book and record shops, to name but a few.

I am delighted to say that there has been a fightback. An article by Jane Morrison-Ross—the chief executive of South of Scotland Enterprise—entitled “Please give southwest Scotland a chance” appeared in The Times in response. She said:

“Dumfries and Galloway has more to offer than cookie-cutter tourism”.

That is exactly the position. It is a unique offering, but it is not the same as the offering that, say, Universal Studios or a historic industrial centre offers to visitors. Each of our communities has something unique to offer, and we should not be disparaged for the fact that we are remote and rural, and that we luxuriate in our rurality, the scenery, the quietness and the natural environment.

However, Dumfries and Galloway has other features, one of which would appeal particularly to the Minister: the new £2 million destination spa at the Cairndale Hotel in Dumfries, which is already attracting national attention as one of the best spas in Scotland. It takes up 1,300 square metres over two floors and features a thermal pool, an aroma steam room, Himalayan salt and infrared saunas, a herbal lounge and a private bathing suite. I know the Minister would be very welcome in those premises.

[Chris Bryant]

Are you inviting me?

[David Mundell]

I am inviting you, because it is a flagship new development in the constituency.

Ellisland farm near Dumfries, which I visited recently, has had a substantial investment of nearly £500,000 from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. That iconic location, which is the former home of Robert Burns, plays a crucial role in Scotland’s history and identity. It will be an immersive visitor experience.

I could go on, Sir Edward, but I will not go on for too long. I will mention the Grey Mare’s Tail, the fact that Moffat is the dark sky town and the eagle town, Annan harbour and Annandale Distillery. Of course, I must mention the iconic Gretna Green, which has been for so long the United Kingdom’s leading wedding venue. If anyone is so minded, there are some very attractive packages on offer. I hope that, in my brief contribution, I have well and truly suggested that Ms Bennett, in her Times article, was completely and utterly wrong about Dumfries and Galloway, and that it is somewhere well worth visiting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Tourism in England is a vibrant and essential part of the country’s economy, given the rich tapestry of historic landmarks, cultural experiences and natural beauty. From the bustling streets of London to the serene landscapes of the Lake district, England attracts millions of visitors each year. The UK Government play a crucial role in supporting and promoting tourism, and ensuring that the sector continues to thrive and contribute to the nation’s prosperity.

England is renowned for its diverse tourist attractions. London, the capital city, is a global hub of culture, history and entertainment. Visitors flock to iconic landmarks such as the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace and the British Museum. The city’s vibrant art scene, world-class dining and shopping districts make it a must-visit destination.

Beyond London, cities such as Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool offer unique cultural experiences. Manchester is known for its rich industrial heritage and vibrant music scene, while Birmingham boasts a vibrant and diverse culinary landscape and impressive architecture. Liverpool—of course, the birthplace of The Beatles—attracts music enthusiasts from all over the world.

The English countryside is equally captivating. The Lake district, a UNESCO world heritage site, offers stunning landscapes, hiking trails and picturesque villages. The Cotswolds, with its charming stone cottages and rolling hills, provides a quintessentially English experience. Coastal towns such as Brighton, Polperro and Whitby offer beautiful beaches and a relaxed atmosphere.

The UK Government recognise the importance of tourism and have implemented various initiatives to support the sector. The tourism sector deal, introduced in 2019, aims to boost productivity and investment in tourism. That initiative includes the creation of tourism zones that bring together local businesses and organisations to develop co-ordinated strategies for growth. Those zones focus on increasing off-season visits and enhancing the visitor experience.

The Government are also investing in skills development to ensure that the tourism industry is well equipped with a well-trained workforce. Two new T-level courses in cultural heritage and visitor attractions and catering have been introduced to provide specialised training for future industry workers. Additionally, the Government are working with industry partners to deliver 30,000 apprenticeships a year by 2025.

In response to the covid-19 pandemic, the tourism recovery plan was launched to assist the sector’s recovery. That plan includes measures to support businesses, protect jobs and promote domestic tourism. The Government are also focusing on making the UK the most accessible tourism destination in Europe by 2025, aiming to increase the number of international disabled visitors by a third.

The Colne and Holme valleys that I represent are rich in cultural heritage and community spirit. The Marsden Mechanics, a historic building in the village of Marsden, serves as a vibrant community hub and hosts a variety of events, workshops and performances. The canal in Slaithwaite is another local gem, offering picturesque walks and boat trips that showcase the area’s natural beauty. Those valleys are also known for their lively festivals that bring together residents and visitors alike.

In Colne valley, the annual Marsden jazz festival attracts music lovers from far and wide, while the Slaithwaite moonraking festival celebrates local folklore with lantern parades and performances. Last but not least is Holmfirth, a charming market town that offers a unique blend of natural beauty and cultural heritage, known for its picturesque landscapes and as the filming location for the iconic TV series—I am testing people’s ages here—“Last of the Summer Wine”. [Laughter.] They are laughing, so it is fine.

[Chris Bryant]

He was in it—the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)! It was the third series.

[Paul Davies]

I certainly cannot answer that.

Visitors to Holmfirth can explore the winding streets, stone cottages and of course the River Holme. There are many art galleries, festivals and live events, and the fantastic Picturedrome, an early 20th century cinema that now serves as a popular venue for concerts and performances. Amazingly, we also have Holmfirth Vineyard, which produces local wines and capitalises on the area’s unique microclimate.

Outdoor enthusiasts will enjoy the fantastic scenery, the fantastic walks and hiking. We have a wonderful facility, the Holme Valley Camping and Caravan Park, which I visited quite recently. It is ideally suited for people to come and enjoy all the wonders of the Holme valley.

Tourism in England is a dynamic and vital sector supported by comprehensive Government initiatives. From the bustling cities to the tranquil countryside, England offers a variety and a wealth of experiences for visitors. Holmfirth in particular stands out as a charming destination in West Yorkshire, offering a mix of cultural attractions and natural beauty that captivates all who visit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this debate. Tourism is a cornerstone of life in South East Cornwall. From the beautiful sand beaches of Whitsand bay to the historic harbour at Polperro, our coastline is a true gem. Visitors come to Looe for its fishing heritage and vibrant seafront, while the wild beauty of Bodmin moor offers a stark contrast to those picture-perfect seaside towns, and Port Eliot is a stunning house and gardens with a rich cultural tapestry. Whether it is surfing, sailing, hiking or simply enjoying a Cornish pasty with a sea view, South East Cornwall has something for everyone, attracting visitors from across the UK and internationally.

We are so proud to welcome visitors, but we must also ensure that tourism works for the people who live year-round in Cornwall and other coastal communities such as mine. Those communities are distinct from inland neighbours in ways that bring both pride and specific challenges. Tourism brings jobs and investment, but our local services, housing and infrastructure must be able to support residents and visitors alike.

Many industries in my constituency are tied to tourism, and they struggle outside the peak seasons. They rely on the summer booms to sustain them through the quieter months. Although we must celebrate everything that tourism brings, it cannot be our only route to prosperity. We cannot have local families and businesses sitting idle, waiting for the summer season to return. It is important to have balance in our community, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire mentioned.

Supporting tourism is not just about increasing visitor numbers. As other Members have said, it is about ensuring that the communities sustaining it can flourish year-round. That means investing in local infrastructure, transport and housing, so that coastal towns such as mine are places where people can afford to live, work and visit. Supporting our local attractions enriches our lives at home and boosts the economy. South East Cornwall has so much to offer. Our community is resilient, but we certainly need recognition and support for the work that goes on year-round.

Labour now represents more coastal seats than ever before. We have the opportunity to deliver the sea change around our coastal towns that is so desperately needed.

[Chris Bryant]

Terrible!

[Anna Gelderd]

It was terrible, but it had to be done.

I ask the Minister to outline what support the Government will provide to areas such as South East Cornwall, where tourism is a key part of our economy, to ensure that tourism is sustained and managed, and that it grows sustainably. It is vital that my local community is equipped to thrive in the long term, and that our coastal towns remain vibrant and resilient not just during the peak season but year-round.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this debate. I am sure my husband, who is a Bedfordshire native, would have very much enjoyed his hymn to Bedfordshire. It has been a real pleasure to be a part of this debate, and to listen to Members from across the United Kingdom speak with such pride about their communities and extol the virtues of a visit.

Estimates show that visits to the UK are set to rise to above pre-pandemic levels, but in recent years the growth and prosperity that the tourism sector provides to our economy have been hampered. The pandemic is, of course, the primary explanation of the huge reduction in the number of people visiting the UK, but another key factor is Britain’s exit from the European Union. In response to a survey asking individuals why they would not consider travelling to the UK, around 60% of respondents identified political uncertainty as a deterrent, and around 45% cited potential increases in post-Brexit travel and accommodation costs.

The UK tourism sector directly employs approximately 3.1 million people, and businesses reliant on tourism-generating revenue have reduced hiring rates since 2016. That has impacted people’s livelihoods: individuals reliant on the tourism industry have experienced heightened job insecurity due to the uncertainty caused by the pandemic and Brexit. During a cost of living crisis, it is so important that people feel secure in their fields of work.

My constituency is home to a number of popular tourist destinations, including Richmond Park, after which my constituency is named. The decline of tourism to the UK has been felt by businesses around my constituency, because the park itself hosts 5.5 million visitors every year. Many of the hospitality businesses in the area rely on the footfall that the park attracts, and I have already received multiple emails from constituents saying how concerned they are about rumoured cuts to the park’s police department, which will detract from the tranquillity and safety of Richmond Park.

The park police conduct excellent work in the Royal Parks across London, ensuring that criminal activity and antisocial behaviour are kept to a minimum. The service they provide ensures that Richmond Park remains one of London’s top tourist destinations. The tourism industry is tied to so many different sections of our society, and that is just one example of how insufficient funding for an important department can have a knock-on effect.

I am also the proud representative of Kew Gardens which, according to the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, is the 13th most-visited attraction in the UK, with just under 2 million visitors in 2023. If anyone is thinking of something to do this weekend, I recommend a visit to Kew Gardens, particularly to see the blossom and magnolia in their peak season—I swear that it is the best place in the UK to be this weekend. At the moment, they are accompanied by a musical soundscape from students of the Royal College of Music, so it is well worth a visit.

If people are looking for something to eat or drink afterwards, I can recommend a visit to the Original Maids of Honour tea room, just over the road. It is named after the dainty little tarts that have been baked since Tudor times. Henry VIII was allegedly so taken with the recipe that he kept it under lock and key at Richmond Palace, which can unfortunately no longer be visited because it burned down in the 15th century.

Kew Gardens has been suffering from the continued suspension of rail services. The District line and the Mildmay line have seen repeated cancellations and suspensions of services, particularly over the past year. I have heard directly from the director at Kew Gardens how those have affected visitor numbers, not just to Kew Gardens itself but to all the nearby businesses and services. That goes to show how cuts to transport or railway maintenance impact our tourism sector.

Tourism plays a huge role in ensuring the viability of our businesses, and we want the Government to reflect that role by upgrading its status with a dedicated Minister of State for tourism and hospitality. They could provide a holistic view across Government Departments and help to resolve not just some of the issues in my constituency, but issues raised by hon. Members throughout the debate. Promoting our tourism sector should be a focus for the Government. The appointment of a dedicated Minister would provide much-needed oversight and forward thinking to drive tourism and investment in the UK.

In addition, the UK’s rich and vibrant cultural heritage is a national treasure, and our creative and tourism industries contribute billions of pounds to our economy and employ millions of people. Our globally renowned creative industries attract visitors to the UK, and we are proud to be home to some of the most visited galleries, theatres and sports venues in Europe. Many of the creative industries intersect with tourism, and the Liberal Democrats support measures that allow creative industries to flourish, which means making tourism more accessible.

We want to ensure that people everywhere can enjoy the benefits of sport, music and the arts. One such measure would be to rejoin Creative Europe. The creative industry is one of the many sectors that was severely damaged by the catastrophic Brexit deals patched together by the last Conservative Government. The increased red tape, unnecessary bureaucracy and increased costs associated with travel, trade and hiring have left many creative industries struggling. Will the Minister commit to bolstering our tourism and supporting our cherished creative industries by committing to rejoin Creative Europe?

Tourism does not just enrich us economically. The benefits of expanding our horizons would allow for opportunities more broadly. As the Minister will be aware, the previous Government accepted an agreement that allowed EU member state nationals visiting the UK to benefit from a six-month visa waiver, while UK nationals are limited to a 90-day visa waiver when they visit the Schengen zone. That makes tourism challenging for more people—a further example of the appalling deal that the previous Conversative Government secured. By addressing this inequality and bringing forward a more reciprocal agreement, we could encourage more people to travel and explore, broadening opportunities for all British people—that should be central to any Government policy.

I take this opportunity to renew Liberal Democrat calls for the Government to consider entering into a UK-EU youth mobility scheme. We have been talking about this a lot in Parliament—

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, you have?

[Sarah Olney]

We have! We have had countless debates and I have mentioned it on many occasions at Cabinet Office questions—my more usual home. Indeed, a Petitions Committee debate is scheduled in this very Chamber for Monday afternoon, when we will doubtless raise the issue again. I urge the Government to consider such a scheme and the opportunities it would create for young people. Some of the recruitment pressures the tourism industry faces could be alleviated by considering the merits of a UK-EU youth mobility visa.

To summarise, the tourism industry in the UK has been blighted by Britain’s exit from the European Union and the catastrophic deal the previous Government reached with our neighbours. This has impacted the viability of our businesses and the job security of millions of people. I encourage the Government to take the steps outlined in my speech to help to bolster our tourism sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. Nobody has yet mentioned Gainsborough Old Hall, one of the most beautiful sights in the country.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson): this is “Blake 2”, the second debate we have had on this subject since he has arrived in the House, so I commend him for his dedication to tourism issues. He congratulated the Government on our commitment to the East-West Rail and the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, which will be an important driver of growth in his constituency. Many people have said that they simply do not understand why previous Governments did not get round to doing this.

I note the poker face the shadow Minister is adopting at the moment, but he knows, I am afraid, that I cannot go very far in what I can say about Universal Studios. I have said before that the theme park will be absolutely transformational. One of the key aspects that I pointed out to the executives—I met them when they were over a few weeks ago, and hope to meet them again soon—one of the key aspects of the site is that 80% of the population are within two hours’ travel. For both international and UK visitors, it will be a significant addition to our portfolio in the UK and I very much hope that we can get it over the line.

I could take offence at the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire’s demands for a dedicated tourism Minister, but I have decided that he already has one, so that is fine: I am a dedicated tourism Minister, and I am absolutely determined to make sure that we make a difference in this territory. When I was a Back Bencher, I was always calling for new Ministers for this, that, and the other, but one of the things about the UK is that we have more Ministers than France and Germany put together—or, for that matter, Australia, India, and New Zealand put together. The constant demand for separate Ministries can be a mistake, not least because of the connections between issues. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) pointed out, the connection between tourism and the creative industries is so significant that I think it would be a mistake to separate them. We need to make sure we are making the big argument on behalf of a very large sector, rather than hiving tourism off to a separate Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) has written to me, and I will try to respond as fast as I can. Her idea sounds perfectly good; some of the responsibility for what she talked about lies with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and some lies with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, but there is no reason why we cannot have joined-up Government. If we did, we might have a joined-up geopark, as well, so that is something I will look at for her.

The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) made a good point about the importance of working with Scotland. Scotland has managed to develop its own brand identity for international tourism—something that other parts of the UK have not done. We need to build on that, so I am happy to work with the Scottish Government. I have already been to a spa in Scotland this year—the right hon. Gentleman was not there—at the Cameron House Resort on Loch Lomond. We went out on a boat in the middle of Loch Lomond on the coldest day imaginable, and yet the glass of champagne was very welcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) pointed out that the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale was in the original series of—[Laughter.] No, he and other hon. Members highlighted that visiting places where films and TV programmes have been made is one of the key drivers for both domestic and international tourism, a joy for many people in the UK, and—in a sense—part of why people come here. I have often wondered whether, at Heathrow or any of our ports, we should have an actor greeting people, though I do not know who it should be—Daniel Craig as James Bond, Olivia Coleman, or Adjoa Andoh.

The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) referred to Silverstone. It is obviously key to what we in the UK do really well, building on science, innovation and technology—in which we need to do better—as well as sport and tourism.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd)—and what a delight to say “my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall”—made an important point: tourism is great but must be balanced with the other needs of local communities. A community can feel completely denuded because all its accommodation is used for short-term lets that are then empty for large parts of the year. That can be a significant problem, not least because the tourism industry itself needs houses for its workers to live in, so we need to get this right. That is one reason why we want to pursue the legislation introduced by the previous Government on short-term lets; I hope we will be able to do so soon.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he is my hon. Friend—made an important point about the character of our people. In the end, tourism is hospitality, and the word “hospitality” comes from a word for a host, or guest. If the host is welcoming—if the character of the people is welcoming—that makes a dramatic difference to the whole tourism offer.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park made several points about the EU, and persuaded me that Brexit was really not a good idea. We are working on many of the issues she referred to, including the question of Creative Europe. In the last few weeks, I have discussed that with a European Commissioner. As the hon. Member may know, there will be a summit on 15 May, and we hope to get to a place of much greater cultural interchange and dismantle some of the friction. That matters to the creative industries and the art market—we are the third largest art market in the world and it has been terribly difficult; if someone owns a Matisse and lives in Italy, the London art market is probably the best place in the world for them to sell it, but following Brexit it has been almost impossible to bring an artwork into the country, sell it and send it on with any kind of ease. I am delighted that only last week the Treasury and DCMS, working together, sorted that out for the British art market.

The UK offers a phenomenal plethora of styles of tourism and visitor experiences. As a former vicar, I think of it as the “Hymns Ancient and Modern”—we do it all. We have the very ancient: Stonehenge is perhaps the most famous in the United Kingdom, but there are many others dotted across the whole country, including way up in the isles of Scotland. We have Roman ruins all over the place, including the Tower of London—although for many people that is associated more with Tudor times. The Natural History Museum has just had some of its best-ever visitor figures, making it the second most visited tourist attraction in the UK after the British Museum. Many people also want to see the Angel of the North, a piece by one of our modern great artists, or to visit the Eden Project or many other places across the UK that are brand-spanking new.

On Tuesday, I was in Bath for English Tourism Week. Bath shows it all. It has the Roman baths, though I did not go in this time—as a Minister, I did not think it would be entirely appropriate to get into my bathers. It is the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth. You can visit Lady Danbury’s house from “Bridgerton”, which is the Holburne Museum, one of many jewels in the crown of our small museums and galleries, which are often not well known and which we need to make more of.

Bath is also going to have a brilliant new £45 million fashion museum in the next few years, building on one of the biggest collections of fashion in the world. If anybody did not manage to go to the DIVA exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum—I am sure the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale went—it was absolutely spectacular and one of the best exhibitions I have ever been to. We have the best castles, in Wales, and probably the best stately homes in the whole of Europe.

We are phenomenally good at putting on live events, including theatre. I do not just mean the London theatre, where we can see some of the best productions in the world and some of the most famous actors live on the stage—I recently saw Rami Malek in a great production of “Oedipus” at the Old Vic; those performances are also probably much cheaper than they would be on Broadway in the United States of America—but in Leeds, Nottingham, Bath and Chichester. All over the country, there are theatres putting on magnificent productions. Of course, we also have comedy, which is often forgotten as part of our creative industries. Leicester is perhaps one of the most famous places that has a festival, but there are many venues all around the country.

We have great music gigs, with Coldplay being one of the most successful live giggers last year, bringing in thousands of pounds. When I met my Italian opposite number in Naples, I asked him, “What can I do for Italy?” He said, “Get me tickets for Oasis.” It is not only about the large venues, with P!nk and Sam Fender, for instance, performing in Newcastle and at the Stadium of Light. It is also about the small venues; FKA twigs is performing in a tiny venue tomorrow night, to just 200 people. For many, that is just as important as the big venues.

Then there is football. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale also referred to the Tour de France. Sport in general is a very important part of the way we do our tourism.

Of course, there is our nature. We have already heard reference to the Lake district; there are also the Munros in Scotland, the Jurassic coast, the Llŷn peninsula, the Gower peninsula, and one of my favourites, Lindisfarne, which is perhaps one of the most beautiful, sacred and holy places in the whole of our country and in Europe.

What do we need to do? Many Members have referred to the fact that we need to get to 50 million international visitors by 2030. That is money coming into the UK— earning foreign cash is really important. We have to have a national strategy. We have never had one before. If I manage to get this national strategy to pass, I hope that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire will withdraw his demand for the sacking of this Minister and for having a dedicated one. We have set up a visitor economy council, which has had its first meeting; we have sub-committees working away on specific elements. We are going to have a bigger council meeting with a wider working conference in a couple of weeks’ time in Birmingham.

We need to improve the end-to-end visit. I wonder if any hon. Members have got off a plane at Gatwick recently and tried to get on a train. I defy anybody, unless they have three PhDs—actually, it is probably even worse for those who have three PhDs—to understand the right train to get on at Gatwick, and the right ticket. We need to make these experiences far easier. Leeds station is also completely incomprehensible. I have no idea how to get out of the station. It is a completely impossible conundrum. We need to improve that.

We need to get better at languages so that all the languages that international visitors might need are available not only in Bicester Village, but in many other places across the whole of the United Kingdom, because that is a part of our welcome.

I would love us to be able to sort out a decent transport system to Stratford-upon-Avon. It is one of the great places for many millions to visit—for many reasons as well as the theatre and the connection to Shakespeare. There is great hospitality there, but it is very difficult to get to by public transport.

We need to address the skills shortage and probably the labour shortage, which may go to one of the points that was made earlier by the Liberal Democrats. I am passionate about this. There are many countries in the world where people think that working in hospitality is not just a job that they might do because there is nothing else to do, but that it is a career that they take real pride in. Someone might be a waiter all their life because they are in a service industry that they care passionately about, and they love engaging with people and making sure that they have a good evening. Yes, we need to do more about that. That is why I want to create—in this Parliament, if possible—five centres of excellence for hospitality in the United Kingdom to match those anywhere else in the world, so that people know that we really do this well. They would cover not only skills that might be taught at a local college, but those relating to running a hotel business, management, marketing and all the elements that make for really good tourism.

The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred to all 650 constituencies—well, he is right. We already have 38 local visitor economy partnerships in England. They cover nearly all of England but, oddly enough, not his patch. We really want to develop them across the whole of England and build a full national strategy with the home nations. I am fascinated by the destination development partnerships that have been growing up in, for example, the north-east; they bind together a whole region to address issues that cannot be addressed town by town.

I want a real welcome and a quality experience for every single person, whether they are a domestic visitor or otherwise. We have to look specifically at the issues that affect coastal areas—historic areas where people used to go on holiday in this country, but now do so less. We also have to do something about mobile coverage, which is just embarrassing. I was in Godalming the other day, and there was absolutely no mobile coverage in the centre of town. I could not even park my car because I could not download an app to do so, let alone find my way to Busbridge village hall, which I was trying to find.

We need to be proud of our food and drink. I am passionate about that. We have better cheese and sparkling wine than France—it is categorically proven now. I love Italy in many ways, but it has only one pudding: tiramisu. We have Sussex pond pudding, jam roly-poly, apple pie, apple dumpling, apple crumble, apple cobbler, Bakewell tart, bread and butter pudding, summer pudding, queen of puddings, banoffee pie, Eton mess, Eve’s pudding, tipsy laird, cranachan, treacle tart, figgy pudding, junket—I have had lots of that—lardy cake, knickerbocker glory, rice pudding, Shrewsbury cake and spotted dick, and that is to say nothing about trifle. We can beat the world when it comes to puddings and food, and we should be proud of that.

[David Mundell]

I am very disappointed that the Minister missed out Ecclefechan tart, which is a delicacy from the community of Ecclefechan in my constituency—it is a treacle-based tart.

[Chris Bryant]

That is only because I had written it down but could not read my handwriting.

I want to say two final things. First, of course I recognise the problems that the industry faces, and I am seeking to address many of them. There are two ways of looking at what we have done for the hospitality industry. Obviously, it had 70% relief on business rates, but that was not guaranteed for the future. It was going to go down to zero, but we are committed to keeping it at 40%; that is important.

I accept that there are difficulties for many in relation to the minimum wage. I still think it is important that we pay people properly in this industry, because that is part of changing the industry into one with not just jobs but careers in which people can take pride. Of course, I recognise that the national insurance contributions will be a significant cost for many, but we need to bear in mind the additional expenditure that we are able to bring to bear on so many aspects of the British economy and our public services through the money that that will bring in.

Finally, we need to embrace our history better. There are lots of things that we do magnificently when we talk about our history. Television programmes like “Wolf Hall” enhance that, and that is brilliant and wonderful. We have a responsibility for our museums and galleries. Sometimes places like the British Museum are able to show, unlike any other museum in the world, the whole of the world to the world, and that is a great opportunity.

Lord Ashcroft has a phenomenal collection of Victoria Crosses—the largest in the world. They have been sitting in the Imperial War Museum for a while and have been very well attended. Everybody absolutely adores not just the medals themselves but the stories behind them. I am passionate about trying to find a new home for that collection. I have been talking to Lord Ashcroft and I am determined to find one. If anyone in the room has any ideas about how we could find a new home for that Victoria Cross collection, please do get in touch. I know that there will be people from across the Commonwealth and the whole world who want to see the collection in a permanent home. With that, I commend the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire on this debate and beg that he withdraw his demand that I be sacked.

Draft Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 General Committees

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025.

It is a delight to see you, Sir Jeremy. The order was introduced under the Communications Act 2003—I sat on the Bill Committee in 2002 and 2003—as amended by the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. It does two things. First, there are presently no rules enabling the Secretary of State to decide what “turnover” means in relation to potential non-compliance with a designated vendor direction, such as that on the use of Huawei services. The order corrects that so that it is established and laid down in statute what those provisions are.

Secondly, the order changes the term “provider” to the term “person” because the 2003 and 2021 Acts are not consistent one with another. The order makes them consistent with one another, and in doing so makes the legislation more coherent, more consistent and—to use a valleys word—tidy. I should just clarify for Hansard that that is as in the south Wales valleys and not as in valets—we do not have very many valets in the valleys. With that, I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

First, I completely agree with the shadow Minister on the need to act in this area. When Labour was in opposition, I was one of the MPs who clamoured for the Government to bring in legislation, which I am glad it did in 2021. I agree that we need to make sure we have removed all of Huawei’s presence from our telecoms systems, and we believe we are on track to meet the 2027 deadline.

The shadow Minister will know that the previous Government never commented on individual cases, and certainly not in the way he has asked me to. I certainly have no intention of commenting on security-related matters, as he has asked me to in, I think, three of his questions. As I say, the UK is now on a path towards the complete removal of Huawei from the UK’s 5G networks by the end of 2027, and we of course work closely with Ofcom to monitor compliance with designated directions. However, I am afraid that it would be inappropriate in this context to comment on the shadow Minister’s specific questions, because they touch on security-related matters, which could only properly be referred to in security conversations.

Question put and agreed to.

Community Theatre

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

It is very good, Sir Jeremy, to have you in the Chair, not least because you know a thing or two about the Department, having played a role there for a while. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing not only the debate but quite a large audience for it—certainly bigger than many audiences that I have seen in Westminster Hall.

The hon. Member is right to refer to the Forum theatre, which reopened after £300,000 of investment. She was a bit modest because, as a councillor, she was one of the leading figures who campaigned to get it reopened—perhaps that played a part in her getting elected to this place. I see that she is smiling. It is not quite a Mona Lisa smile; it is more of a “Yes, I did, and thank you very much, Minister, for mentioning it” smile.

I gather that the Forum theatre reopened with “Everybody’s Talking About Jamie”, which I think was for just one night only. The young lad playing the lead had effectively grown up in that theatre and learned his craft there. That is yet another aspect of community theatre, namely that young people become engaged in the arts through it. Sometimes, they are young people who would not necessarily be interested in other academic subjects in school, but who see that the creative industries are a career choice or option for them, and they have a moment of extraordinary bravura on stage. Alternatively, somebody might work backstage and decide that that will not be the career for them, but none the less gains a degree of confidence and a sense of working as part of a team. People learn how to take a cue or prompt a cue, and so on.

All those elements are part of growing up as a young person and those skills are essential life skills for nearly every work environment, which is why the creative industries are so important. That is true when there is a massive production of “Matilda” by the Royal Shakespeare Company, which ends up becoming a worldwide success, or “War Horse” by the National Theatre, or “Les Mis”, which was originally an RSC production. That is also true, however, when we are talking about much smaller venues where the subsidy is a key aspect of managing to keep the whole thing going.

Incidentally, I should say that Dan Gillespie Sells, who is a friend of mine, wrote the music for “Everybody’s Talking About Jamie”. As I will say more about later, theatre is not just about buildings; it is also about having the writers and the musicians coming into the pipeline, so that we have shows in the future that people really want to see.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I thank the Crowthorne Musical Players for putting on a fantastic production of “The SpongeBob Musical” in the South Hill Park theatre in my constituency last week, which I enjoyed. Seeing young people on stage and the confidence that they were able to exude filled me with such hope for the future. Can the Minister expand further on the benefits for our young people of being involved in the theatre and the creative industries?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether that was really a question or an advert. It would seem that all the world’s a stage, and all the MPs merely players. It is good that everybody appreciates the cultural institutions in their constituencies and that we all try our best to support them when we can.

The Park & Dare is the theatre in my patch with a beautiful 19th-century building. One of the most exciting nights that I have ever had was seeing Joan Armatrading perform there. When a performer of global standing comes to a local community theatre, that is really important. I think Paul Young is playing at the Forum theatre in a few weeks’ time; the audience then will no doubt be living in the “Love of the Common People”.

We have all used the term “community theatre” in the debate, but it does not really exist. According to the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre, roughly 50% of the 1,100 theatres in the UK are community theatres, so we are talking about 500 or so of them. All those theatres are on a spectrum, however, that ranges from the tiny venue that seats only 100 people and is entirely run by the community on an almost-voluntary basis to much bigger venues, such as Nottingham Playhouse, that are run by the local authority but are still very much part of the local community.

Actually, I would argue that no theatre is really a theatre unless it is a community theatre, even many of the big theatres that we see in London’s west end, which are such an enormous attraction for people around the world. Incidentally, if anybody in the United States of America is watching this debate, the productions in our west end theatres are much better value than Broadway theatres, and their productions are of much better quality too.

Whatever kind of theatre we are talking about, in the words of Peter Brook, every theatre is in essence an “empty space”, and it is only when somebody walks across it that it becomes a theatre. To do that, however, it has to have a story to tell, it has to have people to tell that story and it has to have an audience. All of that is what turns a theatre into a community. The theatre industry in the UK generates something like £2.39 billion in gross added value, employs 205,000 workers and has a turnover of £4.4 billion a year. We already support it in many of the ways that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has asked us to support it, so I am quite pleased that she asked those questions rather than more difficult ones.

The higher rate of theatre tax relief that comes into force on 1 April is a significant investment in the theatre industry across the whole UK. It will be set at 40% for non-touring productions and 45% for touring productions and ones that involve music. Arts Council England is going through the next round of looking at its national portfolio investment programme, which will provide something like £100 million a year to 195 theatres across the UK.

People might think that a lot of that is going to the big theatres, which might not qualify as a community theatre, but that is stuff and nonsense—sorry, that is the name of a theatre in Dorset. The Stuff and Nonsense theatre is one of Arts Council England’s national portfolio organisations, as are the Nottingham Playhouse, Z-arts in Manchester, the Little Bulb theatre in Mendip and Scratchworks theatre in Exeter. Interestingly enough, the programme does not just fund theatre buildings; it also funds the Writing Squad in Stockport, which is bringing on new writing talent in the north of England, because that is absolutely essential to making sure that there are new plays coming along.

I love J. B. Priestley, and one day I will tell the embarrassing story of when I was in a production of “Time and the Conways” many years ago, but we cannot endlessly put on the classics. Much as many of the classics are really important—I have seen productions of “Richard II”, “Edward II” and “Hamlet” in the last few weeks—we none the less need live, modern stories that reflect people’s lived experiences.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

On the point of funding, Leatherhead theatre is a grade II listed building leased by a small local charity. It faces ongoing maintenance challenges, but its ownership model makes covering those costs extremely difficult. The £85 million creative foundations fund is welcome, but past experience suggests that not owning the building or having a long-term lease could preclude access to such funding. Would the Minister look into ensuring that funding is accessible to all community theatres regardless of ownership to ensure that they continue enriching our communities?

[Chris Bryant]

I like the way that the hon. Lady casually dismisses the £85 million of capital investment—it took quite a lot of work to secure that money. One of the first things that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I were lobbied about when we came into government last July was the state of many of the cultural institutions—theatres, museums, galleries and so on—that have been run by local authorities and are in dire capital need. Many of the organisations that we are talking about will be covered by that. If she wants to write to me about the specifics of that case, I will look into it. We had to decide where our priorities should lie. There are other avenues that other organisations can go down, but we wanted to make sure that there was a solid amount of money available in a single year: £85 million for capital projects in 2025-26 for the kind of theatres that many of us will be talking about that are, or have been, local authority-run.

The other intervention that the Department is engaged in is the Theatres Trust, which provides a great deal of unbiased advice to a variety of different theatres about their funding mechanism, their legal structures, their governance and what they can do about energy costs—a whole series of different things. I am very grateful to the Theatres Trust team, who play an important role in making sure that the whole sector works.

It is clearly easy for us to celebrate the big shows that I have already mentioned in the west end, such as Tom Hiddleston in “Much Ado About Nothing”. Those productions get lots of coverage and are very successful commercially, but we cannot have a successful commercial UK theatre industry without a successful subsidised UK theatre industry. We need that whole mix. An actress such as Glenda Jackson, who ended up winning two Oscars and was nominated for two more, and who was a great star of stage and screen making her way partly in theatre and partly in the movies, started in rep in Hoylake and West Kirby. We must remember that it is that whole mix, even in the changing environment of modern theatre, which has very few repertory theatres in the classic sense, that we really have to sustain.

I have already referred to the £85 million creative foundations fund, but I should also refer, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove rightly did, to local government. The new plan for neighbourhoods that is being developed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is precisely designed to look at how we can make sure our local neighbourhoods flourish. A key aspect of that must be the creative industries and our cultural institutions. People take so much pride in having a local theatre, a local music venue or whatever else it may be. We lose those organisations at our peril, although there are enormous challenges.

[Alison Bennett]

My concern is that, in west Sussex, we are on the fast track for local government reorganisation, and without a quick resolution to how we fund social care, many of the community theatres, which are council-owned assets, are at risk of being sold off. Would the Minister press the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on that point?

[Chris Bryant]

I have already had those conversations with the Ministry; it is obviously not simple when we are talking about local government reorganisation. I used to be a councillor in Hackney, so I know the pressures that are always on local government, but those pressures have been so intense for the last 14 years, with an ageing population taking up a much greater proportion of funding through social care, and looking after children in care, as well as very diminished budgets. Local authorities have really struggled to do what they are required to do, let alone what they are allowed to do, such as providing culture and leisure facilities.

One of the problems has been that local authorities have tended to have annual settlements rather than three-year settlements, and I hope that more of the latter will make a dramatic difference to how local authorities can plan for big and medium-sized projects in the cultural sphere. However, I will always make the case to any local councillor who walks through the door that simply cutting funding for the local theatre or leisure centre is an own goal. I tell them that they would then struggle to provide other services, lose pride in their local place, deprive people of career opportunities and make it more difficult to grow the local economy. We know that for every £1 spent on a theatre ticket or a live performance ticket, people are likely to spend several more on other things in the local community.

[Gareth Snell]

The other point that the Minister is making is that community theatres tend to solve the problems that drive the demand in those acute and expensive services in the first place, by giving people a social outlet.

[Chris Bryant]

That is a very good point. As I have regularly said, youth services have suffered tremendously in the last 14 years. If we can get the whole congregation of cultural, youth and leisure services to work together in the local community, it can radically affect people’s life chances and life choices.

My final point is that community theatre is not just about buildings. It is terribly easy to become obsessed about buildings, but my concern is whether we are getting the young actors we need from every type of background, not from only one background. That depends on making sure that every single school provides a proper creative education.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

That brings the curtain down on this debate. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have participated, both in leading roles and walk-on parts.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2025

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 General Committees

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2025.

What an utter delight it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Stuart. I do not suppose one could find a more esoteric or recherché piece of legislation than this one, but I hope everybody will endorse it. I am pleased to speak to this order, which was laid before the House in draft on 28 January. It is required under law so that the Government may continue to provide funding for the Churches Conservation Trust, known as the CCT, though not by anybody other than the people who write notes for Ministers.

The CCT takes into its care over 350 of the most impressive examples of our churches that are no longer required for regular worship. All these churches are listed, mostly at grade I and II*, and some are scheduled ancient monuments. The trust keeps these buildings open to the public and does not charge an entry fee, instead believing that historic buildings belong to everyone in the community. More importantly, the CCT works to bring these buildings back to life. Its regeneration team delivers major new-use projects for historic places of worship, working with local people to deliver award-winning projects such as the Seventeen Nineteen in the former Holy Trinity church in Sunderland.

In addition to restoring the buildings in its own care, the trust is taking the exciting opportunity to move its headquarters into a new space in Northampton: the derelict, grade II listed Old Black Lion pub, which will be brought back to life as a pub through an innovative regeneration project that will support the management and maintenance of St Peter’s church next door, while also becoming home to the trust’s national team.

The trust is supported through funding from both the Government, which is what we are approving today, and the Church of England. It has also sought to diversify its income streams in order to further support its activity at a time of pressure on public funding, including through donations, legacies and grant-giving foundations.

I hope the Committee shares my enthusiasm for the important work of the trust and the key role it plays in preserving and promoting a vital aspect of our nation’s heritage. The draft order will provide funding of over £3 million to the trust for 2025-26, and I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I will run through the various points that the hon. Member made. Some were not strictly speaking anything to do with the measure before us, but none the less I am happy to try to accommodate him.

First, the hon. Member knows that this is solely about redundant churches. It would be impossible for the trust to take on all the new redundant churches every year; it can take on only two or three or so. We do not want to overload the trust, and make it impossible for it to do its work. It is a sad fact that vast numbers of churches are passing into redundancy. They do not have a congregation, or certainly not one that is able to maintain them financially. There are churches that were built in areas where—and eras when—more people went to church, or it was hoped that more people would go to church than ever actually did, and some of them are very difficult to maintain.

The hon. Member is right that the heritage at risk register is problematic. This is not the only place that money comes from: the Church of England itself provides roughly 34% of the trust’s funding and the heritage lottery has committed something like £110 million over the next few years towards listed places of worship, so there are other means of trying to maintain listed places of worship that are also at-risk heritage sites.

The hon. Member asked about the listed places of worship scheme, which, as I say, is nothing to do with the draft order. He asked why a funding commitment is made one year at a time. To be honest, it has always been made one year at a time. When he was a Minister, the situation was exactly the same under his Government, year after year. That is why we have been able to make a commitment only for next year.

The hon. Member could have asked why the draft order is only a one-year commitment, because in previous years Governments have been able to make three-year commitments in relation to such orders. The reason is simply because we want to fit in with the spending review process. As he knows, the next spending review will cover the next three years, so we hope that the next time we lay an order, we will be able to match that three-year spending review process. I cannot guarantee that that is what we will do for the listed places of worship scheme, but the idea behind trying to go back to three-year spending review processes is that it would give much more security for people to make longer-term decisions, whether that is a local authority or a piece of heritage at risk—ecclesiastical, cultural or whatever it may be.

The hon. Member asked about the £25,000 cap on the scheme. Before we introduced that cap, which leads to an overall cap of some £23 million for the whole listed places of worship scheme for the year, we assessed what previous bids had led to, and 94% of bids were for less than £25,000, so we estimate that 94% of bids would be accounted for. Obviously, if multiple schemes are engaged, people can make multiple claims. Any claims that are received up until the end of this financial year are of course not subject to that cap.

The hon. Member asked about advice. I am afraid that I am unable to provide any further advice today, but we will certainly want to do so as soon as we can so that people can make secure decisions before 1 April. He will know that virtually every church in the land that has already made long-term commitments to rebuilding and restoration work has written into the Department, so we are well aware of the issues that many churches face.

Without the measure, we would be unable to give the £3 million and a bit that we will give to the trust in 2025-26, so I hope that the Committee will approve the measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Gifting of Navy Commissioners’ Barge

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

The National Maritime Museum, the organisation known by its brand name Royal Museums Greenwich (RMG), is seeking to dispose of a Navy commissioners’ barge via transfer by gift to another heritage body in the UK.

The barge was donated to the museum in 1935. There is no likelihood of the barge being displayed at any of the RMG sites in the foreseeable future and it is too large to store on any of the sites and make it accessible. Public accessibility is therefore best served elsewhere. RMG intends to deaccession and transfer the barge to Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust. Such transfers and disposals are a routine part of museum business and reflect museums’ ongoing review of their purpose, with changes to the collection reflecting that.

The barge has been valued at £400,000. It is the normal practice when a Government Department—in this instance an arm’s length body of the Department—proposes to make a gift of a value exceeding £300,000 for the Department concerned to present to the House of Commons a minute giving particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances, and to refrain from making the gift until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.

DCMS has written to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, informing them of the proposed course of action.

The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before the House of Commons, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval of the gift will be withheld pending an examination of the objection. I inform the House today of the departmental minute which sets out the detail of the decision, which has been laid in both Houses.

The transfer is expected to take place during the financial year 2025-26, subject to completion of the departmental minute process.

A copy of the departmental minute will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

[HCWS508]

Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Updated advice from the nations’ CMOs is so important because it can cascade through health systems to guide professionals and parents.

Finally, the Bill calls on Government to conduct more research and further develop the evidence and guidance that is so important for future action. Given how rapidly these devices and services are developing, it is vital that parents and carers are given up-to-date advice on the harm their children might be exposed to.

Why has this not been done before? The technology companies that are profiteering off this rewiring of childhood are incredibly effective at casting doubt over any evidence of a link between screen time and negative impacts on children. This is not the first time an industry has fought against a tide of evidence in order to keep peddling their product. In the 1960s, the tobacco industry was lobbying hard against the link between smoking and cancer. In the absence of evidence of a causal link, they cast doubt on the overwhelming correlational evidence available.

In the end, our Government acted on the basis of correlational studies using criteria set by the epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill. The criteria attempt to help policymakers to make decisions when causal studies do not exist. His criteria included that

“Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.”

For example, the fact that students across the western world began reporting feeling increasingly lonely in school from 2012 is important. Another criterion is that

“Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect”—

essentially, the dose-response effect.

Studies of multiple large datasets, including the UK’s own millennium cohort study, show that teenagers who are heavy users of social media are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, eating disorders, body dysmorphia and other mental health harms. It could take years for evidence of a causal link, through scientific studies, to be established. In the meantime, our children’s mental and physical health degrades, their education continues to be affected, and evidence of a correlation gets stronger and stronger. As lawmakers, we must use tools such as the Bradford Hill tests to make the best possible decisions with what we know now. We must act on excessive screen time today, in the same way that we acted on smoking back then. Like debates that were had on smoking and car seatbelts, it took a process of legislation, rather than one big-bang event. That is why starting with these initial steps today, then following them through with major action soon, will be so important.

Let me address head-on the arguments made against taking action to curb social media and smartphone use by children. As I see it there are five common arguments against action. First is that there is not enough evidence to act. Over the past few months, I and others have had a number of evidence sessions and engagements with experts that have shown that that is plainly untrue. Even so, where should the burden of evidence sit? Should it sit with parents and campaigners who have noticed the damage being done to their children, with children themselves who are calling for more support, or with the companies who are selling them products and services that are designed to be addictive and have completely transformed the nature of their childhood?

When it comes to protecting children from harm, a precautionary approach is surely advised. For almost any other product, companies would have to prove that it was safe before selling it to children, rather than being free to sell that product as they wish, until the evidence of harm becomes so overwhelming that something needs to be done. It is instructive that the US Surgeon General advice states that social media has not yet “been proved safe.”

Second is the argument that this is simply the latest in a line of moral panics. People used to fear that watching too much television would turn their eyes square; in the Victorian era, that reading novels would degrade intellect; or in the 20th century, that playing violent videogames would turn all our children into thugs. But for every example of overblown moral panic, we have many more examples of genuine public health crises that we took too long to address, but eventually were forced to tackle. Research that has come out this morning from More in Common demonstrates that this is not an issue of luddite older generations bemoaning shifting social trends. Concerns about social media and smartphone use are dominant in every generation, and half of generation Z regret the amount of time that they are spending on social media.

The third argument I hear is that the genie is out of the bottle, and it is too late to do anything now. Phones and social media are undoubtedly here to stay, but their harms do not need to be. Regulation can find a way of allowing children to experience the benefits of this technology, without being exposed, relentlessly, to its harms. As introducing seatbelt laws saved thousands of lives from road traffic accidents without killing off the car industry, introducing a virtual seatbelt can protect children from excessive screentime. Action in other countries, and our experience with the Online Safety Act 2023, early though it is, has shown that tech companies are not beyond the power of Governments.

The fourth argument, which tends to come from big tech, is that proper age verification is too difficult, and age restriction unproven—that the technology does not exist or is imperfect. As companies such as Yoti and many other age verification platforms show, that is no longer the case. I am also a technology optimist. The reason why this technology is not yet pervasive is insufficient demand. Introduce the regulation, and technology will have to catch up—we will see that in Australia later this year.

There are some suggestions that it is not the Government’s job to get involved and that this is an issue of parental responsibility. That misses the point that this is a collective action problem. Parents and children alone are not able to establish new, shared rules for something that is addictive at a societal level. The reason why smartphones and social media are causing so much stress and conflict in families is that we are giving parents the unenviable choice of either removing devices and ostracising their children or giving into demands for access and living with the health, sleep and learning consequences.

Additionally, not only are parental controls at device, operating system and app level confusing and opaque, but our own existing data laws give children as young as 13 the power over their data that means that they can opt out of those parental controls in year 8 of secondary school. We disempower parents on a problem that is common across society, then when they ask for help, we say that it is a matter of personal responsibility. I hope that today’s debate can bury the argument that responsibility for this problem lies with parents struggling with that impossible challenge.

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

I just thought my hon. Friend might like know that I will not be making any of the arguments that he is arguing I should not argue.

[Josh MacAlister]

I welcome the Minister’s intervention, and I am glad to have boxed off those five.

There are moments when politics falls behind the public mood. The process and traditions of our democratic system make it difficult to keep up with the rapidly evolving world of tech and social media, but this Parliament works best when it is a reflection of the problems and concerns of the people and a Chamber for earnest problem solving and action. Over the last few months, I have been encouraged by the sheer volume of support for this Bill and this debate, which comes from across the country, across the ages and across the House. My firm belief is that unless we as politicians are able to be the disruptors on this issue and solve it, we will be left being disrupted by it. Acting assertively together and sooner will bring benefits for our tech industry and public services, the quality of family life in the UK and, most importantly, the opportunities for our children. For those reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not convinced that the guidance created by this Bill will be any more authoritative than that created by the NSPCC or by Internet Matters. The point I was making was not necessarily that the guidance is going to be pivotal, but that we need to get to a critical mass of observance before guidance is likely to have any impact. The original Bill was likely to do that, not least through the ban in schools, which created a nucleus of clear space for children that could be translated into homes. Many Members may have heard on the BBC this morning a short piece on the Fulham boys school, which has an absolute ban on even bringing a smartphone to school. That ban during the school period has resulted in the periods before and after school also being phone-free, and therefore much more social and beneficial to those pupils.

[Chris Bryant]

I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be slightly less sceptical about the value of CMO advice. As he knows, I have campaigned for many years on acquired brain injury, particularly in relation to concussion or sub-concussive events in sport. It was a very significant change when, under the previous Administration, the British Government brought forward specific advice in relation to concussion in sport. That has changed practices in lots of sports around the country, and I am hopeful that authoritative advice of this kind could make a significant difference.

[Kit Malthouse]

I would be willing to accept the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement if this were advice to schools, but it is not; it is advice to parents and carers. If there were going to be authoritative advice for schools, as well as other organisations that have charge of children—scout troops, children’s clubs, and other publicly funded organisations that look after children—I would have said, “Possibly,” even though there is to be a 12-month delay before the CMO tells us stuff we already know, as the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington pointed out.

The second step is for the Government to publish a plan for research within 12 months. That is not the conclusion of research, and there is no time limit—just a plan, a vague aspiration that we should have a plan, with no commencement, no sense of budget and no idea of when it might come. I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington has been sold a cosmetic pup.

The third and final point is that the Government have to publish this “assessment”—whatever that may be—which, as far as I can see, is fundamentally to tell us something we already know, and which the hon. Gentleman has illustrated extremely vividly. We should all be furious about the delay and prevarication that is being injected into what could have been a huge step forward for parents and children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I come to this debate as somebody who bought their first mobile phone 30 years ago, at the age of 23—I was hoping Members would look more surprised at that. [Laughter.]

[Chris Bryant]

Division!

[Mr Quigley]

I thank the Minister for that. I remember clearly the joy of phoning the landline from bed and asking my housemates to bring me a cup of tea, the excitement of sending and receiving my first text message and the infantile joy of playing Snake while waiting for a train. No one could have predicted where we would be by this point.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for introducing the Bill, which is an essential step forward for online safety. It demonstrates his genuine commitment to addressing this critical issue and raises awareness in this place and across the country of the pressing need for a legally recognised age of internet adulthood to correspond with the very adult content available online. For too long, tech bosses have moved forward unchecked while our children have borne the consequences of algorithms that, at best, are designed to create a generation of screen addicts and, at worst, expose young people to harmful and disturbing content.

Fifteen years ago, many tech leaders claimed that the rising mental health crisis among children and young people was unrelated to screen use. However, emerging data refutes that. A study from King’s College London revealed that nearly 25%—one in four, for those who still use old money—of children and young people engage with their smartphones in a manner consistent with behavioural addiction. Indeed, we are not dealing with the same passive tech bosses who were satisfied in just promoting that addictive quality to sell their platforms to children. Even in the past year, the digital landscape has shifted so much that some tech bosses are actively refusing to remove violent material and eating disorder content from their platforms, under the guise that doing so would infringe those individuals’ free speech. As we all know, there is a considerable disparity between the two, which is why I strongly support raising the age of digital adulthood.

This issue is particularly urgent in my constituency of the Isle of Wight West, where young people face some of the highest rates of under-18 mental health and self-harm-related hospital admissions in the south-east—they are also among the highest in the country. Accessing the necessary support is made even more difficult by the island’s isolation. The high cost and limited availability of ferry travel—hon. Members were waiting for me to say that—creates significant barriers, leaving many young people struggling without the help they need. Already facing the pressures of an increasingly connected world, they are further disadvantaged by transport restrictions that make seeking specialist care on the mainland far more challenging.

Tech companies have proved time and again that they see kids as nothing more than pound signs. The more time that platforms can keep children glued to their screens, the more money they make, and they achieve that by maliciously harvesting their data and using it to push content designed to keep them hooked, prioritising what is most addictive over what is safest. By prohibiting tech companies from collecting data from under-16s, the Bill would aim at the heart of the exploitative algorithms designed to keep young users online for longer. It would ensure that children are no longer targeted with addictive content designed to prioritise profit over their wellbeing. I therefore support the Bill.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) on bringing his private Member’s Bill to the House. I am proud to be one of its sponsors. It has clearly been a complicated journey to get to this point, and the Bill may not resemble quite what he originally had in mind, but the sheer fact of introducing the Bill has lit up a national conversation about the impact of smartphone use and social media on our children. The conversation was growing ever louder, but it has now spilled over passionately into the inboxes of nearly every Member of the House.

The Bill may not be as ambitious as some would like, and the wheels may turn slowly in this place—far slower than the lightning pace of modern tech—but I assure every one of my constituents in South Devon who wrote to me about the Bill and who campaign loudly on this topic that their voices have been heard. Within the bounds of our political system, we as MPs, parents and grandparents not only have heard them, but share their concerns. I hope that this is just the first step on a journey that will be far-reaching and fairly swift.

I know that I am not alone in being somewhat disappointed that the Bill is but a shadow of its former self and that the Government are so timid in what they are willing to do to try to save our children and young people from something that is clearly causing them considerable harm. That is why the Liberal Democrats have decided to pick up the baton and table an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, calling on the Government to bring UK data law into line with many other European countries by raising to 16 the minimum age that a user must be before an internet company can collect, process and store their data without parental consent.

I look forward to seeing the guidance from the UK chief medical officer on the impact of smartphones and social media on children. Six years is a long time in the tech world and we know that much has changed since the guidance was last written in 2019. I also welcome funding for more research into the impacts of social media and phone use. I expect the new research will not differ too much from what has already been written, following studies from various developed countries, including the UK, Japan, Canada and Australia: that over the past 10 years, a period in which smartphone usage has exploded, the number of mental health admissions to hospital in teenagers has risen by 65%; that admissions for eating disorders among girls aged 11 to 15 have gone up by a staggering 638%; that childhood myopia is up 50%; that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnoses are up 56%; and that more and more children are struggling with difficult speech and language challenges. No, we cannot say for sure that there is a direct causal link, but we can see the trendlines in the graphs. We know they started rising before the pandemic was ever heard of, and we know it is not just the UK that is experiencing such troubling developments.

We do a lot to protect our children in this country, and that is down to a mixture of practice, custom and legislation. We generally do not let our children smoke or drink, and we certainly do not let them drive cars. We put babies in ever more sophisticated car seats, and we know that it is not a good idea to put fizzy drinks in babies’ bottles. Yet a recent Ofcom report said: 100% of 17-years-olds have a mobile phone; 28% of five to seven-year-olds have one; and, most worrying still, 17% of three to four-year-olds have one. Yet medical professionals from all disciplines tell us of the harm children are experiencing from long hours spent glued to a screen.

As a proud co-sponsor of the Bill, I too have heard from health professionals who have given evidence to us on mental health, obesity, eyesight and more. We heard heart-rending stories from parents whose children had been subject to the most horrific online abuse and from some who have, unbearably, lost their precious children as a result of harms in the digital world. While their stories were extreme and deeply troubling, somehow, incredibly, it did not even seem that shocking that the online world had wrought such devastating harm to real lives.

What is happening online is clearly impacting the everyday lives of children and teenagers, and we, as responsible adults and legislators, have a duty to try and mitigate those harms. I am thinking particularly of the horrible, dangerous misogyny of the likes of Andrew Tate, which is being lapped up by boys who are under his influence—boys who then spread his misogynistic hate speech. I am thinking of the violent pornography which is being accessed and viewed by children as young as nine or 10; pornography that is not just naked pictures like you would find in an old-fashioned top-shelf magazine, I’m told—

[Chris Bryant]

You’re not old enough.

[Caroline Voaden]

Thank you.

We know that violent pornography that celebrates assault and rape is leading to an increase in harmful practices, such as strangulation, that it warps the way young people view sexual relationships, and that it is directly impacting on health and wellbeing, particularly of young women, across the country.

Yesterday, this Chamber heard some brilliant and impassioned speeches from many women hon. Members, timed to coincide with International Women’s Day tomorrow. And on a day that celebrates women, we think about girls too. I do not want our girls to think they have to share nude photos to be liked, or to worry themselves sick about the shape of their body to the point that they stop eating.

We have heard about the rise in the number of children who have speech and language challenges. It is known that sticking a baby in front of an iPad will not help it learn to communicate. Babies need interaction with human faces and voices to learn. We heard about how children’s eyesight is worsening because they spend so many hours looking at a closely held screen. We all know about the incessant rise in poor mental health, anxiety and depression among teenagers. Parents across my constituency of South Devon are desperate to protect their children, but overwhelmed by the digital world and the power it has over young people. They want us to support them with legislation, so that they can push back against the might of the tech giants. We must not let the tech giants lobby us in the way that tobacco companies did so successfully for decades.

Children are addicted to screens because of wicked algorithms that lure them in and keep them hooked; struggling with their body image because they do not look like the influencers they are watching; depressed at their lives because they do not resemble the doctored, airbrushed, Instagram image of perfection they see on their screens; and brainwashed by influencers who spew toxic messages through their pages. They know this, but they find it hard to counteract it, and we know that the brightest brains in the tech world have designed social media apps to do exactly that. One former Facebook employee said:

“You have a business model designed to engage you and get you to basically suck as much time out of your life as possible and then selling that attention to advertisers.”

We must unlock the potential of technology by designing it with children and young people in mind. Our amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill would not ban children under 16 from social media; instead, and more importantly, online services would need to change how they deal with children’s data and create a less addictive, more child-friendly online environment. Our amendment calls on the Government to prioritise robust standards for digital technology, so that rights and privacy are upheld by design and default.

In Devon, 2,591 parents have signed the pact saying that they will not buy their child a smartphone, yet we know that tech use is one of the biggest causes of friction in families, and parents need our support to back that choice. It is a public health matter. The Liberal Democrats are open to the idea of a legal ban on smartphone use in schools, enshrining existing guidance into law. We hope the Government will look seriously at that. This measure should not be about restricting freedoms; it should be about creating an environment conducive to learning and free from distractions. We also understand the need for discretion, and exceptions must be made for young carers or children who use smartphones to monitor health conditions, ensuring fairness and practicality.

Parents must be empowered to protect their children online, including through digital literacy education, and advice and support for parents on best practice is key. I also want to see a public health programme similar to those we have seen on seatbelts and smoking over the years, so that no parent can be left unaware of the potential harms of letting small children become addicted to a device that will cause so much harm as they grow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Asato]

I am incredibly grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. That is very true. We have seen a huge 40% increase in the use of strangulation of women in sexual relationships, and there is much to suggest that this is related to more and more young people watching strangulation in pornography online. That is another subject, but I would definitely like to see that go as well.

It is really important that the commencement of age verification in the Online Safety Act, which was introduced by the previous Government and supported by those on the Labour Front Bench at the time, must be upheld and to the most robust standards. I look forward to the Minister saying that that is exactly what the Government will do.

[Chris Bryant]

That is exactly what the Government will do.

[Jess Asato]

I am grateful to the Minister.

Social media is fuelling the rise of extremist misogyny online and normalising harassment and violence against women and girls in real life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) so bravely recounted in this place yesterday, we are not immune to that in this place. Some 90% of girls say they have been sent an explicit picture or video. The New Britain Project, More in Common and the National Education Union recently ran a focus group in my constituency with parents about their children’s access to smartphones. In the group, a mother spoke of how her daughter was so regularly sent dick pics that, by the age of 15, she was used to drawing a little sombrero on the picture, sending it back and blocking the sender. The mother said:

“No child that age should be seeing male penises. It is quite traumatic, isn’t it, for a kid to be witnessing that kind of thing? But it is everywhere.”

Children should not be forced to find a way to cope—with funny pictures—because something incessantly traumatises them. We would not accept our children being flashed in the streets, so why is it different online? Why do we not expect the tech companies to act? Their products allow this to happen to our children all day, every day, yet we still do not have any movement from them.

We know that the problem is only getting worse, particularly with the use of Al and the rise of nude deepfakes. Thankfully, the Government are now taking strong action on deepfakes, but I urge them to go further by considering age verification for app stores, so that our young people know that when they access app stores, the content is right for their age and level of development.

Online sexual crimes committed against children have risen by 400% since 2013. A generation is growing up chronically online, raised by the internet, and we cannot stand idly by in the name of freedom or freedom of speech. There is no freedom in addiction, in being harmed or in children being underdeveloped because they have not experienced socialisation, the great outdoors, the pleasure of books, or simply not being harmed by being sent horrible things that they should not have to see.

Children in the online world are taught to look up to role models with unhealthy opinions, unrealistic beauty standards and conspicuous wealth beyond their dreams. Children are being marketed to and sold to, all day, every day. When they cannot afford or look like what they see, they feel worthless. Children are cyber-bullied. They are exposed to content that encourages self-harm and competitive anorexia, and romanticises suicide. That has already caused untold harm for parents who have seen their children take their own lives after engaging with such material. Our children are becoming infected by an epidemic of loneliness.

At some point, we in this place have to say, “Enough is enough.” As a parent of young children, I know that parents cannot and should not be expected to do this alone; we need a decisive legal and cultural shift that reclaims childhood for the real world. Every month there is a “How to detox from social media” article about taking ourselves away from toxic social media—just like how to detox after Christmas. We read that content as adults, because we also struggle to stop looking at social media, so why do we expect our children to exercise self-control that we ourselves do not have?

The UK must follow countries such as Australia by raising the age of online consent from 13 to 16. Some 55% of Gen Z and 86% of parents in the UK support that idea, and 130,000 people recently signed a petition on the UK Parliament website to that effect. I also believe that we need to create a new watershed of social norms by banning smartphones at school. Too many of the headteachers I speak to who are doing the right thing by banning smartphones in their schools tell me that they get complaints from students and parents who see that other schools do things differently. It makes it harder for parents to enforce rules and norms in their own homes when they cannot point to principles that the whole country adheres to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but having spent a great deal of time talking about raising the digital age of consent and having asked my constituents to email me if they wanted me to be present in this House today specifically to vote for that, rather than working in the constituency, I wish that he had presented a Bill that said that, because we could then have voted on it and it would have passed. Of course, the Government might have killed it off at a later stage, but I actually think they might have been too embarrassed to do that.

There is nothing in this Bill that requires legislation. The Secretary of State could ask the UK’s chief medical officers to provide their advice, as clause 1 requires, and they would do so. The Secretary of State could publish a plan for research, as required by clause 2, and an assessment, as required by clause 3. The sad truth is that this Bill achieves precisely nothing, and the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington should be a little bit ashamed of having campaigned so vigorously and then presented this Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

I have seen an awful lot of Bills in my time, since 2001, and nearly every one has contained something that did not actually need to be in legislation but that, none the less, was put in as a declaratory statement by the House. When a Bill has big support, it tends to be something that effects change. That might very well be the same effect that we have today.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I agree with the Minister that often a Bill will contain something that is merely declaratory. Has he ever seen a Bill that is wholly declaratory and contains nothing that actually requires legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

I will run through some of the contributions to the debate and then give specific answers to some of the points that have been made. First, I will probably have the unanimous support of the House in praising my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am slightly worried that he was referred to as a patron saint earlier, because the danger with patron saints is that they tend to be martyred at some point in their career, and I do not wish that for him. As I said earlier, I am not going to make any of the arguments that he told me not to make, because I do not subscribe to them. I am also not going to make any arguments today against action—that is an important point that the House needs to recognise. Everybody accepts that action in this sphere is inevitable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) gave us some shocking statistics from her constituency, as have many other Members. The hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), who is no longer in her place—[Interruption.] Oh, she is here; sorry, I would not want to mislead the House. She fessed up to her own social media use, but she did not tell us how many hours a day it is, so we were watching her throughout the debate to see how much time she was spending on social media.

It is absolutely true that many of us are just as addicted as many young people, and while our specific concern is about the effects on the mental health of children, there are of course issues for the whole of society. Other Members have referred to misinformation and how it is propagated, and how to access good, reliable information in a world that is profoundly chaotic, where algorithms do not necessarily subscribe to truth in the way that previous understandings of the media used to. I note that the hon. Member for Reigate said that the state must step in—we will hold her to that on many more occasions in future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) made some very important points, including that it is sometimes the most vulnerable children who experience these effects. She also pointed—as did several other Members—to the desensitising effect on boys, in particular, who see versions of sex online that normalise a set of expectations about what a relationship with another person might be and what sex might involve that are wholly alien to most people’s understanding of what they should be.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) made a point that was also made in a previous Westminster Hall debate on this issue: does the burden of proof lie with those trying to prove that there is no harm, or with those trying to prove that there is harm? It is important that we look at the evidence in the round and come to a coherent, sensible, one-Government decision on how we can make progress in this field.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with a wiser person than me, who said that our psychology is neolithic, our institutions are from the middle ages and our technology is of today, and that we have to get better at being able to engage with that technology?

[Chris Bryant]

I think it was John Prescott who said something about ancient values in a modern setting. As we move forward, we need to secure the liberty of the individual at the same time as we protect the vulnerable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White) made the point that she has had twice as much correspondence on this subject as on any other this year. She made a really important point, which applies not only to this area, but to many other areas in which we work with young people: if we possibly can, it is very important to be able to extend the years of childhood that a child gets to enjoy. Many years ago, I wrote a report about teenage pregnancy in my constituency. That is another aspect of trying to ensure that where children delay their first sexual experience, it is almost certainly better for them and leads to better personal, social and other outcomes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) made a point about children attending A&E with psychiatric conditions. I urge him to be slightly cautious about the statistics here, because the work that I have done on acquired brain injuries suggests that sometimes people are actually presenting with a brain injury, rather than a psychiatric condition. That is one of the areas where we need to be much more intelligent about how we get data that informs our research.

We heard from the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding)—incidentally, I see “Esher and Walton” written down and think, “That must be a Conservative Member of Parliament,” so it is such a delight when I find that it is not.

[Melanie Ward]

In my constituency and across my area of Fife we have a real problem with violence and aggression in schools. Every week for the last month there has been a violent attack by children on children, and on almost every occasion it is filmed, shared on social media and amplified. Does the Minister agree that that is a real reason why we need action?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The use of a mobile phone as another form of aggression is a very disturbing part of the trend we have seen. She is quite right that we need to consider action in that field.

The hon. Member for Esher and Walton referred to services that are “inherently addictive by design”. I think there is actually a contradiction in terms there. They are not inherently addictive; they are addictive by design. Those are two quite different things. We should strive to achieve no services provided for children being addictive by design, which is precisely one of the things that the Government are determined about.

I should say to the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) that I indicated earlier that I had had no meetings with tech by making a zero with my fingers, but that is not quite true. I had a meeting a few months ago with Baroness Jones and TikTok, although I expressed as strongly as many Members have in this debate the kind of views that they have in relation to the operation of TikTok. It is not that I have been convinced by TikTok—if anything, we were trying to put the argument to it about the need for responsible activity in this field.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. In his negotiations with the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), he will have consulted and taken direction from No. 10. One of the concerns, given that he has instituted an investigation into the impact of UK legislation on American tech firms, is that President Trump might be upset if we were to take these kinds of steps. How much of that has been a consideration in him effectively filleting this Bill?

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman is beginning to subscribe to conspiracy theories. I have had no role in any negotiations with my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington or with Downing Street on these matters, and I have not taken into consideration anything in relation to what Donald Trump might think about this field.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) said that he is 32, which is obviously very difficult to believe. He referred to smartphones in 2007, but 3G was launched in 2001. I am slightly conscious that when I was at school, the only thing we were rowing about was whether we were allowed to take electronic calculators into O-level maths exams, so I sometimes feel a little out of my depth with all these young expressions of interest.

[Kit Malthouse]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Chris Bryant]

I bet this is not a point of order.

[Kit Malthouse]

It is a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if you could give us guidance as to whether we actually have the right Minister responding to this Bill. If there were negotiations with the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) about the Bill, one would expect the Minister who had conducted those negotiations, and who was therefore able to speak to the decisions that have been made, to appear at the Dispatch Box. Have we got the right person?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. However, that is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Government to decide which Minister they put up to speak.

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid you will have to put up with me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) referred to the fear of missing out, which is such a potent aspect of many young people’s lives. It had its previous version before digital arrived, but it is so much more acute now, and it cuts in so many different ways at the same time. She also referred to Ellen Roome and the issues in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which we will discuss in the Public Bill Committee next Tuesday and Thursday, and then on Report in a few weeks’ time. I look forward to her contributions.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), with whom I cannot compete for youth, made a very important point: one of the positive effects that social media can introduce, and which was not available to me when I was trying to work out, at the age of 15 or 16, whether I was gay, is that there is a diaspora—there are other worlds where there are people a bit more like me. That is a release for many young people, so being able to harness what is good in social media, and to lose what is bad, is the key task for us.

Nothing could matter more than the mental, physical and spiritual health of our young people. There are many aspects to that health, including addiction to alcohol, drugs, gambling and, I would argue, as many others have done today, smartphone use. Harmful messages about body image, violent and risky sex, radicalisation, bullying, self-confidence and taking one’s own life are all part of that. Physical health is, of course, part of mental and spiritual health. As many Members have mentioned, getting out and about, eye-to-eye contact and brain development all matter. Let us be absolutely clear: excessive smartphone use is engaged in all aspects of mental, spiritual and, I would argue, physical ill health.

Algorithms can be set to increase addictive scrolling. Apps with weak age verification processes expose children to completely inappropriate material. The business model for some tech companies is not always conducive to children’s health. We also have to consider the benefits of limited, rather than excessive, use of smartphones. A lot of modern life is accessed online, including homework. Social media can gather diaspora, but that too can be a minefield.

If hon. Members have not seen “Under the Volcano”, which is a Polish film about a Ukrainian family stuck in Tenerife at the point of Putin’s second invasion of Ukraine three years ago, they should watch it, because the children in the film are absolutely terrified of what social media is going to tell them about what is happening back at home. I am also conscious that for some neurodiverse youngsters, social media is an absolutely vital means of ensuring their health.

We fully recognise the difficulties facing parents, teachers and youth workers in adjudicating rows, as has often been referred to. Teachers know that they are part of a child’s life for only 20% of their time, so the social expectations on parents are just as important as anything else. I fully recognise the complaint that I hear regularly from young people in my constituency: “There’s nothing else to do around here.” A hundred years ago, in every one of our constituencies, there would have been youth clubs, Scouts and Guides, and lots of different organisations that specifically catered for young people to do active things outside the home. Many of those things barely exist today, and that is part of what we need to look at.

Let me talk specifically about what we will do and what we are doing. I wish that the Online Safety Act 2023 had been introduced in 2020, 2021 or 2022, because it was far too delayed. It is extremely frustrating for Ministers that it has taken so long to get to this point. We are working with Ofcom to implement every element of the Act as fast as we can, but some elements are written into the Act itself. The Secretary of State wrote to Ofcom on 16 October last year to say that we want to implement everything as fast as we can, while taking on board the criticisms that some people have made of Ofcom.

The illegal content codes have now passed parliamentary scrutiny and will come into force this month; I hope that will produce some change. The draft children’s safety codes which have been referred to are nearly finalised. The child safety regime will be in effect by the summer, which is good news, and the Online Safety Act itself, in section 178, says that it must be reviewed. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has launched its own feasibility study of the impact of smartphones and social media use, which will report in May. It is being run by the University of Cambridge and a consortium of experts. We hope that the Bill will help us to build on that feasibility study, so that we have the information that we need to take a considered view. We will work to roughly the same timetable as the one for which the Bill provides. The closer we can get to a causal and direct relationship between smartphone use and mental health issues, and to clear evidence of the best, most effective, and most appropriate and proportionate intervention by the Government, the better.

We are introducing further measures in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Under clauses 91, 124 and 81, new requirements for the design of processing activities by information society services likely to be accessed by children, so that they can be protected and supported, will make a significant difference.

The Bill’s recommendations chime very much with what we intend to do, and are helpful in that direction. Of course we want the Online Safety Act to bed in; of course we want to implement the data Bill and those new provisions; of course we want to conduct fuller, more authoritative research and provide clear advice for teachers and parents across the land; and of course this is not the end of the matter. I shall be amazed if there is not further legislation in this area in the coming years. I commend the campaigners who have made such a strong case to us, via my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington.

The words of the paediatrician mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) are ringing in my mind. There is no option of inaction for this House or this country. There has to be action, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington for introducing the Bill today.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jeff Smith.)

Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water that is provided. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if after having spoken Members could email their notes to [e-mail], or pass on their written speaking notes to the Hansard colleague in the Committee Room.

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

I beg to move,

That—

1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 4 March) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 March;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 March;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 March;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 March;

(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 March;

2. the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 56; Schedule 1; Clauses 57 and 58; Schedule 2; Clauses 59 to 65; Schedule 3; Clauses 66 to 70; Schedule 4; Clause 71; Schedule 5; Clauses 72 to 80; Schedule 6; Clauses 81 to 85; Schedules 7 to 9; Clauses 86 to 103; Schedule 10; Clauses 104 to 108; Schedule 11; Clauses 109 to 112; Schedule 12; Clauses 113 to 115; Schedule 13; Clauses 116 and 117; Schedule 14; Clauses 118 to 121; Schedule 15; Clause 122; Schedule 16; Clauses 123 to 147; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 18 March.

It is a great delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner; I cannot wait to hear you tell me off repeatedly during the course of the Committee’s proceedings. In the words of Julie Andrews—this is material—

“Let’s start at the very beginning,

A very good place to start.

When you read you begin with A-B-C.

When you sing you begin with do-re-mi”,

but when you start a Bill Committee, you start with clause 1. Basically, the programme motion says, “Let’s start with clause 1 and keep on going till we come to the end.” With that said, I commend the motion to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Chris Bryant.)

[The Chair]

Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to Members by email.

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped are generally on the same or a similar issue. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debate and decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses.

Clause 1

Customer data and business data

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Consumer Data Right: multi-sector extension—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, publish a roadmap for implementing a cross-sector ‘Consumer Data Right’ to enable individuals and small businesses to control and share their data securely and effectively in the following sectors—

(a) energy,

(b) telecommunications,

(c) financial services, and

(d) such other sectors as regulations may specify.

(2) The roadmap under subsection (1) must set out—

(a) technical standards and data portability protocols,

(b) timelines for phased implementation in each sector,

(c) consumer protection measures, and

(d) oversight responsibilities for any designated cross-sector data regulator.

(3) In preparing the roadmap, the Secretary of State must consult relevant regulators, consumer groups, industry representatives, and any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to implement the Consumer Data Right in additional sectors or extend obligations in existing ones.

(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop and publish a roadmap for extending “smart data” portability rights beyond finance to other sectors, such as energy and telecommunications.

[Chris Bryant]

Strictly speaking, it is a misnomer to say that we do the Bill line by line; we do it clause by clause, or grouping by grouping. The first grouping contains clause 1 and new clause 15, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted.

Clauses 1 to 26 establish regulation-making powers to implement smart data schemes. I think this part of the Bill is universally accepted, or it was in a previous version of the Bill—this is at least the third version of the Bill that a House of Commons Committee has considered line by line, clause by clause or grouping by grouping. These clauses were part 3 of the old Bill, but it is none the less important that we go through each of the clauses segment by segment, because this is a newly constituted House of Commons, with different Members and political parties, and therefore we have to consider them fully.

As many hon. Members will know, smart data involves traders securely sharing data with the customer or authorised third parties at the customer’s request. Those third parties may use the data to provide the customer with innovative services, including account management services or price comparisons. This has already been spectacularly successful in open banking.

Clause 1 defines the key terms and scope of part 1, which covers clauses 1 to 26. Subsection (2) defines the kinds of data to which part 1 applies: “customer data”, which is information specific to a customer of a trader, and “business data”, which is generic data relating to the goods, services or digital content provided by that trader. It also defines “data holder” and “trader” to clarify who may be required to provide data. That covers persons providing the goods, services or digital content, whether they are doing so themselves or through others, or processing related data.

Subsections (3) to (5) set out who is a customer of a trader. Customers can include both consumers and businesses such as companies. Subsection (6) recognises that regulations may provide for data access rather than transfer.

I commend clause 1 to the Committee and urge hon. Members to resist the temptations offered by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, who tabled new clause 15. I thank her for her interest in smart data. We had a very good conversation a week ago. I am glad to be able to confirm that, following some pressure from the Liberal Democrats in the other place, the Government announced that the Department for Business and Trade intends to publish a strategy document later this year on future uses of those powers. Since the hon. Member’s new clause asks for a road map and we are saying that there will be a strategy, the difference between us may just be semantic.

The strategy document will lay out the Government’s plans to consult or conduct calls for evidence in a number of sectors. It is important that we implement those powers only after having properly spoken with relevant parties such as consumer groups and industry bodies in the sector. Clause 22 also requires consultation before commencement in any sector. As such, we think the best approach is to use powers in part 1 of the Bill to implement smart data schemes that fit the identified needs of the relevant sector. The strategy document will set out the Government’s plans for doing so. For that reason, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I thank all hon. Members taking part in the Committee as well as the officials. As the Minister said, this is the third iteration of this Bill and it has been extensively covered in Committee before. We rely on and thank former Members and those in the other place who worked on the Bill to get it to where it is. I am pleased that the Government are taking the Bill forward and that it is one of the early Bills in the Session.

There is much to say about the Bill that is positive, and not just because it is a reformed version of our previous two Bills. Although, ironically, the Bill does not reference the term “smart data”, clause 1 brings forward smart data and smart data schemes. That will help to open up a digital revolution, which will build on the successes of open banking in other sectors. We very much support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

We are already committed to a strategy; I am not sure whether we need a road map for the strategy, and I would prefer us not to have such a thing in the Bill. It would also be slightly limiting, as the new clause effectively gives a list of priority areas. We want to explore quite a lot of other sectors; for instance, we might make a radical difference to the gig economy if we were to look at that sector. The hon. Lady made a good point about telecoms, although it might be specifically about smart meters. If we could turn a smart meter into an actually smart meter, which would require some telecoms work, smart data might be able to deliver cheaper bills for people. Notwithstanding the fact that I like the sentiment behind the new clause, I would resist it, so I hope the hon. Lady will not push it to a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Power to make provision in connection with customer data

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 3 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Now we are on a winning streak. Clause 2 provides the principal authority for the relevant Secretary of State or the Treasury to establish smart data schemes in relation to customer data. The Government envisage that most smart data schemes will involve providing access to customer data. Clause 3 provides a non-exhaustive list of supplementary provisions that may be contained in regulations relating to customer data under clause 2. These include important matters such as requirements for data holders and/or third-party recipients to use specified facilities or services to ensure that smart data schemes can run effectively.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Power to make provision in connection with business data

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 5 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 4 provides regulation-making powers that allow the relevant Secretary of State and the Treasury to require the publication of business data or the provision of business data to customers or third parties. Business data is envisaged to be contextual information provided alongside customer data, such as the price of products and services, for comparison. The Government, however, do see some uses where schemes focused on business data could be appropriate.

I should briefly say that I know there are quite a few points in the Bill where we are providing regulation-making powers. Although in general, I am not a big fan of secondary legislation, because it limits the ability of Parliament to scrutinise, it is important in an area where there is rapid technological change to provide Government Ministers with the power to enact regulations. These have already been considered by the relevant House of Lords Committee as well. The purpose of clause 5 is provide a non-exhaustive list of supplementary provisions that regulations under clause 4 can contain relating to business data. The clause largely mirrors clause 3 and contains important provisions relevant to the exercise of powers relating to business data under a smart data scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Decision-makers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

This clause applies when regulations provide for a person, referred to as a decision maker, to decide whether third-party recipients satisfy conditions allowing them to be authorised by a customer to receive customer data or to act on the customer’s behalf under clause 2 or approved to receive business data under clause 4. that approach of regulating who can receive the data may not be suitable for all smart data schemes, but where it is, it will provide customers with confidence that the third parties they authorise meet approved standards. If regulations provide for a decision maker, they must also provide for the rights of those affected by decisions. These rights may include review of decisions and appeal rights to ensure transparency and accountability.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Interface bodies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

This clause allows regulations to require the creation of interface bodies. These bodies may provide facilities and services, set standards or make related arrangements for data sharing interfaces, including application programming interfaces. Regulations may require data holders or third-party recipients to set up and fund an interface body. The role that Open Banking Ltd plays is an example of what we consider an interface body might look like under these regulations.

It is worth pointing out that the vast majority of people in this country would have no idea that smart data is what is behind their ability to have two bank accounts on one mobile phone and for the two speak to each other. There may be significant advantages for us unleashing this in other sectors as well.

Subsection (4) sets out provisions that regulations may make about the interface bodies. Among other things, regulations may confer powers on an interface body for monitoring the use of its interface, interface standards or interface arrangements. That could include powers to require the provision of documents or information subject to restrictions in clause 9, which we will come to later. Regulations may also provide procedures for complaints and enable or require interface bodies to publish or provide persons with specified documents or information relating to their functions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Enforcement of regulations under this Part

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 12, line 18, leave out “imposed by a decision-maker” and insert

“(referred to in sections 3(2) and 5(3))”.

This amendment amends a reference to conditions for authorisation or approval to receive customer data or business data so as to reflect the fact that conditions will not necessarily be imposed by decision-makers.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 2 to 5.

Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Government amendment 1 amends clause 8(5) to reflect that the conditions relating to authorisation or approval of third-party recipients will not necessarily be imposed by the decision makers who carry out the authorisation or approval. Government amendments 2, 3 and 5 amend clause 8(10) to require or allow enforcers to publish or provide documents as well as information, ensuring consistency with the powers of decision makers and interface bodies. Government amendment 4 removes unnecessary wording in subsection (10) to ensure consistency with equivalent clauses elsewhere. I commend these minor and technical amendments to the Committee.

Clause 8 enables regulations to confer powers on public bodies, known as enforcers, to monitor and enforce compliance with smart data schemes. Monitoring powers include requiring information and powers of inspection. Enforcement powers include issuing notices requiring compliance, naming and shaming non-compliance, and imposing financial penalties. Regulations may create criminal offences for falsification or similar conduct. To ensure accountability and transparency, regulations may provide for reviews of enforcers’ decisions, appeal rights, and complaint procedures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

We support technical amendments to the Bill to make sure it works properly, but I am intrigued why these amendments are necessary at such a late stage, bearing in mind the multiple layers of scrutiny that the Bill has gone through. Can he explain where he received the feedback about the necessity of the proposed changes?

[Chris Bryant]

As the hon. Gentleman says, these are technical changes, and sometimes we just have to go through it again and again to make sure that we have got things right. Amendment 4, for instance, was simply a matter of working out that the grammar did not really work. Sometimes, it is just a question of filleting, I am afraid, and that is what we have been doing.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 2, in clause 8, page 13, line 16, after second “specified” insert “documents or”.

This amendment provides that regulations may require enforcers to publish or provide documents as well as information, making the regulation-making powers in relation to enforcers consistent with the powers in relation to decision-makers and interface bodies (under clauses 6(9) and 7(4)(k)). See also Amendments 3 and 5.

Amendment 3, in clause 8, page 13, line 18, leave out “information about” and insert—

“documents or information relating to”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.

Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 13, line 18, leave out—

“, either generally or in relation to a particular case”.

This amendment leaves out unnecessary words. Power for regulations to make provision generally or in relation to particular cases is conferred by clause 21(1)(a).

Amendment 5, in clause 8, page 13, line 20, leave out “information about” and insert—

“documents or information relating to”.—(Chris Bryant.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Financial penalties

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 10, page 16, line 8, at end insert—

“(f) about what must or may be done with amounts paid as penalties.”

This amendment confers express power to make provision about the treatment of amounts paid to enforcers as penalties, for consistency with similar powers in clauses 11(1)(b) (fees) and 12(1)(b) (levies).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

It might more sense, in explaining the amendment, if I speak about the clause first, even though we would normally take the amendment first. The clause provides safeguards on the use of financial penalties. Except where clause 16 provides otherwise for the Financial Conduct Authority, the amount of the penalty must be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. If the regulations allow an enforcer any discretion in that determination, the enforcer must publish, and have regard to, guidance. Other safeguards include an opportunity for representations before penalties are imposed, and rights of appeal to a court or tribunal. Regulations may provide for increase of the penalty in the case of late payment.

Government amendment 6, which is minor and technical for some of the same reasons I adverted to earlier, enables regulations to make provision about what is to be done with any amounts that are paid as part of clause 10. That is consistent with provisions on fee and levy receipts in clauses 11 and 12. This is another bit of tidying up of the previous version of the Bill.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Fees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 12 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 11 enables decision makers, interface bodies, enforcers and others to charge fees to alleviate their costs, which is obviously an important part of the Bill. It may also enable data holders to charge fees. Except where clause 15 provides otherwise for the Financial Conduct Authority, the fee amounts must be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. If the regulations allow a person to make that determination, they must publish information about the fee and how it is determined. Fees can only be charged on those directly affected by the performance of the relevant functions. That would include data holders, customers and third-party recipients. Regulations may also provide for fees to increase periodically—for instance, to cater for inflation—and for charging interest on and recovering unpaid fees.

Clause 12 enables regulations to impose a levy on data holders or third-party recipients or allow a specified public body to do so. The purpose is to meet costs incurred by bodies performing functions under the regulations and avoid costs to the taxpayer. The levy may be imposed only on persons directly affected by the performance of those functions. If the regulations allow a public authority to impose the levy, the regulations must provide how the rate of the levy and the period in which it is payable are to be determined. The public authority must also publish information about what it determines. The regulations may also make provision for charging of interest and recovery of unpaid amounts.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Financial assistance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

The purpose of the clause is to allow the Government to provide financial assistance where it is appropriate to do so. Although the Government expect schemes to be self-financing, as I have referred to, it is important to have statutory spending authority as a backstop where needed, and that is precisely what clause 13 provides.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

The FCA and financial services interfaces

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 14, page 19, line 3, at end insert—

“(ba) requiring section 2(4) actors described in the regulations to use a prescribed interface, comply with prescribed interface standards or participate in prescribed interface arrangements when taking, facilitating or doing other things in connection with relevant financial services action;”.

This amendment provides that the Treasury’s powers to confer rule-making powers on the Financial Conduct Authority in connection with the use of interfaces include powers relating to the use of interfaces when taking action described in clause 2(4) of the Bill (persons authorised to receive customer data taking action on behalf of customers). See also Amendment 9.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 8 and 9.

Clauses 14 to 17 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Again, it might be more convenient if I speak to the clauses first and come back to the amendments, because then it is more self-explanatory, but I may need to speak at greater length here.

Open banking has revolutionised the UK retail banking sector by enhancing competition and introducing innovative services. Establishing a long-term regulatory framework for open banking will pave the way for its future growth, and this framework will rely on the FCA having the powers necessary for effective regulation and oversight. Clause 14 therefore empowers the Treasury to enable or require the FCA to set rules for interface bodies and participants in smart data schemes, ensuring compliance with essential standards. Clause 15 sets out further detail about the regulation-making powers conferred on the Treasury by clause 14.

These provisions create a clear framework for delegating rule-making powers, ensuring effective regulation, proper funding and mechanisms to address misconduct by scheme participants, with clear objectives for the FCA’s oversight of smart data schemes. Regulations may enable or require the FCA to impose interface requirements relating to an interface body, as set out for the smart data powers more broadly in clause 7, and to require fees to be paid by financial services providers to cover interface body costs.

Clause 15 further provides that such regulations must impose certain requirements upon the FCA, including a requirement, so far as is reasonably possible, to exercise functions conferred by the regulations in line with specified purposes, and a requirement that the FCA must have regard to specified matters when exercising such functions. Additionally, regulations under clause 15 may empower or require the FCA to impose requirements on individuals or organisations to review their conduct, to take corrective action and to make redress for loss or damage suffered by others as a result of their conduct.

Clause 16 covers the Treasury’s ability to make regulations enabling the FCA to impose financial penalties and levies. The regulations may require or enable the FCA to set the amount or method for calculating penalties for breaches of FCA interface rules. The regulations must require the FCA to set out its penalties policy, and may specify matters that such a policy must include. Additionally, the Treasury may impose itself, or provide for the FCA to impose, a levy on data holders or third-party recipients of financial services data under the scheme to cover its regulatory costs, with the funds being used as specified in the regulations. Only those capable of being directly impacted should be subject to the levy.

Penalties and levies are a necessary part of smart data schemes, including in financial services, to allow the FCA to penalise non-compliance and recover the costs of its regulatory activities. The clause ensures that any penalties or levies are subject to proportionate controls.

Clause 17 gives the Treasury the power to amend section 98 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 through regulations. This will allow the Treasury to update the definitions of the FCA’s responsibilities and objectives in that section, so they can include new functions or objectives given to the FCA by regulations made under part 1 of this Bill. That will ensure that the FCA’s new duties fit into the existing system for co-ordinating payment system regulators, helping maintain a consistent approach across the financial sector. Regulations made under the clause will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

We have tabled Government amendments 7 to 9 to ensure that the Treasury may delegate to the FCA powers to set rules for action initiation, as well as data sharing. We think this is vital to ensure that open banking continues to work properly and is in line with the policy as set out elsewhere.

[Dr Spencer]

I apologise, Mr Turner: I misspoke earlier with regard to our position on the Government amendments. Rather than offering positive support, I meant to say that we will not oppose the technical amendments.

What does the FCA think about these amendments? Has the Department consulted the FCA?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether we have specifically—I am looking to my left for inspiration. I am getting vague inspiration, although it is remarkably non-productive. If the hon. Member would like to intervene for a little longer, perhaps I will be able to be more inspired.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate that it is a technical question and I hope he is able to give a response. Equally, I appreciate that he may have to write to me in due course. I see that there are papers coming his way.

[Chris Bryant]

To quote Richard II, methinks I am a prophet new inspired. Yes, this is all based on a consultation with the FCA. The FCA is content with us proceeding in this direction. I hope that, on that basis, the shadow Minister—I am trying to differentiate between his not opposing and supporting, but I think on the whole in Parliament, if you are not against us, you are for us. I think in this measure he is for us.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

The clause will ensure that public authorities given powers under part 1 are not liable in damages for their acts or omissions in exercising their functions. That mirrors the exemption from liability for the Financial Conduct Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and allows public authorities to carry out their functions effectively. However, regulations cannot remove liability for things done in bad faith or which are unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Duty to review regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

I know all Members of the Committee were wondering, “When are we going to review all of these provisions?” Fortunately, we have reached a clause that requires review of the regulations at least at five-yearly intervals. The Government recognise the importance of ongoing scrutiny of regulations. As part of a review, the regulation maker must consider whether the regulations remain appropriate—which seems rather basic, but anyway. The findings of the review will be published in a report laid before Parliament. This will uphold our commitment to transparency in the creation and maintenance of future regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Restrictions on processing and data protection

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 21 to 24 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 20 allows regulations to provide that the processing of information they require does not breach obligations of confidence or other restrictions on processing information. However, regulations cannot compel businesses to breach data protection legislation. This mirrors the approach taken towards pensions dashboards in the Pensions Act 2004.

Clause 21 outlines further provisions that regulations may contain. Those include references to published standards and technical requirements, and the conferral of functions. The clause allows the part 1 powers to be used flexibly and tailored for their purpose. It also prevents regulations from enabling a person to set the maximum amounts of fines, financial penalties or fees, which adds to the safeguards in clauses 10 and 11. Finally, the clause stipulates when regulations can amend primary legislation to support consumer redress.

Clause 22 ensures that the regulations are properly scrutinised and requires that certain regulations be subject to affirmative parliamentary scrutiny. Those include regulations that introduce smart data schemes or make them more onerous, contain enforcement provisions and impose fees or a levy, as well as regulations under the financial services sector clauses. The clause also requires appropriate consultation before the regulations are made.

Clause 23 clarifies that part 1 powers may be used to amend existing subordinate legislation dealing with equivalent subject matter, rather than creating stand-alone regulations. This provision could be used to amend existing data-sharing requirements such as open banking provisions in the Payment Services Regulations 2017.

Clause 24 repeals sections 89 to 91 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which part 1 of the Bill replaces. The powers in the 2013 Act are no longer adequate to enable the introduction of effective smart data schemes. That was recognised in the previous iterations of this Bill under a previous Government, and we agree.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 21 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Other defined terms

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 26 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

I thought that this discussion might take a little longer. Much as I am tempted to dally on clauses 25 and 26, clause 25 basically defines various terms used in part 1 of the Bill, and clause 26 provides an index of terms used in part 1, including those defined in clause 25, so I do not think my heart is in the business of doing so. Without further ado, I urge that clauses 25 and 26 stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Introductory

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Right to use non-digital verification services—

“(1) This section applies when an organisation—

(a) requires an individual to use a verification service; and

(b) uses a digital verification service for that purpose.

(2) Where it is reasonably practicable for an organisation to offer a non-digital method of verification, the organisation must—

(a) make a non-digital alternative method of verification available to any individual required to use a verification service; and

(b) provide information about digital and non-digital methods of verification to those individuals before verification is required.”

This new clause would create a duty upon organisations to support digital inclusion by offering non-digital verification services where practicable.

[Chris Bryant]

Part 2 of the Bill is about digital verification services. Those are obviously a very important part of the Bill; they lay out how we want to move into a new era and they are essential to many businesses being able to deliver their services effectively. They are also important to the Government being able to deliver some of the things we hope for—in terms of greater productivity in the delivery of services—and, frankly, to turning Government-provided services into services that feel as intuitively available and accessible as those provided by the private sector.

Clause 27 defines digital verification services and sets out the scope of provision in part 2, which runs from clauses 27 to 55, to help secure their reliability. New clause 9, which we will hear about in a few moments, has been tabled by the hon. Member for North Norfolk. It would require organisations to offer non-digital verification services where practicable. The provision would change the voluntary nature of part 2 by imposing new obligations on businesses.

I fully support the idea of digital inclusion, which is why as the digital inclusion Minister I introduced our first action plan last week; we are the first Government to bring one forward in 10 years. However, we believe that the new clause is unnecessary because we are already prioritising digital inclusion. The office for digital identities and attributes will monitor the inclusivity of certified services, and include findings in the annual report that must be published under clause 53, which we will come to later.

In addition, there are already legislative protections in the Equality Act 2010 for protected groups. If in future the Government find evidence suggesting that regulatory intervention is appropriate to ensure that individuals have equal access to services across the economy, then we will consider appropriate intervention. I reassure the House that digital inclusion is a high priority for the Government, which is why we have set up the digital inclusion and skills unit within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and why just last week we published the digital inclusion action plan, setting out the first five immediate steps we are taking towards our ambition of delivering digital inclusion for everyone across the UK, regardless of their circumstances.

We want to be able to deliver as many services digitally as possible, in a way that is fully accessible to people. However, we also accept that many people are not engaged in the digital world, and that there must also be provision for them. For those reasons, I hope the hon. Member for North Norfolk feels comfortable not pressing his new clause to a vote.

[Dr Spencer]

Digital verification services are important, and will make a big change when rolled out as part of this legislation. The provision is entirely right, particularly on the proportionality of data disclosure. Reading through some of the various reports and briefings we have received, the example used is of someone going into a nightclub: why should a scanned copy of their driving licence be consumed and contained by whoever the data holder is, when all they need to do is prove their age? These services will open the door to allow the proportionate disclosure of data. There is a both a data assurance component and a section on privacy, so we are glad that the Government are taking these measures forward.

I sympathise with the intention of new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, which is to make sure that we do everything we can to support people who are digitally excluded. That ensures that people are not locked out and that there is a degree of reciprocity, so that as we digitalise more, the opportunity remains for people to access non-digital base services. I am not sure about the scope of the binding duty in the provision and about how the duties on small providers, as opposed to a duty on public service providers, play out politically. I think those are different things. Nevertheless, I support the sentiment of the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the Minister will consider accepting our new clause, which would provide reassurance to the many who are worried about the potential limitations that a digital verification system could place on them. Their concerns are very real and valid, and I know that many of my constituents in North Norfolk and many constituents of all members of the Committee will be hoping to hear reassurances that go beyond what we have heard from the Minister so far and that their rights will be protected in the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

I note the comments from the shadow Minister, and I am grateful for them.

There is a fundamental flaw in the argument from the hon. Member for North Norfolk that this new clause was tabled in the House of Lords, because what he means is that it was lost in the House of Lords—the House of Lords did not bring it to us. There is a second flaw in the argument, which is that it seems to presume that people will be required to use a digital verification service. That is not true. People will be able to use non-digital systems if they want to in every circumstance. That is an essential part of being able to take forward digital verification services. It may be that a growing number of people begin to find them more useful, reliable and trustworthy than carrying around a set of papers. I am sure that many of us have gone through the tedious process of renting a car—having to turn up with copies of the previous three months of bills sent to your house, and all that. They have to be printed out, of course, and not provided in digital form, and so on. In the end, therefore, this measure will be transformational for the vast majority of people, but that does not mean that we should exclude people.

Where the hon. Member for North Norfolk is absolutely right is that there are many different patterns of digital exclusion. One, which I am very conscious of from my own constituency in south Wales, is physical digital exclusion. Many people in the south Wales valleys simply do not have the physical digital connections, a mobile phone or whatever it may be, to be able to transact their business. The second is the simple issue of poverty. Social tariffs do not even touch the edge for lots of families, because it is yet another bill. Even another £10 or £15 bill a month is one that has to compete with whether they have fresh food on the table for the kids. Another level where people might be excluded relates to age, at the top end and at the bottom end. The hon. Member mentioned nonagenarians, but he could go down to 60-year-olds and find people who simply do not want to use open banking or any kind of digital system, do not have a smartphone and have absolutely no intention of getting one, or, for that matter, do not have any kind of broadband connection to their home. I understand that fully, and that is why the Bill is written as it is, so that it is permissive and not mandatory.

That is an important reason why—although I have listened to the arguments that the hon. Member for North Norfolk has repeated from Big Brother Watch—I am determined to do everything we possibly can to tackle each and every one of the issues of digital exclusion. I have not even referred to skills—people might have some form of disability, might have simply never acquired or wanted to acquire digital skills, or might find using a screen particularly difficult for whatever set of reasons. We want to tackle every single form of digital exclusion, but I do not think that this is the place to do so. We will not be able to tackle digital exclusion by putting an additional measure in the Bill, and that is why, if the hon. Member wants to push this to a vote, I will still resist his new clause. I commend the clause as drafted to the Committee.

[Victoria Collins]

The Minister says that the proposal for digital verification services is not mandatory, so a non-digital version will be available for people to use. May I check what the guarantees are? We have seen this with card payments and even the banks—in Harpenden, we lost all our banks, apart from Nationwide. A very big team campaigned to get a banking hub, because a lot of people said, “You can either go online or drive many miles to get to a bank.” I want to understand what guarantees are in place to secure that non-digital version.

[Chris Bryant]

It is simply that there is no requirement for people to use a digital verification service to be able to secure the service that they want. Obviously, that is a key part of how local government or Government have to deliver their services. They have to think not only about the people who can use digital services, but about those who cannot, for all the reasons that we have laid out.

The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted is absolutely right about banks, and it is not just in Harpenden; I do not have a bank in my constituency. I have seen them go one after another after another. We have a banking hub, but even it has had to move. That provides all sorts of difficulties for people who do not want to do their banking in any way other than physically going into a bank. That is why both our Government many years ago, then the Conservative Government for years, were trying to encourage people to use the post office as an alternative means of doing their banking.

That is the pattern that we will have to adopt. Government will always have to be aware. While we may want all the productivity gains and the added security that digital verification services can provide, none the less we need to ensure that others are provided for. That is all provided for in the Bill, and I would say adequately, although the hon. Member may disagree with me. Yet again, I am still resisting any amendment and urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Collins]

I thank the Minister for his reply, and I do understand. I will leave what happens with new clause 9 to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, but it is important to state that we have seen a pattern, as my hon. Friend mentioned, of rights being taken away when we know that people cannot access services, and then the problem being solved after it was created. We need to think about a way to secure non-digital services, whether in respect of public services and council tax, our banks, or whatever it is. The Government need to think about how we can protect those services, whether through this Bill or something else, to ensure that those who are excluded can still access a non-digital version of services.

[Chris Bryant]

Even without inspiration, I agree with everything the hon. Lady said. I would add the fact that to park a car in lots of places in the country now we have to go online using a smartphone. When I was in Cardiff recently, the sign said “Go to the app”, but it did not say which app. What frustrates me is that every local authority in the land seems to have adopted a different app, so if we park in more than one local authority area, we have to download app after app, upload all our card details and all the rest of it.

I hope to God that one of the things smart data might be able to solve is the issue of different apps for parking, because the car does not change, we do not change and our banking details do not change; the only thing that changes is our location. To achieve that, though, we must also address the issue of digital exclusion. Lots of areas simply do not have a download speed of 5 megabits per second for mobile coverage, even though Ofcom probably suggests that there is 99% coverage in all areas from all four operators. My problem is that the new clause tries to correct many deficiencies in society, none of which has anything to do with digital verification services.

[Steff Aquarone]

I am well aware of the Minister’s frustration with mobile parking apps and I sympathise. Likewise, there is the frustration of having to take two separate bits of physical ID to a bank branch on two separate occasions to get a simple credit card approved. However, I cannot agree with the Minister’s accusation that new clause 9 tries to solve the entire universe. I remind him of what we have seen in practice when rights to alternatives are not enshrined. The reality is that if the rights to non-digital identification and verification are not enshrined in the Bill, the options and competitiveness of the options for those who do not or are unwilling to use digital verification will reduce.

[Chris Bryant]

The thing is, it is already enshrined in law under the Equality Act 2010. That is perfectly adequate for the purposes of the Bill—it protects all the characteristics that the hon. Gentleman referred to, including age—so I urge him not to pursue his new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

DVS trust framework

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 28, page 30, line 32, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

This amendment removes subsections which were inserted at Report stage in the Lords.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 11.

[Chris Bryant]

We will be talking about clauses 28 to 31, but now I will speak to Government amendment 10 to clause 28, along with Government amendment 11. Several Members may wish to speak to this issue.

Government amendment 10 removes subsections (3) and (4) of clause 28, which were added on Report in the House of Lords. The subsections require the Secretary of State, when preparing the digital verification service trust framework, to assess whether certain listed public authorities reliably verify personal data. This seems very dry, but it is a clear and specific issue. The trust framework provides rules for digital verification services, not rules for how public authorities process data. Data protection legislation already requires public authorities to ensure that any personal data they process is accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. As such, the Government cannot proceed with the change introduced in the Lords as it would duplicate existing legislation and bring in matters that are out of scope of the trust framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

Amendments 10 and 11 seek to remove certain provisions that were introduced in Committee in the other place. I thank Sex Matters for its work, but also many people in this policy area who have tried to focus on the importance of data accuracy and validity when it is used.

I hope we all agree that it is important that data, when it is collected—in fact it is a principle of data collection and maintenance—is accurate and correct and that there is no point holding or using data if it is incorrect. Biased data is worse than no data at all. Therefore, I do not understand—especially given the extra use of the data that will come as part of digital verification services—why the Minister and the Government are not keen on the provision to stipulate that public bodies that hold sensitive data should be certain of its accuracy, particularly when the data is going to be passed on and used as part of digital verification services. I am confused by the resistance to ensuring that the data is correct, particularly when we anticipate that it will be used as part of a far bigger spectrum. It will be consumed by a digital verification service in which it is not routine to go back and look at the original paper records. The only dataset to be relied on will be some Oracle Excel spreadsheet or whatever database is used by public authorities.

This debate has become more acute with regard to the importance of sex data. It is critical that sex data is available to protect public spaces and to be used in scientific research to allocate someone’s sex as part of medicine and healthcare. I speak as a former doctor, and I guess I should declare an interest in that I am married to a doctor. The use of sex data is critical in medical screening programmes, such as cervical screening and prostate screening, to understand and interpret investigations. It is critical that the data is accurate; otherwise, there is a danger that research will not be appropriate or will produce bad results, and there is also a potential degree of medical harm. It is critical that we get sex data correct when it is being used.

I do not agree with the argument that requiring the disclosure of sex data is either disproportionate or somehow a breach of the European convention on human rights. The whole point of digital verification services is proportionate disclosure. In fact, we have heard speeches from both sides of the Committee about proportionate disclosure, and limiting the amount of personal data that is passed on as part of a digital verification service.

My challenge is, quite simply, that if somebody is collecting sex data as part of a verification system, why are they doing so? If they do not need to know what someone’s sex is, it should not be collected. Digital verification services allow people to choose their proportionate disclosure. There will be times when sex data is required for renting a property—that example has been used before—because people may want to rent properties in single-sex accommodation. I may argue that is a proportionate disclosure. If it is a standard rental property in another situation, it is probably a non-proportionate disclosure. Another argument has been made that it is needed to triangulate data to verify ID. Again, that does not seem to work, because the whole point of a digital verification service is to allow someone to have a digital ID framework and use different points to verify.

The perversity of this debate is that these schemes and their proportionate disclosure protect people’s identities. They protect people from non-disproportionate disclosure. We need to make sure that the data we are using is accurate and correct, and that it says what we want it to say when someone is inquiring about somebody’s sex. If somebody is asking for sex data but they do not need it, people should be able to say no, which the existing provisions allow for.

[Chris Bryant]

No, they don’t.

[Dr Spencer]

What is the point of politics if we do not have a debate? We strongly disagree with the interpretation that the provisions are somehow incompatible with ECHR rights. They totally support people’s privacy rights under article 8 regarding proportionate disclosures. If somebody needs to have someone’s sex data, they need sex data. They do not need gender data. The provisions allow for it, and if somebody does not need sex data, they should not be collecting it in the first place.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

Further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, does the Minister at least accept that the Bill poses a risk of entrenching inaccurate data relating to sex through public bodies using DVS systems? Notwithstanding his views on the Lords amendments, could he address that point? What steps will the Government take to ensure the reliability of sex data to ensure protection, such as of women using female-only spaces? What will the Minister do to ensure that inaccurate data entrenched by the Bill will not pose a risk to people in those situations and others? I am thinking, of course, of services available in healthcare, but that is by no means the only example.

[Chris Bryant]

I need to make it absolutely clear, for a start, that the element of clause 45 that we are removing—subsection (6)—makes no reference to sex or gender at all. The words do not appear on the face of the Bill at all. Subsection (6) refers to accuracy and inaccuracy, but it says

“the public authority is able to attest that it…has been corrected through a lawfully made correction,”

and that is obviously aiming at a particular form of lawfully made correction.

Public authorities are already bound in law by data protection legislation—this goes to the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East just made—to ensure that the personal data they process is accurate and, importantly, that it is accurate for the purpose for which it is being processed, and that it is kept up to date where necessary. In essence, what the noble Lords’ amendments to the Bill did was say that we should also be keeping, in every instance, a history of what the data had been. That, I think, is problematic.

The hon. Member is absolutely right about wanting to preserve women-only spaces, which is why public authorities are required to process information that is accurate for the purpose for which it is being processed. In the delivery of healthcare, for instance, when it comes to health screening for transgender and non-binary individuals, the Department of Health and Social Care has comprehensive guidance that sets out the NHS default adult screening programmes that are available in England and lays out who is invited. In England, it is up to GPs to ensure that, as part of processing gender change, the individual is correctly registered for relevant screenings in relation to their sex.

I simply do not buy this argument that we need to make this provision in relation to all digital verification services. Although it is of course right that, in the delivery of prison services or in the health service, or in so many other areas, simple common sense should apply in relation to female-only spaces and wanting to make sure that women are safe, I do not think that this Bill on digital verification services benefits from the introduction of a measure that would effectively mean that in the provision of every digital verification service—whether in regard to the provision of some sensitive service or not—you should make this provision. That is why we tabled amendments 10 and 11, and I urge all hon. Members to support them.

[Victoria Collins]

The Liberal Democrats support the Government amendments. As the Minister highlighted, the amendments are about proportionality in digital verification services. For Liberal Democrats, it is about the balance between trust and helping to protect privacy, as well as getting the data needed to make our society better. We believe that the original proposal had the proportionality right, so we will support the Government’s amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 29 to 31 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 28 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish the digital verification service framework, which will set out rules for the provision of digital verification services for providers that want to be certified and appear on a Government register. The rules will draw on existing technical requirements, standards and best practice, and guidance and legislation. They will help organisations to provide services in a trusted and consistent way, and enable inter-operability and increasing public confidence.

The clause allows the Secretary of State to revise and republish the trust framework as the market evolves. The requirement to consult the Information Commissioner and others whom the Secretary of State considers appropriate will ensure the trust framework’s development is informed by industry expertise and the wider regulatory environment.

Clause 29 allows the Secretary of State to prepare and publish supplementary codes. The codes will be relevant to sectors that require rules to cater for their specific requirements around identity checks, supplementary to those in the DVS trust framework. For example, additional rules are needed when proving someone’s right to work in the UK. By working with those operating in such sectors, the Secretary of State can identify market and user needs for these codes, and that will help to encourage digital identity adoption across the wider economy. The requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the Information Commissioner and others as appropriate when preparing a supplementary code should also ensure that those needs are taken into account in its development.

Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to withdraw a published supplementary code if, for example, it is no longer required or is outdated. The Secretary of State will need to publish his determination to withdraw a supplementary code and allow at least 28 days before its withdrawal.

Clause 31 requires the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the digital verification service trust framework and any published supplementary code at least every 12 months. When doing so, the Secretary of State should consult the Information Commissioner and anyone he or she considers appropriate. This review will ensure that the body of rules governing digital verification services keeps up to date with the digital identity market, and is fit for purpose as that market evolves.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

DVS register

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 33 to 38 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

These clauses are all about the digital verification service register. Clause 32 requires the Secretary of State to establish and maintain a publicly available register of digital verification service providers, which is called the digital verification service register. This duty will ensure that people can look up which digital verification service providers have met the requirements to join the register, making it easier for people to know which providers can be trusted and to realise the benefits of this technology with confidence.

Subject to limited powers of refusal in clause 34, clause 33 requires the Secretary of State to register a digital verification service provider if it applies to appear on the register and if it holds a certificate from an accredited conformity assessment body confirming its digital verification service is compliant with the digital verification service trust framework. In practice, this means that in applying to join the register, a provider must have its service certified against the trust framework by a body that has been independently accredited by the UK Accreditation Service. The digital verification service provider must also have made an application in accordance with requirements made by determination under clause 39 and paid any relevant fee, as set out in clause 39. This provides confidence to users and businesses that only those digital verification services that meet these conditions will appear on the digital verification service register.

Clause 34 grants the Secretary of State the power to refuse applications to the digital verification service register in two circumstances: first, where he considers it necessary to do so in the interests of national security or, secondly, where he is satisfied that the provider is not compliant with the trust framework. Before a refusal, he must provide written notice of his intention, informing the provider of his reasons and of the opportunity to make representations. He need not share reasons on national security grounds where to do so would be contrary to those interests. Those powers will act as a backstop, allowing the Secretary of State to stop bad actors—I always worry about that term, thinking about actors who have appeared in movies that I have not liked—entering the system in circumstances where, for example, he has intelligence that conformity assessment bodies do not. That should increase confidence that registered DVS providers are trustworthy and secure.

Clause 35 allows registered digital verification service providers to have multiple certified services listed in the digital verification services register. The provider must apply for the Secretary of State to amend its register entry to accommodate this. This is largely a technical provision to ensure that the register can operate appropriately and seamlessly when providers offer more than one service that is certified against the trust framework.

Clause 36 provides for a registered provider to apply to the Secretary of State to add a supplementary note to their entry in the register if its service is certified against the supplementary code, its application complies with any requirements set out in a determination under clause 38, and it has paid any required fee. Supplementary notes will make it easy for people and businesses to see which registered digital verification services are certified against the rules of the supplementary code, so that they can find a trusted service that meets their needs.

In the same way that clause 35 allows registered digital verification service providers to have multiple certified services listed in the register, clause 37 allows providers with multiple services certified against the supplementary code to have that information suitably noted in the register. The digital verification service provider must apply to the Secretary of State to have its supplementary note amended to accommodate this. This technical requirement ensures that the register can operate appropriately and seamlessly when DVS providers offer more than one service that is certified against both the trust framework and a supplementary code.

Finally, clause 38 makes provision for the Secretary of State to determine the form of applications to the register and supplementary notes, the information that needs to be contained in the application, the documents to be provided and the manner in which is to be submitted. He must publish this determination, which will ensure that the requirements are clear for digital verification service providers who wish to make an application. For the same reason, if he revises the determination at a later time, this must also be published.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 33 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Fees for applications for registration, supplementary notes, etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

The clause provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding the payment of fees for applications to the register and applications for supplementary notes. The regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. The fees can be set at a level higher than the administrative costs of determining applications or those associated with the DVS providers’ ongoing registration in the DVS register. This is to help ensure that fees may cover the total operating costs relating to governance, which includes functions such as publishing an annual report and keeping the trust framework up to date.

The Government amended clause 39 from the original Bill that was introduced prior to the general election in response to a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee so that these fees are set by regulations instead of determination. This ensures that any fees the Secretary of State may wish to charge for these applications are subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Duty to remove person from the DVS register

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 41 to 44 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 40 requires the Secretary of State to remove a digital verification service provider from the digital verification service register in the following circumstances: when that provider asks to be removed; if it stops providing all services for which it is registered; or if it no longer holds a certificate for at least one of these services. This duty ensures that the Secretary of State acts to uphold the digital verification service register in these circumstances to uphold trust and confidence in it.

Clause 41 allows the Secretary of State to remove a digital verification service provider from the digital verification service register if it is not compliant with the trust framework or a supplementary code; if it fails to provide information in response to a clause 51 written notice; or if removal is necessary in the interests of national security. Before removal, the Secretary of State must provide written notice informing the provider of reasons for removal and the opportunity to make representations. Reasons need not be given where this would be contrary to national security interests. These powers will help ensure that the register lists only certified services and that the Secretary of State can act to remove services where necessary, providing confidence in its accuracy.

Clause 42 requires the Secretary of State to remove a service from the digital verification service register if the digital verification service provider requests removal; if it ceases to provide one or more of those services, but not all of them; or if it no longer holds a certificate for all those services. Similar to clause 41, these duties provide confidence to people and businesses that the digital verification service register can be trusted as an accurate source of information. Whereas clauses 40 and 41 cover removal of a digital verification service provider as a whole, the clause 42 duty enables the Secretary of State to remove one or more services, should a digital verification service provider have more than one service registered and one or more, but not all, those services no longer meet the digital verification service register’s conditions.

Clause 43 requires the Secretary of State to remove a supplementary note from the digital verification service register if the digital verification service provider requests its removal; if it ceases to provide all the services to which the note relates; if it no longer holds a certificate for at least one of those services; or if the supplementary code to which the note relates has been withdrawn. This is a technical requirement to ensure that changes in certification and provision of multiple services in accordance with supplementary codes are accurately reflected for digital verification service providers, upholding confidence that the digital verification service register can be trusted as an accurate source of information.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

The clause creates a permissive information gateway. This will enable public authorities to share information relating to an individual with registered digital verification services, when requested by the individual. The gateway enables digital identity checks to be made against public authority data, thereby increasing the trustworthiness of identity and eligibility checks across the economy.

Clause 45 also makes it clear that the power does not authorise disclosure of information that would breach the data protection legislation or the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. However, disclosure of information under the clause would not breach any obligations of confidence owed by the public authority or any other restrictions on the disclosure of the information. The clause also enables public authorities to charge a fee for the disclosure of information under the clause.

[Dr Spencer]

I am not going to rehash the previous debates. Clearly, the Committee has made its decision, no matter how disappointing that is. I just wanted to pick up the Minister’s previous point about the use of common sense in arbitration decisions when it comes to access to protected same-sex spaces. I fully support using common sense, but how does that play out in a situation where somebody has gone through a digital verification service that has used data that is held by a local authority, but that has been changed at a later date—that is, in effect, gender data? How will that be resolved?

[Chris Bryant]

I think that I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman. We have agreed the amendment, so that is slightly rehashing the debate. I am happy to write to him and he will have that before we come back for Thursday’s Committee sitting.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Information disclosed by the Revenue and Customs

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 47 and 48 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Clauses 46, 47 and 48 relate to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Welsh Revenue Authority and Revenue Scotland respectively. The clauses provide additional safeguards to any information disclosed through the information gateway by these bodies. They place restrictions on onward sharing and create offences for the wrongful disclosure of such data, thereby creating appropriate protection for tax data shared through the gateway. A similar provision is not required for Northern Irish tax data, as HMRC is responsible for the collection of devolved taxes in Northern Ireland. The Government will not commence measures to enable the disclosure of information held by HMRC until the commissioners for HMRC are satisfied that the technology and processes for information sharing uphold the particular safeguards relating to taxpayer confidentiality, and therefore allow information sharing by HMRC to occur without adverse effect on the tax system or any other function of HMRC.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 47 and 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Code of practice about the disclosure of information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sure Members were wondering when we were going to get to a code of practice, and this is the clause that introduces it. Clause 49 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a code of practice for the disclosure of information under the information gateway created in clause 45. The code of practice will provide guidance and best practice for such disclosure, including what information should be shared, who it should be shared with and how to share it securely.

In preparing and revising the code, the Secretary of State must consult with the Information Commissioner, devolved Governments and other appropriate persons. The code will be laid before Parliament before it is finalised. The first version of the code will be subject to the affirmative procedure and subsequent versions to the negative procedure, allowing proper parliamentary scrutiny.

[Dr Spencer]

Will the code of practice include information on the proportionate disclosure of data through the DVS scheme?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

Trust mark for use by registered persons

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

This clause enables the Secretary of State to designate a trust mark to be used only by registered providers of digital verification services. This will help users to identify those digital verification service providers that have been assessed as reliable and trustworthy. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to bring civil proceedings against unauthorised use of the trust mark. The trust mark has now been registered as a trademark in the UK, so the Secretary of State will also be able to take appropriate legal action against misuse under trademark law.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

Power of Secretary of State to require information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 51 enables the Secretary of State to issue written notices to accredited conformity assessment bodies and registered digital verification service providers, requesting information that he may reasonably require to exercise his functions under part 2 of the Bill. That could include information on inclusion, fraud or other statistical information to assist the Secretary of State in carrying out his duties under this part of the Bill.

The notice must state why the information is required and may specify or describe particular information, together with the form in which it must be provided, the time within which it must be provided and where it must be provided. The clause also sets out circumstances where disclosure would not be required—for example, where it would contravene the data protection legislation. Non-compliance with the clause by registered providers may result in removal from the digital verification services register.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Arrangements for third party to exercise functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 53 and 54 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

I am conscious that we are steaming towards the end of part 2 of the Bill. It is 11.10 am, and we could go on until 11.30 am, but it might be convenient for Members if we were to end a little earlier and then move on to parts 3 and 4 this afternoon. That would be a matter for the Whips, and I do not like to tell a Whip what to do.

Clause 52 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations for his functions to be exercised by a third party. Such delegation may be made for any function of the Secretary of State under part 2 of the Bill, except for his regulation-making powers. The delegation may also provide for payments to be made and received from the third party to whom functions are delegated.

This clause gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to adapt to the governance needs of the digital identity market as it grows. Governance functions will initially sit within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and future plans to delegate any function in part 2 of the Bill will be carefully considered and subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.

Clause 53 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish reports on the operation of part 2 of the Bill at least every 12 months, with the first report due 12 months after the commencement of clause 28, which concerns the publication of the digital verification services trust framework. These reports will be published on gov.uk. This publication will strengthen transparency in the Government’s digital identity programme and boost trust in the market.

Clause 54 is an index of terms defined or explained in part 2 of the Bill. It sets out the subsection numbers where definitions and explanations can be found.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)

Digital Inclusion Action Plan: First Steps

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

Today, the Government have laid before Parliament the “Digital Inclusion Action Plan—First Steps”, which includes a call for evidence on the Government’s proposed focus areas.

It is estimated that 1.6 million people in the UK live largely offline, and we know that they are likely to experience lower pay, have fewer job opportunities, have worse health outcomes, and might pay more for goods and services. We know that there are many benefits to being online, whether it is connecting with family and friends, being able to manage your finances, or being able to apply for a new job that is advertised online.

We want to ensure that everyone can experience these benefits, no matter where you are in the country, and no matter your age, background, or current circumstances, because we believe that everyone should benefit from digital technology. The action plan sets out the first five actions and the leadership actions that Government will take to ensure we have a digitally inclusive society.

The Government have consulted with and listened to stakeholders, who told us locally delivered support has the biggest impact, so in the spring we will be launching a new digital inclusion innovation fund to support innovative local initiatives—because we know digital inclusion initiatives work best when they are embedded in the communities people live and work in. Where local initiatives work well, we will look to roll them out in other parts of the country.

Everyone needs to have access to the necessary training and support to develop the essential digital skills to live, work, and participate fully in the modern world. That is why we have committed to improving support for the framework that helps people and businesses get the skills they need to get online safely and with confidence. We will also measure what works on digital inclusion, identify where the need is greatest, and establish the economic and social value of upskilling adults with digital skills.

Having access to a suitable device to be able to complete key tasks such as applying for a job, completing homework, or managing your finances online is vital to participating in our increasingly digital society. The 37% of households who are offline say that lack of equipment is a barrier. To help address this, we are piloting a proof-of-concept multi-Department device donation scheme. We are working with the Digital Poverty Alliance to provide refurbished Government laptops to those who need them.

We want to break down barriers to digital services. This is why we have committed to making Government digital services easier to use. We will have a renewed focus on digital inclusion, for example by improving the whole experience for users and increasing the number of services that use www.gov.uk One Login.

The action plan is supported by 10 pledges from industry, working in parallel with and in support of this action plan. These pledges demonstrate the significance of partnership to promote and empower digital inclusion, and the shared responsibility to tackle this important issue.

The call for evidence seeks views on the focus areas identified for further work. These are opening up opportunities through skills, tackling data and device poverty, breaking down barriers to digital services, and building confidence and supporting local delivery. The call for evidence will close on 9 April 2025. The “Digital Inclusion Action Plan—First Steps” document will be made available on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS471]

Science, Innovation and Technology

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Written Corrections

The following extracts are from Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] on 12 February 2025.

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

…The measure on the NHS and data is among the most positive in the Bill, and was welcomed by everybody today. It was not in the previous version of the Bill; it is one of our additions.

[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 345.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

… The measure on the NHS and data is among the most positive in the Bill, and was welcomed by everybody today. It was in the previous version of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

…I can announce that we have set up two working groups in the past week, both of which have people from the creative industries and from the AI companies in them. One is specifically looking at transparency and what that looks like to be effective and proportionate, and it will start work on that next week.

[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 349.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms:

[Chris Bryant]

…I can announce that we will be setting up two working groups, both of which will have people from the creative industries and from the AI companies in them. One will look specifically at transparency and what that looks like to be effective and proportionate.

Social Media Use: Minimum Age

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

It is always a delight to see you, Mr Vickers—and particularly to see you in the Chair, where you cannot take part in the debate.

First, may I pay enormous tribute to Kim Campbell? Many other Members have already done so, but it is a significant achievement to force Parliament to debate something. Getting 130,000 people to sign up to the petition is a phenomenal achievement, so thank you very much. I think I can say that on behalf of all the political parties in Parliament and all Members of the House.

I also thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan): first because he is a Labour Member for Folkestone and Hythe, which is a great advance in the world, and secondly because he advanced the cause on behalf of the Petitions Committee so effectively. Many Members may not know this, but when I was first elected back in 1873 under Queen Victoria, we did not have online petitions. It is an irony, in a way, that today we are talking about an online e-petition about online activity.

If colleagues do not mind, I will not answer each contribution individually. Members have put their own arguments powerfully; there has been a mix of views, but with a general direction of travel, which I fully understand and to which I am very sympathetic. I want to lay out where we are at now and where we, as a Government, think that we could get to and should get to.

The first thing to recognise is the utter toxicity of large parts of social media. You do not have to be an MP to be aware of that, but being an MP certainly does make you aware of it. The toxicity for children is utterly degrading and pernicious, as I think everybody in society recognises. We all recognise, too, that the social media companies need to go much further to protect children. We have talked about some of the misogyny that is evident on many platforms and to which kids have access—it is pumped at them, in fact, because that is sometimes what the algorithm seems to support. Similarly, there are large amounts of utter misinformation. I do not know who is driving that or why it is being driven; sometimes it may be state actors from elsewhere in the world, and sometimes it is just pernicious actors in their own right.

Completely unrealistic body shapes are being promoted to girls and, for that matter, to boys. There was a time when the concern was solely that girls were being encouraged to be a particular shape, but exactly the same concern applies to many young men and boys today. I used to be a priest in the Church of England, many years ago; I was a clergyman in High Wycombe. While I was the curate there, a young girl took her own life, and then three of her friends took their own life in successive months. Undoubtedly, they had somehow or other managed to engage one another in that spiral. That was long before social media. Now, social media can play a pernicious role in undermining young people’s self-confidence and their belief in themselves through a whole series of images, videos and so on. That is very dangerous.

Tackling this is one of the most important things that the Government have to do. It is good to have a former Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), with us today.

[Mr Frith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, of course; my hon. Friend is always intervening on me.

[Mr Frith]

I thank the Minister; as ever, he has been very generous and is making excellent remarks. Away from the emergency—the toxicity and the worst aspects of this—the mundane sapping of hour after hour after hour is just as dangerous when we consider social media use and our ineffective guardrails for smartphone use. Yes, we all agree that the content the Minister has described should be done away with and prevented, but what is his reflection on the mundane drip and sapping away of the energy and attention of our young people and the doomscrolling ethos that has developed in their expectation of their everyday lives?

[Chris Bryant]

I do not want to be a hypocrite; this 63-year-old engages in all those things as well. In fact, it is a shocking shame for me every time I get that notification that says, “You spent on average x number of hours a day on your mobile phone.” I can make justifications—I have to find out what an hon. Member’s seat is, I have to send things back to my private office on WhatsApp and all of those kind of things—but the truth is that if somebody had said to us 40 years ago that they were going to invent something that would make us all, in an addictive way, spend hours and hours and hours looking at a phone rather than engaging with other human beings, we would have said, “Maybe not, eh?”

I was really struck by that when I went to a primary school in Blaengarw in my patch. The headteacher was saying that one of the difficulties is that all the parents waiting to pick up their kids were on their mobile phones outside, as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) mentioned earlier. Whatever they did inside the school, the message that every single child got was that life was about being on a mobile phone. As has been said, one of the most important things that a parent can do is engage eye to eye with their children. If they are engaging eye to eye only with their phone, I would argue that that is as much of a problem. I will come on to some of the issues, but I do not want to be hypocritical about it.

I think we all accept that we have to do more. One thing that was not included in the list of things that someone might do if they did not have a mobile phone to spend all their time on was reading a book. I would love more young people to read a book. That longer attention span is one of the things that is an admirable part of being an adult human being.

Several hon. Members referred to the fact that legislation needs to keep up. I will put this very gently to Conservative Members: we argued for an online safety Act for a long time before one ended up becoming legislation. It went through a draft process, and there were lots of rows about what should and should not be in it, and whether we were impinging on freedom of speech and all those kinds of things, but the legislation did not end up on the statute books until the end of 2023. Even then, the Act provided for a fairly slow process of implementation thereafter, partly because Ofcom was taking on powers that, on that day, it simply would not have had enough staff to engage with. The process has been difficult, and I am absolutely certain that the Online Safety Act will not be the end of this story. That is why the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has said clearly that everything is “on the table”, and that is why today’s debate is so important.

Of course, legislation has to be proportionate, balanced, based on evidence—I will come to that in more detail in a moment—and effective. That is why the Online Safety Act will require all platforms that are in scope, including social media platforms, to set up robust systems and processes to tackle the most egregious illegal content or activity proactively, preventing users from encountering it in the first place. Platforms will be required to remove all other illegal content as soon as it is flagged to them.

The Act will also require platforms easily accessed by children—this goes to a point made by several people—to deploy measures to protect children from seeing content that is harmful to them. That includes the use of highly effective age assurance to prevent them from seeing the most harmful types of content, such as that which promotes, encourages or provides instructions for self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Platforms will also be required to provide age-appropriate access for other types of harmful content, such as bullying, abusive content or content that encourages dangerous stunts or serious violence.

Additionally, under the Act, providers that specify a minimum age limit to access their site must specify how they enforce that in their terms of service and must do so consistently. As many Members have said, this spring will be a key moment in the implementation of the Act, and that is an important point for us to recognise: later this year, things will change, because of the implementation of the Online Safety Act. Ofcom has already set out its draft child safety codes of practice, which are the measures that companies must take to fulfil their duties under the Act.

Ofcom’s draft codes outline that all in-scope services, including social media sites, will be required to tackle algorithms that amplify harm and feed harmful material to children. I would argue that that includes the process of trying to make something addictive for a child. Services will have to configure their algorithms to filter out the most harmful types of content from children’s feeds, and to reduce the visibility and prominence of other harmful content. In January, Ofcom published its guidance for services to implement highly effective age assurance to meet their duties, including the types of technology capable of being highly effective at correctly determining whether a user is a child.

[Josh MacAlister]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, of course. I am about to come to my hon. Friend’s speech, in fact.

[Josh MacAlister]

I and a number of colleagues have had fairly extensive dialogue with Ofcom over the past few months about some of the detailed points, and there are two important gaps in the existing legislation. First, social media companies might put in a minimum age requirement, but there is no power to provide that social media platforms need to have a minimum age requirement to start with, so there is a big gap in the legislation in that respect. Secondly, despite the fairly extensive drafting in the Act, there is no requirement on Ofcom to look at functionality beyond where it relates to harmful content. Ofcom has stated clearly in writing to myself and other Members that it cannot regulate functionality unless it is specifically about harmful content, so much of what has been discussed today would not be covered by Ofcom’s current powers.

[Chris Bryant]

There are four or five different areas where the legislation is not sufficient for the task. Both codes require parliamentary approval, but that process will happen in the next few weeks, with the powers coming into effect this spring. As a Government, we have to decide whether it is better to make that happen now and bed it in, or say that we will have another piece of legislation. I am not allowed to make commitments on behalf of the Government, but I would be absolutely amazed if they did not bring forward further legislation in this field in the next few years. All these issues—and the others that will come along—will definitely need to be addressed, not least because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said at the beginning of the debate, we need to make sure that the legislation is up to date.

My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) talked about the burden of proof, and he is quite right. Of course there should not be a one-way burden of proof. We have to bear in mind two things about proof—perhaps evidence is a better word, because it is not about criminality; it is about evidence-based policy. The first is that, as everybody has said, causation is not correlation. I apologise for the slightly flippant way of putting this, but Marathon became Snickers at the same time as Mrs Thatcher gave way to John Major. I am not aware of any causal relationship between those two events. Many people understand that, but it is often very difficult to weed out what is causation and what is correlation in a specific set of events. For instance, we have all laid out the problems in relation to mental health for children, but only one Member mentioned covid. I would argue that covid is quite a significant player. It was shocking that we strove hard as a Parliament to open pubs again before we opened schools, and that children, who were at the least risk, bore the heaviest burden and that sacrifice on behalf of others. I think we need to factor that in.

The second point is something that I have campaigned on for quite a long time: acquired brain injury. Children from poorer backgrounds are four times more likely to suffer a brain injury under the age of five than kids from wealthier backgrounds, and again in their teenage years. Acquired brain injury in schools is barely recognised. Some schools respond to it remarkably well, but it is likely that there are somewhere between one and three children with a brain injury in every single primary class in this land. Nobody has yet done sufficient work on how much that has contributed to the mental health problems that children have today. We certainly know that the use of phones and screens after brain injury is a significant added factor, but we need to look at all the factors that affect the mental health of children to ensure that we target the specific things that really will work in a combination of policy changes.

[Damian Hinds]

The Minister speaks with a great deal of knowledge and authority, particularly on acquired brain injury, but I want to come back to the covid point. Obviously, a Westminster Hall debate is not the place to establish correlation versus causality in any sense. However, if we look at a graph of what has happened with children’s and young people’s mental ill health in this country, France, Germany and the United States, while the data are not perfectly comparable, the shape of the line is not consistent with the hypothesis that it is mainly the result of covid. It predates covid, and it carries on going up afterwards.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry if I indicated that it was mainly covid; I was not trying to say that at all. I am simply saying that that is one factor, and there may be many others—social factors, personal factors and the structure of education. One could argue, as one of my hon. Friends did, that there are other things that kids could do in society. We might, for instance, want to intervene by having a creative education option. We hardly have a youth service in most of the country any more.

[Damian Hinds]

The Minister would be making perfectly adequate points if we were talking only about this country. We could make all sorts of points about what Government policy was and what happened to Sure Start, the curriculum and youth clubs, but those things did not happen in France, Germany or the United States.

[Chris Bryant]

I have not seen any of the statistics for what has happened to youth services and the cultural education offer in schools in France and other countries.

[Damian Hinds]

I think the Minister takes my point.

[Chris Bryant]

No, I do not. I am trying to make a very simple point: many factors have contributed to the mental health problems that many young people have, and social media is undoubtedly one. The question is, how do we rate and address all those different factors? As the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) said, we must address this from a public health angle, and that is essential. But then, when we have the whole bag of evidence, rather than just individual bits of evidence, the question is, what is the most useful intervention that we can make?

I want to come on to the definition issues. Several Members raised the issue of what social media is. That is partially addressed by the Online Safety Act, but we may want to go further. As to the reason why the previous Government landed on 13 rather than 16—which was an option available to them—the consultation at the time came back with 13. It is interesting that Members referred to content availability and to there being two ages in the UK that are generally reckoned to be part of the age of majority: 16 and 18. Actually, for film classification, it is 12 and 15. There is an argument for saying that we ought to look at film classification because it is long established and—although the issues are different in many regards—some of them are similar. We might want to learn from that—I say this from my Department for Culture, Media and Sport angle—to inform the debate on this matter.

On enforcement, several Members referred to the fact that there is no point in just changing the law; if we do that but have no form of enforcement, that is worse than useless. That is one of the Government’s anxieties, and we need to make sure that the enforcement process works properly. I take the point that there are two areas where Ofcom feels it is unable to act, because the law does not allow it to do so, and we will need to look at that. That is why we are keen to get to the moment in April when the two codes will be voted on in Parliament. We will then make sure that Ofcom has not just the powers but the ability to enforce. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) said, Ofcom has the power to fine up to £18 million, or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue in the relevant year, which could be a substantial amount, but it needs to ensure it is in a legally effective position to do so.

My final point is that the Secretary of State has made it clear that nothing is off the table. We are keen to act in this space. The question is, how do we act most proportionately and effectively in a way that tackles the real problem? Some of that is about how the evidence stacks up, and some of it is about when the right time to legislate is. But, as I said earlier, I do not think for a single instant that this debate or the Online Safety Act will be the end of the story. I would be amazed if there were not further legislation, in some shape or other, in this field in the next two or three years.

With that, I once again thank Kim Campbell for bringing the petition to us, and I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.