Music Streaming: Label-led Principles

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

And now for something completely different. With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the Government’s progress with industry on the remuneration of artists in the music sector.

Music is not just the food of love. It does not just set our hearts dancing and express our deepest desires. It does not just showcase the UK to the world. As part of our dynamic creative industries, which we have identified as one of the eight priority growth sectors in our industrial strategy, it is key to our economic future as well. That is why music is at the heart of our new 10-year creative industries sector plan. Our new music growth package will more than double Government funding for the industry to £10 million annually for the next three years. That will help UK artists to achieve domestic and international success, while nurturing our grassroots music scene.

We want the UK music industry to thrive, but we know that it will not unless artists receive their fair share of the rewards, especially in the new era of streaming. The stereotype of artists starving in garrets is not a model for a successful industry. Musicians deserve their fair reward, and the industry will only flourish if new generations of musicians are able to make a living, so it is with pleasure that I announce today an important milestone: UK record labels have agreed to new measures that will boost the earnings of legacy artists, songwriters and session musicians.

The UK music industry is a global powerhouse. Coldplay, Adele, Stormzy, Ed Sheeran, Dua Lipa, Raye, Bryn Terfel, Alfie Boe, Iestyn Davies—our country has been the birthplace of genre-defining talent that has shaped the soundtrack of generations, so it is no surprise that we are the third largest music market in the world, and the second largest recorded music exporter. The first music streaming service started in 2001, and streaming now accounts for a majority of music revenue. This has created a series of challenges for the UK music industry, radically transforming how audiences experience music, how musicians earn a living, how record labels treat their artists, and how artists access different markets.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee sought to address some of these issues in an important report on music streaming in 2021. In response, the Competition and Markets Authority completed a market study into music streaming, and the Intellectual Property Office conducted research on potential copyright reforms. In spring 2024, three years after the Committee’s report, the then Government finally launched the creator remuneration working group, which is tasked with

“exploring and considering industry-led actions on remuneration from music streaming for existing and future music creators”.

The Government convened the group once before the general election, and I chaired my first meeting with it within a month of taking office. I am pleased to announce that after six meetings and a series of bilateral discussions—some of them quite difficult—this work has resulted in a set of measures from UK record labels that they estimate will deliver tens of millions of pounds of new investment to support UK artists by 2030. Central to this is a new set of principles that will be adopted by the British Phonographic Industry and the Association of Independent Music, and recommended to their UK label members.

Some independent labels are already implementing the principles, and I am delighted to say that the three major labels—Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group—will adopt them and introduce bespoke packages to boost the earnings of artists, especially legacy artists who signed up before streaming came on to the scene. In order to address the specific challenges faced by smaller labels, the BPI and the AIM are encouraging them to provide targeted support that is appropriate for their size and resources.

The principles will commit labels across the UK to providing targeted support for legacy artists, songwriters and session musicians. For legacy artists, this includes disregarding unrecouped advances, bespoke support to increase streaming engagement, and much greater clarity about the process of contract renegotiation. For songwriters, the support includes the payment of per diems for the first time, with major labels Warner UK and Universal UK committing to a payment of £75 per day, in addition to expenses. Sony UK will fund a bespoke new songwriter support programme, in partnership with the Ivors Academy, to provide financial support and assistance to songwriters; these payments will not be charged as a recoupable cost from their advance. For session musicians, the support includes an increase in session fees, agreed at the end of last year, and a commitment to reviewing their income from broadcast and public performance.

The principles announced today will complement the industry code of good practice on transparency, and the industry agreement on metadata, which we published in 2024. They mark a major milestone in the Government’s work with the music industry in response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s 2021 report on the economics of music streaming. Some concerns remain with regard to the deal for session musicians, which is why I will convene a further meeting with industry to discuss those issues.

We want these measures to be delivered in full, so that artists see real improvements. The Secretary of State and I want legacy artists to see their work revitalised and introduced to new audiences, and to have their unrecouped balances disregarded and their contracts renegotiated. In order to track progress and measure success, we will work closely with members of the creator remuneration working group, including the Council of Music Makers, on implementing a robust monitoring process, through which we can evaluate the extent to which the principles improve earnings, as intended. The Government will then assess the need for further intervention to ensure that this package delivers on its objective of bringing about real change for creators.

This is neither the end of the road nor the lifting of the needle on the record, but it is a pivotal point. If the principles we have discussed are truly implemented, they have the potential to improve the lives of artists across the UK. I am deeply grateful to the BPI, the major labels and the Association of Independent Music for engaging with this work. I want to recognise the dedication of the Council of Music Makers, which includes the Featured Artists Coalition, the Ivors Academy, the Music Managers Forum, the Music Producers Guild and the Musicians’ Union, for its tireless commitment to its members. Finally, my thanks go to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and its predecessor Committees for shining a powerful light on this issue. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

A love of music is something we all share. All of us have favourite songs that make up the soundtrack to the most meaningful moments in our lives—moments of joy and sorrow. They are songs that live forever. Our music industry is a true global success story; it has global stars like Adele, Ed Sheeran, and my favourite band, Oasis, and world-class cultural institutions such as the Royal Academy of Music and the London Symphony Orchestra.

Our music industry remains one of our greatest and strongest exports to the world. It not only showcases our talent on the world stage, but contributes £8 billion to our economy. It is truly a jewel in the crown of our thriving creative sectors. As the Minister has noted, streaming has transformed the music industry, benefiting both listeners and artists. Audiences now have access to more music than ever before, and artists can reach listeners on a scale they could only dream of in the past. However, as the Minister identifies, there is concern about whether artists receive a fair deal in this delicate ecosystem, and the Opposition share that concern. Although contracts between artists, labels and streaming platforms are private commercial agreements, I know that Members on both sides of the House agree that the success of streaming should not come at the expense of artists’ livelihoods.

In 2022, the previous Conservative Government asked the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct a study into the music and streaming services. I was encouraged to learn that the CMA found no evidence of publishing revenues being suppressed by distorted or restricted competition, and that the share of streaming revenues going to publishers and songwriters has increased from 8% in 2008 to 15% in recent years. However, concerns remain, especially around the use of artificial intelligence across the creative industries. I know that the Government have commissioned independent research on the impact on creators, performers and the wider industry of potential changes to copyright law in the areas of equitable remuneration, contract adjustment and rights reversion. Furthermore, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation has completed research on the playlisting algorithms used by streaming services.

I can assure the Minister that Members on both sides of the House want a better deal for artists, songwriters and performers. That is why we broadly welcome the Government taking an industry-led approach to this issue. If only they did that elsewhere! I must, however, press the Minister to provide assurances to the House. First, what consequences will there be for labels that fail to comply with the new principles, and what percentage of artists does he believe will benefit from today’s announcement? Secondly, what message does he have for creatives and publishers who remain deeply concerned that they are not being fairly rewarded for their hard work? Lastly, will the Government commit to reviewing these reforms within 18 months, to ensure that they are working for the industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Incidentally, I see that the former shadow Secretary of State is here, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), now shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. We wish him well in his new job.

It is a great delight to hear from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), but he is always so grumpy when he actually wants to say, “Well done.” I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I sometimes think of the Conservatives as the “all fur coat and nothing else” party, because they make nice statements but never actually do anything. It is fascinating to hear him say, “We have a concern about the remuneration of musicians.” Why did they do absolutely nothing on this subject when they were in government? It has taken a Labour Government to sit down with industry and creators to make sure that we delivered a change for people.

The hon. Gentleman asks what happens if people fail to comply. I am absolutely confident that all the labels that we are talking about will want to adopt the principles, because they have been part of the negotiating process. We had to have tough conversations at various points, but they have signed up to the principles and will deliver on them. I am confident that if any legacy artist says to their label, “I want to renegotiate my contract,” they will have a chance to renegotiate, although the precise terms of that renegotiation will of course be a matter for the artist and the label.

Some people who signed a contract before streaming came into existence might have been on a rate of something like 8%, 9%, 10% or 11%. They will be able to negotiate that up to a digital right more like 20%, 25% or 30%. That will make a significant difference to legacy artists. Many people have made the very strong point that it is all very well increasing the number of streams of a legacy artist’s work, but if they do not get any more money as a result, that will not really benefit either the record label or the legacy artist. I am very confident that this package will deliver.

The hon. Gentleman asked about having a review in 18 months’ time. I can do better than that: as I have said, we will review this in 12 months’ time, because if the package has not delivered, we reserve the right to bring in legislation. I made this point several times. In the EU, there is an equitable renumeration clause in legislation, and if we felt the need for that, we could progress that. However, after our really good discussions with all the parties, I am very confident that all of them want to comply with this package.

I will make one other point about songwriters. Lots of people know the famous names we all talk about—the hon. Gentleman referred to Ed Sheeran, Oasis and so on—but a lot of those who really deliver are the songwriters; they create the things that rattle around our brains for years and years. Making sure that they are not out of pocket was one of the really important principles I wanted to adopt. I am really proud that, for the first time, there will be per diems—£75 a day, plus expenses—to make sure that no songwriter is out of pocket. That is matched with the deal that the Ivors Academy is doing with Sony, for £100,000 a year. We have to invest in the songwriters of the future, so that we have the strong music industry we want for the future, but I am not impressed by his fur-coatery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I declare an interest, in that my son Fin is a member of the band Big Huge New Circle, whose latest single “Pearl” is out on Spotify, and is recommended by Clash magazine, which calls it “beautifully complex”.

I welcome today’s announcement, particularly the introduction of per diems and the session musician uplifts. I thank the former Member for Cardiff West, who is sitting in the Peers’ Gallery, for all his work on this. It is hugely welcome, and perfectly timed for the Musicians’ Union delegate conference this week. Given the widespread concern about fair pay for streaming, and how long it has been since our Select Committee first reported on this, can the Minister explain what further powers the Government hold to intervene if these industry-led measures fall short?

[Chris Bryant]

First of all, can I wish—was it Big Huge New Circle? [Interruption.] Yes, Big Huge New Circle. So we have got it in Hansard three times now. I will take my fee later—10% obviously. Or 15%; it is 15% for lots of agents these days.

Obviously, the future of the music industry in the UK depends on having a pipeline. The single most important thing we can do is make sure that every single child has an opportunity to be a musician at school. Creative education in our schools not only delivers by providing musicians, but is a force multiplier for lots of other forms of education. That is something on which I am working very closely with the Department for Education.

I note that Lord Brennan is up in the Gallery—that is another song from music hall, I think. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Lord Brennan, who was on the Select Committee, was one of the driving forces making sure that there was not only a first report, but a second report in the last Parliament; he held the Government’s feet to the fire. I am determined to do precisely the same when it comes to the record labels. I honestly believe that we will now have one of the best arrangements in the world for the remuneration of artists from streaming, and I am sure that the record labels will stick with the arrangement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Britain’s musicians have long been our most beloved cultural treasures. In the crowded field of excellence in our creative sectors, our musicians are some of our proudest exports. They are part of a £124 billion industry that drives our economy, so support for our legacy and session musicians is completely overdue and very welcome. The musicians covered include the Devines in Berkhamsted, upcoming artists like Myles Smith, and national treasures like Elton John—I agree that Adele is one of our national treasures—and, as was mentioned, all those around them: songwriters, producers, and those who support them.

Technological change means that online streaming now constitutes the vast bulk of music consumption, and 120,000 new tracks a day are uploaded to music platforms. This often leaves a hole in musicians’ income, so it is absolutely right that the Government are taking this issue seriously. We simply need to get this right, so I ask the Minister to clarify for the House how much confidence we can really have that the principles he is spelling out will finally lead to a more equitable distribution of streaming revenue. Ultimately, this is a label-led, voluntary framework; where is the independent oversight? Crucially, what guarantees are there of consistency or enforcement across the industry?

We have raised this issue many times in the past, but it remains true that if we are serious about protecting artists’ right to remuneration, we need to ensure that copyright, which has underpinned success for decades, works in our digitally evolving world. Musicians and creatives face an AI tsunami, which could pose a threat to their livelihoods; we need to tackle it seriously. I conclude by asking the Minister once more to consider swifter action from the Government on copyright and data mining, in order to support our musicians and creatives, as well as innovation across the UK.

[Chris Bryant]

I think the hon. Member is in danger of becoming a national treasure herself. [Interruption.] Oh, I see that I have not united the House on that, but—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Daventry cannot keep heckling; he is the shadow Health Secretary now.

The important point is that the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) asked what confidence we can have that this will be adhered to, and I am very confident that it will. I have had face-to-face conversations with all the chief executives of the major record labels, and although sometimes I have been asking them to go further, they have gone that extra mile, and I am absolutely sure that they will deliver on this. I am confident that any legacy artist who wants to renegotiate their contract will be able to do so. We will be looking at precisely how that happens.

If anybody is not happy with their renegotiation, we have included in the principles a means of appealing. That is obviously a major role of the Musicians’ Union, but if by the autumn we suddenly find that lots of musicians are saying, “Excuse me, but I haven’t managed to renegotiate with my label”, then we will be returning to this issue. The record labels are fully aware of that, but they are determined: each is going to put together a bespoke package to try to revitalise legacy work. They are also looking at wiping off unrecouped balances and making sure people can earn more into the future.

The one thing I have always been nervous about it is that I do not think Governments should be writing contracts. This is really important. Julie Andrews, when she took the role of Maria in “The Sound of Music”, decided—or this is how the negotiation ended up—that she would just take an up-front free, and she never got paid any royalties thereafter. That was probably a poor decision, or she was not given any other choice. However, I think Schwarzenegger, when he made movies, quite often decided to take the royalties and did not take any up-front fees. Different artists will enter renegotiation in different ways, but we wanted to rebalance the equation so that it is more in the interests of the musicians, and that is what we have done.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I welcome this statement; it is brilliant. Three weeks ago, I had the most fantastic visit to Universal Music—thanks to Charlotte Allan for sorting that out. I also spoke to the chief executive, Dickon. Their support, love and continued passion for bringing in new artists was really transparent and obvious to me, so to hear this arrangement for legacy artists is just wonderful. It was not done in a timely enough manner, but it is wonderful that, just over a year after getting into power, we have effected this change; I thank the Minister for that. I am also very pleased to see in the statement a commitment to having more conversations with session musicians on ensuring that they get the recognition they should be getting. Will he give me some idea of the timeframes for those next steps?

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she said about Dickon. He was really very helpful at Universal in the process of getting us to this place, particularly on the issue of per diems—the £75 a day—which was one of the major asks of the Ivors Academy, and I am really pleased we were able to do that. She is right that we need to look at session musicians, and of one of the undertakings I have made is that I will be getting the BPI and the Musicians’ Union together to discuss that matter again this autumn. I hope that will be in the first couple of weeks of September.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Given the Minister’s helpful references of a sartorial nature to his opposite number, may I congratulate him on his carefully understated choice of necktie today? I shall certainly remember to bring my dark glasses next time he is on parade. Can he explain to me—as an ardent Swiftie myself—what protection performers, such as the son of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), have against their tracks being uploaded by anyone to a service such as YouTube, whereby it is possible for people to enjoy their music without apparently paying them any royalties at all?

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the comments about my tie. I would say that it is understated compared to some of the other ties I have worn, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his commendation on my sartorial elegance. But he is wrong about YouTube. YouTube is one of the streaming services and people are remunerated. One could argue that they should be remunerated more, but if people are breaching copyright, that is an offence and it needs to be pursued. Record labels are pretty keen on doing so on behalf of their artists, but, as I say, YouTube is one of the streaming outlets.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and his work along with the Government. We will now be among world leaders in supporting our creative industries, especially on streaming remuneration. Will he outline how he will ensure the changes fairly benefit all artists, including legacy performers, session musicians and those outside major labels? What steps will be taken to enforce industry-wide implementation, especially if voluntary measures fall short?

[Chris Bryant]

The argument for doing this is partly because all musicians simply do not earn enough to make a living. That is the truth of the matter. Having 12 million streamings might equate to earning a theoretical amount of money, but the musician will not earn that amount because it will be diluted by the various processes it goes through—the money the agent takes and all the rest of it. Maybe that is why so many artists have produced songs about poverty—even Destiny’s Child, with “Bills, Bills, Bills”. It has been an obsession for many artists. There is sometimes the impression that an artist, in music or in any other creative industry, can only be really good if they have struggled a bit, but the truth is that we want people to be able to make a living out of their creative industry. A key part of being a Labour Government is being able to deliver that.

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

May I invite the Minister to congratulate Isle of Wight band Wet Leg on reaching the top of the albums chart, a particular achievement given that it has beaten Oasis, which I know has personally disappointed my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French)?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I am more Wet Leg than Oasis as well.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music, I commend the Minister on doing an excellent job of bringing record labels into these new provisions. The history of the music industry is sadly full of tales of exploitation, and the industry has proved notable for its intransigence. Protecting the dignity of British songwriters by putting money in their pockets is a welcome step, and it is pleasing to see greater transparency over artists’ renegotiations. However, it is clear that the label provisions, as helpful as they are, do not change or rectify the economic injustice of the streaming model as it stands.

As the Minister knows, copyright law was not brought up to do date for streaming, never mind for what is approaching with AI. More than half the membership of the Musicians’ Union earn less than £14,000 a year. I commend the Minister for his efforts, but can he also offer Members reassurance that this is not job done, when so many music creators and workers are still so poorly served by current arrangements? What more is he going to do for new and emerging artists in terms of the streaming model?

[Chris Bryant]

The one bit we have not been able to address is the amount of money that goes from the streamers themselves directly to the record labels. That is an international settlement, so it is more difficult for us to address. There was a time, when I first arrived in the House, when musicians were getting absolutely nothing and the amount of money going to record labels and musicians fell off a cliff because of pirated music. Spotify and other streaming services then came into the equation and managed to rectify some of that, but the situation is far from ideal.

I wish more of the money was going directly to the artists. It is my own personal decision that I do not stream music; I buy music, because I think more of the money goes to the artists that way. But of course, for millions of people in the UK—even for the Swiftie over there on the Opposition Benches, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—I am sure that streaming is a convenient way of accessing music that they might never have come across otherwise.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I welcome today’s announcement, not least because I am the mum of an aspiring composer and performer. I was pleased that the Minister mentioned the work of teachers and the Department for Education in supporting music in schools. Credit should go to Mr Wardrobe from Downlands community school in Hassocks for putting together the band Room 3, by literally putting them in the practice room, room 3, when they were at school. They are now doing really well and performing regularly in Brighton. How can the Minister ensure that the benefits announced today are not just concentrated in London, but benefit all the regions, including Sussex?

[Chris Bryant]

I commend Mr Wardrobe, who has made the room where it happens musically. I commend all music teachers. I remember when I was at school, our music teacher decided that the boys’ choir should sing a song from a musical. Unfortunately, it included the lines, “I don’t know how to love him…And I’ve loved so many men before” and he suddenly decided that we would not be singing it anymore—so music teachers do not always get it right, but sometimes they are courageous.

It is really important we ensure that this is about not just London, but the whole UK. That is one reason that it was important that we got the per diems issue sorted. Songwriters from across the UK sometimes do have to travel into London for song camps, writing camps or whatever, and making sure they get their expenses plus a per diem is a really important part of ensuring that this does not just apply to some people in our cities.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I really welcome the statement, which provides more support for grassroots music creators. It is also important that grassroots music creators have the grassroots music venues to play in, including the fantastic Acoustic Couch in Bracknell. Will Minister update the House on the Department’s plans for supporting grassroots music venues across the country?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, and I commend Acoustic Couch. I have not visited, but I am sure an invitation will be on its way very soon. We want to preserve as many of our small music venues as we possibly can. That is why we are pushing as hard as possible the idea of a £1 levy on arena tickets. I am delighted that the Royal Albert Hall announced yesterday that it will be first venue across the UK to implement that. I have pushed Live Nation to step up on this and it said, “Yes, yes, yes,” but it felt a bit like, “Maybe, maybe, maybe”, so I am still saying, “Quando, quando, quando”.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome this industry-led approach—that is the right thing to do—but we also need to bear in mind the artists who need remuneration at the end of it. They are not doing it for the money, but they do deserve to be paid. What plans do Ministers have for the independent monitoring of the implementation? I ask that so the Minister does not himself have to retain an eye of the tiger at all times.

[Chris Bryant]

Oh dear, the hon. Gentleman is worse than me. [Interruption.] Oh yes he is—and it’s not even panto season yet! [Interruption.] He has a very moderate tie, though.

It is important that we have proper evaluation. We are in the process of working out precisely how we will do that. I have said to the group that we will convene in a year’s time. By then, we will have evaluated fully whether this has really worked. I am honestly very confident that it will deliver the goods. The hon. Gentleman says that artists are not necessarily doing it for the money. I went to see Alison Moyet at Kew Gardens a couple of weeks ago. She was absolutely magnificent. At the beginning of her set, she said, “I’m not necessarily going to play what everybody wants me to play, because this isn’t karaoke. I’m an artist and a musician, not just a celebrity.” That balance is really important for lots of artists and musicians. They need to earn a living, but they are also artists who have their own conditions and they need to be able to pursue what lies in their heart.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I start by—[Interruption.] Oh, that is a bright tie, Minister. I start by echoing earlier comments thanking the former Member for Cardiff West, the unions and the Ivors Academy for their important campaigning on this issue, and I congratulate the Minister for getting this important deal over the line. The music industry has long suffered with issues of transparency, and I have no doubt that the Minister will want to ensure that these announcements make a real-world difference. Will he therefore tell us a little more about the independent scrutiny that will be in place to ensure that these new measures are implemented, and will he say whether there is a means of auditing what benefit music makers will see from these changes?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that the new measures are implemented. As I say, I do not want to undermine confidence in that, because I do not want to give anybody a get-out clause for not implementing them. We will be working over the next few weeks with both the BPI and the Association of Independent Music on putting together a proper evaluation process over the next year, and I hope I will be making a statement in a year’s time—although obviously that will not be up to me—on precisely how it has worked out. As I said earlier, I reckon this is worth several tens of millions of pounds of extra investment in the British music industry, and I think we will see that it has delivered.

Just returning to the issue of my tie, Madam Deputy Speaker: it is a Day of the Dead tie by Van Buck.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

The Minister does very well to shake off the abuse about his tie from the Swiftie on the Opposition Benches—it is mainly empty spaces there—the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). His reputation remains unscathed.

Calder Valley has a thriving creative sector with lots of small and independent artists who have lost out to streaming. Today’s announcement is welcome, of course, but small artists face the twin threat of both AI and streaming. Will the Minister assure me and the House that he will do more to ensure that those small artists can get the money in their pockets, where it belongs?

[Chris Bryant]

The point I made about the remuneration of musicians, and all forms of artists, applies equally to streaming and to AI. The Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Science, Innovation and Technology held their first meeting last week with the creative industries and AI companies to discuss how we proceed on the issue of AI and copyright. There is a broadly outlined set of principles, one of which is undoubtedly that those who made the original work must be remunerated when it is used to create some other form of work and some other form of value.

I agree with my hon. Friend on his point about empty spaces on the Opposition Benches—empty chairs at empty tables.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Today’s news is great, especially for the artists and musicians in my constituency who regularly play at the Bootleg, a fantastic venue that we must ensure stays open for future generations to enjoy as my dad and I have enjoyed it. What plans are in place to engage with artists, representatives and the trade unions to ensure that today’s welcome changes deliver meaningful improvements for artists at all stages of their careers?

[Chris Bryant]

It is good to see my hon. Friend in his place. I gather that the pier is for sale—

[Chris Webb]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether he is intending to buy it himself. Of course, many acts have appeared on the pier over the years.

My hon. Friend makes the point again about the importance of having small venues where people can perform to start and build their career and end up as the kind of household successes that we know. Not everybody will earn millions from music, but we do want many more people to be able to make a decent living out of their music in the UK. Establishing good terms of trade and having a strong copyright regime is absolutely key to delivering that. The Musicians’ Union was a key part of the discussions that we held throughout the last year.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

For the final question, I call Chris Vince.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was some mention of national treasures earlier; to quote Alison Moyet, “Only you”. [Laughter.] I won’t be called last next time.

From the Newtown Neurotics to Don’t Worry and The Subways, Harlow has always had a vibrant music scene. What plans does the Minister have to engage with artists at all stages of their careers to ensure that these welcome changes provide meaningful improvement?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, I am “All Cried Out” that I was not on my hon. Friend’s list of national treasures.

He makes a very important point. We need to ensure that these changes apply across the whole of the United Kingdom. In her performance at Kew, Alison Moyet also made the point that every child is a musician and an artist until they are persuaded not to be at some point in their life. This is what I really want to embrace in everything that the Government do in this area, in relation to the creative industries; we talk about film and the big, famous successes that we have in the UK, but actually, a lot of it is about real hard graft by people who have had to learn how to perform well, what it is to be in front of an audience, how it is to market their performance and all the rest of it. It is tough, tough, tough. Half the time, all those musicians are saying to the record labels is, “You pay my rent.”

Digital Infrastructure Deployment: Growth

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government are committed to unlocking the barriers to telecoms deployment across the United Kingdom, as outlined in the recently published 10-year infrastructure strategy by HM Treasury. This strategy underscores the vital role that modern infrastructure plays in fostering economic growth, enhancing connectivity, and driving innovation in all regions of the country.

Digital infrastructure underpins growth right across the economy, and is also a powerful contributor to the economy in its own right, with the sector worth an estimated £50 billion to the UK. It supports the adoption of new and emerging technologies including artificial intelligence and enables citizens to participate in modern life. In an increasingly online world, growth in data consumption and increased demands on the UK’s digital infrastructure mean there is an urgent need to support the sector in delivering greater connectivity for local communities and businesses.

We are committed to the roll-out of gigabit-capable broadband and 5G networks, with the ultimate goal of enabling businesses, residents, and institutions to access seamless and reliable connectivity. These efforts are essential to building a more competitive, equitable, and digitally connected nation.

To overcome barriers to deployment of gigabit-capable infrastructure in blocks of flats, we will consult on measures by the autumn to create a new right for leaseholders to request a gigabit broadband connection and a duty for freeholders not to unreasonably refuse the request. Working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we would seek to legislate for any resulting measures when parliamentary time allows.

Work is under way to ensure that delays arising from the higher-risk building safety regime are addressed as soon as possible. We are working closely with the telecoms sector to understand the scale of the impact on telecoms deployment specifically, alongside developing appropriate remedies which will support the continued investment and roll-out of 5G and gigabit broadband while upholding the Government’s commitment to building safety.

We will accelerate the roll-out of gigabit-capable broadband by tackling barriers to the deployment of underground broadband infrastructure. We have trialled the use of flexi-permits for street works and will see the results of the evaluation in October. Should that demonstrate positive results, we will promptly consult on the necessary legislative changes.

We will consider areas where planning laws and guidance might be changed to facilitate the deployment of mobile masts. To that end, we will publish a call for evidence on permitted development rights as soon as possible. Subject to feedback received, any resulting measures designed to enable faster deployment of telecommunications infrastructure will be implemented as quickly as possible.

We will implement the remaining provisions of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 to make it easier and cheaper for digital infrastructure to be deployed. Subject to considering the consultation responses, we intend to finalise sections 61 to 64 of the Act, relating to renewal agreements, by the end of the year.

The 10-year infrastructure strategy represents a bold and ambitious step toward a more connected and thriving United Kingdom. By removing obstacles to telecoms deployment, we are creating the foundations for a brighter future, where digital connectivity transforms lives, drives economic progress, and strengthens communities across the country. We will continue to work closely with the telecoms sector to drive forward infrastructure build.

[HCWS867]

Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

As usual, it is a great delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

I warmly commend the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for doing something perhaps intrinsic to our political system—because, unlike in many other systems around the world, we have a constituency model—and standing up for her constituents. I laud her for doing so.

I think the right hon. Lady over-egged the pudding a bit and emphasised rather too much; she was creating some conspiracy theories in there about the supposed secrecy around the ICO. She said that there are some governance changes going on at the ICO; I gently say to her that there was a Bill that went through the House of Commons in this Session, and also in the previous Parliament, when her party was in government. A large chunk of that Bill was specifically devoted to the structure of the ICO, and I do not remember her taking part in the debates at any point, although she could have done. She could have tabled an amendment if she wanted to make the ICO more accountable to Parliament, but I note that she did not choose to do so. That may be because she trusted that the system was perfectly adequate—

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way to the right hon. Lady for a moment, because she has posed quite a lot of questions that I need to answer.

The right hon. Lady asked about funding. A statutory instrument was laid to change the ICO’s funding arrangements, because successive Governments have loaded it up with more and more work, and there are more and more freedom of information requests, which has inevitably led to a larger body of work for the organisation. That is why we consulted prior to increasing the fees, leading to the statutory instrument—which of course could have been prayed against, although I am not aware that anybody chose to do so—that brought in the increase in fees. I do not think that the ICO is deliberately trying, as she seemed to suggest, to increase its remit or to do unnecessary work: we have given it a job of work.

The right hon. Lady also asked about the ICO’s accountability to Parliament. She is quite right that it would be perfectly legitimate for the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee to invite the Information Commissioner to give evidence, and for that matter, of course, the Public Accounts Committee has a responsibility to scrutinise the ICO.

I am happy to give way to the right hon. Lady now.

[Esther McVey]

I thank the Minister very much for giving way. I would recommend that he did not shoot from the hip with his answers. I said that I would allow him to write to me, because some of these matters were complex. Trying to suggest that this is a conspiracy theory adds another layer to the cover-up that I have not have responses from him or from the ICO about. Also, he should not question what I did or did not know, or do, when I was in my previous role, because I did not have oversight of this issue in my role in the Cabinet Office. Again, I say to him, “Don’t shoot from the hip.” I would prefer a written reply; in fact, it would only be right for me and the residents of Wilmslow to have a proper, considered reply.

[Chris Bryant]

It would be easier for me to respond to a lot of the right hon. Lady’s questions if she was not attacking me quite so much. The point I am making is that this is a body based in her constituency, and for the whole of the past year we have been debating the Data (Use and Access) Bill, now an Act, which refers specifically to the ICO, and I do not remember her taking part in those debates at all.

The other point I would make is that the independence of the ICO is really important—it is vital. I am not making that point to pass the buck; I am making a point about how important it is that we have an independent person adjudicating on freedom of information requests. I am sure that when the right hon. Lady was a Minister, such requests would come across her desk, and it is important that people have trust in the independence of the Information Commissioner.

Basically, what has happened is that the Information Commissioner’s Office has decided what is the best value and the best place for it to be based. I will come on to give the precise numbers, which I think will answer most of the questions that the right hon. Lady has put to me.

Since its establishment in 1984, the ICO has grown significantly in size and importance, and alongside reforms in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 the regulator is delivering a transformation programme to enable it to continue to perform as an agile and forward-looking regulator. It is crucial that the ICO has the right expertise and skills within the organisation to make this transformational change a success.

In addition, the ICO is retaining a presence in Wilmslow, as the right hon. Lady said, until at least 2030, and staff were consulted as part of the process. I note the point she made about wanting to know more about that consultation; I am quite happy to write to her about how it was engaged in.

The ICO continues to offer its staff flexibility in where they work and internal surveys showed that relocating to Manchester city centre would not negatively affect staff attendance in the office. Economic analysis commissioned by the ICO also showed that average commuting costs across all modes of public transport to and from a Manchester city centre location were lower than travelling to and from the current Wilmslow office location. That is one of the reasons why I think the right hon. Lady is on the wrong side of the economic argument here, and why I support what the ICO has done.

In response to this debate, the ICO has also told me that the decision to relocate to Manchester will provide it with a strong talent pipeline for the future, which will continue to diversify its workforce and provide technological skills for its long-term success. The right hon. Lady asked about diversity—I think that she is on some kind of Trump line here—but the point is a simple one: 8.2% of the ICO’s workforce is at or approaching retirement age. That is one of the issues that it must consider in making sure it has a pipeline of people into the future. The Oxford Road corridor will support that pipeline through its concentration of universities, research institutions and businesses in the health, technology and creative sectors. That will give the ICO access to the workforce of one of the fastest-growing tech hubs in Europe, and that access will be better in Manchester than in Wilmslow.

In undertaking its own analysis, the ICO reviewed a range of locations, including remaining within Wilmslow—that option was considered. Locations were assessed against objectives such as access to skills, demographics, proximity to existing stakeholders, cultural diversity and proximity to transport hubs. The ICO’s economists developed a locations option tool, underpinned by the Treasury’s Green Book principles, which used Office for National Statistics data to support an evidence-based decision. Using that tool, Manchester city centre was evaluated as the top-scoring location and Wilmslow was ranked second.

There was no role for DSIT in the ICO’s decision to relocate. I was not asked, and we did not take part in that decision. The ICO involved the necessary Cabinet Office approval processes and engaged early with the Government Property Agency and the Office of Government Property, allowing scrutiny and challenge of the business case. I am sure that the right hon. Lady would agree that that is an important part of making sure we are getting value for money for the taxpayer.

Both Manchester city centre and Wilmslow were considered, with Manchester city centre identified as the top-ranking location. I am afraid that the right hon. Lady’s figures, which are imaginary, are not accurate and therefore cannot be relied upon. The 3 Circle Square office location in Manchester was chosen over Wycliffe House in Wilmslow due to its alignment with strategic objectives and its value for money. Importantly, the lifecycle costs for Circle Square stood at £19.1 million, compared with £21.5 million for Wycliffe House, based on Green Book principles.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will in a moment. I throw this point back at the right hon. Lady; I am sure she would not want to waste taxpayers’ money.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I remind the right hon. Lady that interventions should be short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid it would cost £2.4 million more to stay in Wilmslow than it would to move. All the right hon. Lady’s statistics are purely imaginary and speculative, and therefore cannot be relied on. That is why we have to go through a proper process and not simply put things together on the back of a fag packet.

Additional benefits include improved sustainability credentials, moving from an energy performance certificate C-rated building to an A-rated one, which importantly reduces energy costs. Through the approval process, the main challenge from the Office of Government Property centred on the utilisation of wider public estate options, notably in Salford, where the council has a lease. However, that option was dismissed due to accessibility concerns over the existing staff commuting to Salford—I am sure the right hon. Lady would agree with that decision at least.

According to the ICO, Manchester city centre also offered future lease commitments that provided best value for money, and it did not leave unoccupied or underutilised space. Shared space facilities at 3 Circle Square enable a reduction in contracted floor space, further enhancing the cost efficiencies. Yet again, I make the point to the right hon. Lady that this is a matter of us saving money, not wasting taxpayers’ money, which is a key injunction that she herself was making. The ICO carried out the necessary consultation and analysis conditions as required by the Cabinet Office, and received approval on 7 May. The ICO needs to maintain its position as a world-class regulator. To address that, we encouraged it to seek out the best talent and technological expertise while providing value for money to the taxpayer, and we recognise that location is an important part of that process.

The right hon. Lady asked me one other question, right at the beginning of her speech, about whether this matter was thoroughly considered, and the answer is very firmly yes. The ICO went through a rigorous process internally—

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not, I am afraid, going to give way now—[Interruption.]

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister is not giving way.

[Chris Bryant]

The ICO went through a thorough process. It had to gain approval at the end of that process, although it had been speaking to the Cabinet Office from the very beginning. That is why I believe it has come up with the best solution to ensure it has the talent it needs into the future, bearing in mind that nearly 10% of its staff are near retirement age. It is also the best value for the Government and therefore for the taxpayer—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Well, this is a rum old affair, isn’t it? I think we can definitely put this down as one of the recondite moments of parliamentary democracy. A number of people have asked me today, “What on earth is all this about?” and then said, “What is an opposed private Bill?” or “What has the Chairman of Ways and Means got to do with it?” and all the rest of it—so, yes, it is a strange little moment.

It is nice to see the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who listed about a fiftieth of all the things he has sat on in his time, and it still added up to rather a large number of things that he has been involved in at some point or other, including virtually every committee at the Royal Albert Hall, apart from selecting the music—

[Sir John Whittingdale]

It would have been very difficult.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes—well, it would have been endlessly hard rock, wouldn’t it, if it was just to please him?

Of course, this debate is timely because the Proms are about to start. The Proms are one of the most renowned British cultural institutions in the UK, where the BBC meets the public in a more open way than in any other. The concerts are broadcast all around the world, and everybody knows about them—not just the last night, but the first night, the penultimate night and all the different bits that have tradition attached to them.

Of course, the Royal Albert Hall, as everybody has referred to, is one of the great cultural institutions of the UK. It is a phenomenally versatile space, apart from anything else. People have mentioned concerts they have been to. Dua Lipa, of course, had a wonderful concert there last year. I think my husband has been to see Kylie there—well, he has been to see Kylie nearly everywhere. I have been to see Kylie nearly everywhere, too—it is always nice to live up to a stereotype, isn’t it? What is amazing is that wrestling and so many other different styles of events can take place there—the right hon. Member for Maldon mentioned Cirque du Soleil, for example.

The Royal Albert Hall is a great part of the British cultural sector, and it is unique in the way it is structured financially and constitutionally. I do not think that anybody has said this evening that it is precisely how one would probably want to constitute it if one was starting from scratch. [Interruption.] I noted a slight Gallic shrug from the right hon. Member for Maldon, so I think he is sort of agreeing with me. I think most of the people who own the seats at the Royal Albert Hall would agree that it is not quite what anybody would design if they were starting again today.

It is worth reminding ourselves of precisely what we are doing with a private Bill, because it is different from a public Bill. “Erskine May” does not get to private Bills until page 1,024 or something, so we can tell that they are unusual. It states:

“In giving any bill a second reading, the House approves the general principle, or expediency, of the measure. There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill. A public bill is founded on public policy, and the House, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and approves that policy; whereas the expediency of a private bill is founded upon allegations of fact which have not yet been proved, so that the House, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill conditionally, subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.”

I am sure the Committee stage will be interesting, as the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) said, because these allegations of fact will have to be proven. That takes us to the several points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who is one of the most redoubtable experts on the issue of ticket sales in this country. I very much hope that we will be able to put the biggest smile on her face later in this Parliament when we come up with legislation to tackle the issues around the secondary ticketing market, which we are determined to do.

I take issue slightly with something that the right hon. Member for Maldon said. He said, “Private property is private property and we never want to interfere with it.” In one sense I agree with him, of course, but when it comes to the sale of tickets, I am not sure that that quite applies as cleanly as it might in other forms. If the value returns to the artists or the venue, I do not have a problem, but when the value from the secondary ticketing market simply disappears into the trousers of online touts and bots, many of which are not even based in this country, I think that that is a problem.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Oh dear.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The Minister and I will undoubtedly debate the Government’s proposals for secondary ticketing at a future date, but I want to make it clear that what we are talking about here is not touts or bots, but people who own a seat and the right to sit in that seat and who choose to sell it to somebody else, which is a very different prospect from the one that he outlines.

[Chris Bryant]

Of course. I was merely responding to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South. If we had a debate in which there was a venue mentioned and she were not to stand up and make a speech about ticket touts, we would think that something was wrong; we would go and search all the A&Es in the country to find out what had happened to her. She said that she supports clauses 4 and 5. I think that the right hon. Gentleman supports clause 4, but he is not quite so keen on clause 5 because it was inserted in the House of Lords. As he knows, we are doing a very simple thing tonight: deciding whether to give the Bill its Second Reading. For a private Bill, it is traditional for the Government—as for the Opposition—not to stand in the way, nor to urge people one way or the other.

I repeat a point made in the House of Lords by my noble Friend Baroness Twycross, however: we are disappointed that some concerns about the potential conflict of interest between the hall’s charitable objectives and the private financial interests of individuals have yet to be met. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Charity Commission has taken a view in this space. I think that some of those issues still need to be addressed more fervently; whether it happens through this Bill or through other means, at some point we will have to address them.

The right hon. Member for Daventry said that the Bill had been hovering around for some time, but it was interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Maldon say that people at the Royal Albert Hall are wondering what other constitutional changes should be brought about. One would hope that if we are to have a private Bill on the Royal Albert Hall, we can do it just once in a Parliament, or in a decade—or in a lifetime, frankly. It would be good if we could address all the issues in a single Bill.

Nevertheless, as is the tradition with all private Bills, the Government neither support nor oppose this Bill. That sounds like a strange moment in British politics, doesn’t it? But the last time I went to the Royal Albert Hall was for Emeli Sandé. I think one of her songs might be apposite at this point. [Hon. Members: “Don’t sing!”] No, I am not going to sing. What’s wrong with Emeli Sandé?

[Stuart Andrew]

Nothing—it’s you!

[Chris Bryant]

I think I will make sure that gets into Hansard now. The right hon. Gentleman is taking objection to me personally. Well, there we are.

[Stuart Andrew]

Go on, then—sing.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to sing. Do behave! The right hon. Gentleman is almost as bad as I used to be when I sat where he is sitting now.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Never!

[Chris Bryant]

And the former Minister for common sense has now completely abandoned common sense, clearly.

Anyway, Emeli Sandé sang:

“You’ve got the words to change a nation

But you’re biting your tongue,

You’ve spent a lifetime stuck in silence

Afraid you’ll say something wrong.”

Since the Government do not have anything to say on this business, that is where I shall end.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Public Libraries: Usage in England

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Written Statements

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

I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for Gambling and Heritage and DCMS Lords Minister, Baroness Twycross:

This year will be the 175th anniversary of the very first Public Libraries Act—an Act which established the principle of free public libraries for the

“instruction and recreation of the people”.

This principle has supported the creation and development of the public library network across England. Over 2,500 library branches make up the statutory library provision in this country—one of the most extensive networks of local community assets we have.

Libraries reach millions of people every year, providing inspiration, education and entertainment in free-to-use, safe, trusted and welcoming spaces. But use has declined over the last decade, and we want to better understand why that is the case and what, together, we can do to tackle this.

Last October we published the first phase of our research to consider this question. That work used in-depth focus groups to question what prevents people from using public libraries and what might support them to re-engage. We committed to commissioning further research to test these findings at scale; this work took place between December 2024 and March 2025.

Today’s report provides a comprehensive picture of people who do not use public libraries in England, exploring who they are, what their perceptions of libraries are, the barriers that might be preventing them from using the library, and the services or approaches that might entice them back. For the first time we have a picture of the complex landscape of people who do not use libraries, noting five distinct groupings whose experiences and views of public libraries vary and who may require different interventions.

Barriers that were consistently noted included:

Lack of personal relevance and availability of services elsewhere;

Lack of awareness of the full range of library offerings and outdated perceptions;

Accessibility challenges including opening hours and parking.

The work then drew on the involvement of library staff, at both senior leadership and branch management levels, to identify potential actions and interventions that could be explored to reach different target groups and turn the tide on the use of public libraries. Some of the potential interventions explored were:

Widening the library reach by seeking to engage those who do not currently use libraries through social media channels;

Bringing those who do not use libraries to the library space through hosting other services or working with partners to use library space—e.g. health, breakfast clubs, early years;

Encouraging people who do not use libraries to re-engage with the library by increasing their understanding of why using libraries is beneficial—e.g. sustainability, money saving—and targeting these messages to specific groups.

We know that implementing these or other potential actions will look different depending on place and that it will be important to tailor interventions to specific audiences and local context.

Since I became libraries Minister I have met with representatives of the public library sector to discuss the challenges in the sector, reflect on priority policy areas and consider how best we can support the sector, drawing on this research. I know the wider sector is already aware of this work and keen to see this final report so that library services can actively consider how they might use the results.

DCMS will continue to encourage and support local activity. We will also consider what action the Government might take to reinvigorate library use. With their extensive network of trusted spaces, used by all kinds of people, libraries are uniquely placed to reach into communities and to support us to deliver on our plan for change.

I will place a copy of the “What works to engage library non-users” report in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS806]

Space Weather

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a delight to see you in your place, Mr Turner, and to take part in this debate.

Given the weather we have been having, it is somewhat ironic that we are worrying about space weather. People sometimes think the sun is a wonderful thing and a delight when it comes out in the UK. It also helps ice cream sales, with the best ice cream in Britain coming from Subzero, made in the Rhondda—I note no contest on that. But having suffered from stage 4 melanoma, I am also conscious that the sun can cause enormous damage through normal exposure. One of the fastest growing forms of cancer in the UK is skin cancer, as a direct result of people being over-exposed to the sun. My advice is that people should avoid the sun between 10 o’clock and 3 o’clock and, if they are out in the sun, that they should cover up or use high-quality sunscreen.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for securing the debate, which relates to an important part of the resilience we need in this country. Of course, it is something we need to do not on our own but with our allies. As he said, we are intimately involved with the European Space Agency, and we will address some of these issues with allies in other countries.

The hon. Member is right to highlight the importance of space weather. He referred to the 1989 Quebec incident, and there are many others, although some have not been quite as severe. He did not mention what happened in May 2024 when, to the great delight of many people, the aurora borealis was visible all the way down to Kent, which antagonised my husband, who has on many occasions gone to Norway, Iceland and all sorts of other places, where he has sat in car parks to try to watch it without ever seeing it. At the same time, 5,000 Starlink satellites had to perform autocorrection manoeuvres to make sure they were safe. The system survived, but it shows that severe space weather can have a profound effect on our satellites.

The Royal Academy of Engineering has reported on some of the potential impacts if we were to have a repeat of the Carrington event. We might be talking about the grid carrying 13 times its normal voltage, which would damage transformers. Two coastal nodes could experience disconnection. Blackouts of a few hours could occur in major urban areas across the United Kingdom. As for our satellites, 10% of the operational fleet could experience temporary outages lasting hours to days, and all satellites would experience rapid ageing due to damage to their solar arrays. There would be an effect on space-based PNT—positioning, navigation and timing—and a loss of lower-frequency Satcom and HF radio communications for between one and three days.

People often think that space does not really matter to how we live our lives, but I would defy anybody in this country to live a whole day without engaging with something that is affected by satellites or by space, whether it is going shopping, navigating by car or on foot—exiting a tube station and knowing whether to go left or right—using the internet or knowing that the supermarket is ordering the right things. So many aspects of our lives are determined by such things, including forecasting the weather so we know whether to take an umbrella to Wimbledon. All those things are affected by space, which is why it is all the more important that we take it extremely seriously.

The UK is a world leader in forecasting space weather. The Met Office space weather operations centre in Exeter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) mentioned, makes a high-quality contribution not just to our own country but to other countries across the world. The Met Office is currently evaluating a five-year £20 million research programme sponsored by UK Research and Innovation.

The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley was right to mention monitoring and observation of the sun, which is essential to understanding and predicting space weather. That is why we are the leading funder of the European Space Agency’s Vigil mission, which he referred to. This will be Europe’s first dedicated space weather mission, it will provide data and imagery 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and it is expected to launch in 2031. Vigil will work in tandem with United States spacecraft to improve the provision of solar observations. These will provide critical data, enabling forecasters to predict when solar eruptions will impact the Earth. The mission demonstrates that the UK and Europe are committed to space weather monitoring, and it holds equal importance for the US, the UK and European partners. That combination is important for all of us.

The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley was also right to mention the issues that apply to the Ministry of Defence, as this is not just about space weather; it is about potential damage to satellite constellations. It is a simple fact that if we wanted to dominate a terrain or a domain on the Earth in a conflict situation, we would want to dominate the satellites in space as well. That is why, if there were to be any kind of major conflict, it would almost certainly start in space before it started on Earth. That is why it is so important that the UK has a joint operation between the civil side, through the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the military side, through the Ministry of Defence, to track everything that is happening in the several layers of space so that we know the potential dangers.

Some of those dangers might be a result of space weather, but they might also be a result of the amount of debris up there. I am glad to say that the UK has some of the leading companies in developing space debris removal to make space sustainable. A chunk of a satellite inadvertently crashing into another is problematic, and a hostile state actor taking out UK satellites, or satellites on which we rely, would be equally significant. That is why I am proud that, for the last year, we have had a joint team working in High Wycombe—which I visited a couple of weeks ago with the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle)—to make sure that everything in space on which we rely here on Earth is secure.

The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley is right that we must not lag behind, but I would argue that we are ahead. We know there are potential hostile actors. The obvious two that have been mentioned in previous public debates are Russia and China. He is absolutely right, so we need to make sure we are at the forefront of securing our defence operations.

The previous Government published the UK’s first severe space weather preparedness strategy in 2015. The current strategy was published in 2021 and supports the aims of the national space strategy. It ensures that severe space weather is appropriately managed, enabling the UK to pursue its wider ambitions in space, and sets out a five-year road map to improve the UK’s preparedness for a severe space weather event. Anybody who can add up will have noticed that five years after 2021 is 2026. I am confident that, now DSIT and the MOD have their spending review settlements, we will publish a full space strategy and lay it before the House. Part of that will undoubtedly respond to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley today.

The hon. Gentleman asked me six questions, but he asked them so quickly that the first point in my notes is just “a plan”—I was not writing fast enough. I am absolutely certain that we will produce a plan, because we will produce a plan for the whole sector, and this issue will undoubtedly be part of it. Secondly, he asked whether we will introduce statutory requirements. We will obviously have to keep that under review to see whether it is necessary, and it is part of what we would include in a plan. If we were to do that, we would have to consult, which takes time.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about armed forces preparedness, which I assure him we take very seriously. One of our recent innovations is to gather all the Ministers with responsibility for space-related issues in different Departments—the MOD, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Transport, the Foreign Office, other parts of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—because we need to make sure that we act as a whole Government in this area. The next meeting is next Monday. I am very hopeful that we can spot areas where we can secure efficiencies because we are working as a whole Government. We can also make sure that none of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised are forgotten.

I think the hon. Gentleman’s fourth question was about broadcasting. In my mind, we have Mr Schafernaker giving us a televised weekly update on space weather. My message to the broadcasters is that it would be good if they gave people in the UK a better understanding of the significance of space and the space sector—not just that it is an industrial powerhouse, which we are good at, but of our engagement and involvement in space and how important it is to us. We also need more people in the UK to think of it as a potential career, so perhaps Mr Schafernaker should produce a regular space weather broadcast. I cannot remember whether the hon. Member asked five or six questions, but I wrote down five, the fifth of which concerned whether the Cabinet Office should require local authorities and others to have measures in place to deal with potential space weather threats.

Some of these issues are for DESNZ. We must ensure the security and resilience of our energy and telecoms, as without a functioning power grid, mobile and other telecoms operations are unlikely to function, and they are absolutely essential to public services, particularly the emergency services. We must weave all of that into our resilience measures, which is why this issue has been on the national risk register since 2012.

If I have got any of the hon. Gentleman’s questions wrong, I am happy to write to him. I thank him for the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale on having a tame astrophysicist. I am not sure whether we have any in the Department, but I am sure we can have access to her tame astrophysicist when necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Culture, Media and Sport

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the debate on Pride Month on 23 June 2025.

[Chris Bryant]

…The right hon. Gentleman is also absolutely right to refer to Terence. His report was an essential part of changing the landscape in this country and making sure that compensation was available to the individuals who were affected.

[Official Report, 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 912.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):

[Chris Bryant]

…The right hon. Gentleman is also absolutely right to refer to Terence. His report was an essential part of changing the landscape in this country and making sure that financial recognition was available to the individuals who were affected.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to improve the distribution of high-speed internet provision.

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

The Secretary of State is in Singapore celebrating 60 years of diplomacy between our countries and drumming up investment, so I am afraid you have the deputies today, Mr Speaker.

Access to high-speed internet is essential and we are determined to take everyone with us into the digital age. I am glad that 98% of people now have access to superfast speeds and 88% have gigabit. Our latest type C contract with Openreach is adding connections every single day.

[Josh Babarinde]

Project Gigabit’s stated aim is to ensure that no one is left behind, but that is not true for the residents of Mulberry Close on my home estate in Eastbourne, who have not been connected to full fibre despite bearing the brunt of invasive works on their doorstep. Will the Minister meet me, residents of Mulberry Close and local internet providers to ensure that those residents are connected and not left behind?

[Chris Bryant]

Funnily enough, the statistics in the hon. Member’s constituency are better than the national average—just very slightly, by a smidgen—but I am very happy to meet him. More importantly, he could come into the Department and meet Building Digital UK so that we can explain exactly what needs to happen in his constituency to secure the aims that he is seeking.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to keep children safe online.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

3. What steps he is taking to improve rural mobile coverage.

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

Rural mobile coverage just is not good enough, which is why we have committed all the money needed to complete the shared rural network, with new masts coming online every month. I can also announce that Ofcom’s new coverage checker will come online tomorrow, and I urge every single Member to check their constituency then.

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the Minister for his answer. I was going to say that having looked at the villages in my constituency on the mobile map, which was supposed to be updated this month, it is not up to date; it is good to hear that it will be. Many of my constituents have to rely on the 3G network, which is being shut off. We may be years away from getting high-speed broadband across the South Hams, so having access to a reliable 4G network is crucial. Can the Minister tell me exactly how he is working with mobile phone providers to ensure that everyone has access to mobile voice and data coverage?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The new checker comes online tomorrow—I know that many hon. Members will have looked at the checker in the past and thought, “That simply doesn’t bear any relationship to my lived experience.” From tomorrow, it will. The new checker is much better; Members will be able to see different numbers for all the mobile operators, which I think will encourage the operators to put up more masts and improve their coverage.

I know that the hon. Lady has talked about the village of Staverton in her constituency, which has a population of 717 people—the Sea Trout, I think, is the pub. It even has a telephone booth in it, although I am not sure whether it is still working. I have this horrible fear: I do not want to leave the hon. Lady, like Blondie, hanging on the telephone.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

In my constituency—one of the most rural parts of the UK—whole areas are without mobile phone coverage. People are forced to cope with unreliable phone lines and, most worryingly, are sometimes unable to call 999. Can the Minister assure me that after the withdrawal of the public switched telephone network, no one will be left without access to a phone simply because there is no mobile signal once their landline is switched off?

[Chris Bryant]

I have been very keen to ensure that the withdrawal of the PSTN—which is being done because it is necessary, as the copper system is not working any more and is more fallible—does not leave anybody unable to contact 999 or get the services that they need. I am very happy to arrange for my hon. Friend a meeting with BDUK to go through precisely how we can ensure that we have proper investment in every constituency in the land so that people have the mobile signal they need to live in the modern era.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

4. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on AI in schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

5. When he plans to bring forward legislative proposals on AI.

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

As soon as we have legislative proposals on AI, we will introduce them to the House and let the right hon. Member know in the usual way.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Is the Minister aware of the concerns about the proposed creative content exchange, which appeared without consultation in the creative industries sector plan? Will he confirm that any AI legislation will not seek to impose a statutory licensing model, but will instead facilitate a market-led, dynamic licensing model based on robust copyright law and enforceable through meaningful transparency?

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Member has become terribly Eeyore-ish of late—he has been eating too many thistles, I think. The truth of the matter is that this is a really good idea. It is only at an embryonic stage. It was consulted on in the creative industries taskforce, which is led by Baroness Shriti Vadera and Sir Peter Bazalgette. Of course we will consult with everybody else in the sector about how we can make this work, but it could be an answer to ensuring more licensing of creative content by AI companies and, importantly, remuneration for the creative industries.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

First, I echo the congratulatory comments about the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah)—they are absolutely deserved.

Donald Trump’s proposals to ban US states from regulating AI for 10 years have been condemned by Microsoft’s chief scientist, showing that we cannot trust the US to provide safe and sensible AI regulation. Does the Minister agree that now is the time for the UK to lead on AI safety, and will he join me and the head of Google DeepMind in calling for an AI safety agency modelled on the International Atomic Energy Agency and headquartered here in the UK?

[Chris Bryant]

Both the Under-Secretary of State and I have been remiss in not congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) on her damehood. As you know, Mr Speaker, all knights love to see a dame enter the Chamber. The Under-Secretary of State and I work closely on AI and copyright, and on making sure that we have the AI safety and security that we need. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson makes a fair point and it is one of the things that we are considering at the moment.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What steps he is taking to distribute funding for science and innovation.

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

The Chancellor has announced that the Government’s research and development spending plans go through to 2029-30 and that our R&D budget is rising from £13.9 billion in 2025-26 to £15.2 billion in 2029-30—a real-terms increase—and will total £58.5 billion over the spending review period. I am sure that that will benefit my hon. Friend’s York constituency.

[Rachael Maskell]

York and North Yorkshire is a national leader in the bioeconomy. BioYorkshire will create 4,000 jobs, as well as start-ups and spin-outs. It requires £67 million to build its facilities over the next decade, but it will return £215 million back into the economy. When will the science plan recognise the economic and scientific impact of the research base? Can we have a meeting to talk about the brilliant BioYorkshire project?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is right that it is a brilliant project, and it is precisely the kind of thing the UK excels at: we manage to get the private sector working with Government and local government to deliver not only jobs but real innovation. As the Secretary of State is not here today, I am sure I can offer my hon. Friend the opportunity of a meeting with him.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Over the past 10 years, many tech start-ups have left the UK and gone to silicon valley, which costs the UK a huge amount in jobs and tax revenue. What are the Government doing to ensure that start-ups currently at seed stage stay in the UK and grow here, so that we avoid the UK becoming an intellectual property farm for other countries to harvest?

[Chris Bryant]

One really important part of the industrial strategy we published on Monday and the sector plans within it is that we identified a problem many people in the UK face, which is that they have a really good idea but cannot take it to market because they do not have access to finance, in particular to capital, unless they are in London—and sometimes unless they are a man. We want to change all that, which is why we have said categorically that we are giving the British Business Bank much more significant power to be able to invest in these sectors. That will mean we are a powerhouse in precisely the way the hon. Member wants.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of funding for health science and innovation on the UK’s global influence.

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

From the development of vaccines to the discovery of the structure of DNA, British medical innovation has played a fundamental role in changing the lives of people globally and extending the UK’s global influence. Our industrial strategy and forthcoming life sciences sector plan will put the UK at the very centre of global efforts.

[Emily Darlington]

As the Minister will know, Gavi and the Global Fund not only provide a global vaccine programmes and programmes on saving lives from malaria and HIV, but provide us with biosecurity and jobs in the UK, not least over 500 research and development jobs and funding for the institute of tropical medicine. What assessment has he made of whether the UK is to reduce our efforts in that regard?

[Chris Bryant]

Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance is absolutely essential, not only for other countries in the world, where we have managed to save many lives by introducing vaccines, but for UK innovation. We are fully committed to Gavi. We will be producing our life sciences sector plan soon, and we want to celebrate the sector, which represents 6,800 business and £100 billion of turnover every year.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Minister will be aware that the life and health sciences launchpad in Northern Ireland has so far funded 32 business-led projects. That is good news, but 23 of the projects are in the Greater Belfast area. Will the Minister join me and others in our efforts to ensure that there is greater knowledge about the launchpad across the whole of Northern Ireland so that we can all benefit from this very worthwhile project?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, indeed. When I was talking about the creative industries sector plan as part of the industrial strategy last week, exactly the same point was made. Belfast is obviously a great centre for innovation and the creative industries, but we need to make sure that the sector extends across the whole of Northern Ireland. It is a point that has been extremely well made.

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to improve digital inclusion in Southend East and Rochford constituency.

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

The digital inclusion action plan is one of things I am proudest of. Only this morning I launched the “IT reuse for good” charter. One thing that is really problematic for many families who do not have access to the internet is that they simply do not have a device. I urge every Member of the House to get every business they know to sign up to the “IT reuse for good” charter so that we can get devices to the people who really need them.

[Mr Alaba]

Digital inclusion and exclusion vary widely between individuals, households and even communities. Often it is those in low-income, rural and coastal communities who are left behind. What steps are being taken to ensure that Labour’s action plan reaches all communities and equips everyone with the tools they need?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point: we need digital inclusion for every community. If we are going to have a digital Government, we need to have a digital nation, and we cannot have some people excluded from that future. That is why we have announced £6 million in this financial year for the innovation fund, and I hope that local authorities will come forward with innovative ideas on how we can break down the barriers to digital inclusion.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

The Department is determined to make the UK the best place in the world for science and technology. Last week, the spending review committed £86 billion to research and development, enabling every aspect of our tech economy to start firing on all cylinders. Building on that, we published the digital and technology sector plan as part of our modern industrial strategy on Monday, backing our innovators in fields like quantum, life sciences and engineering biology with over £1 billion.

[Patrick Hurley]

Across the northern part of my constituency, from Marshside over to Hesketh Bank—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I know that that is an issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency because he has tabled at least 10 questions to me on the subject over the last week, all of which we have answered in time. I am keen to ensure that we as MPs persuade the mobile companies to invest more in getting better mobile coverage across the country, both in rural areas and in urban ones.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Why are the Government ignoring the advice of the AI opportunities action plan to encourage the start-up and scaling of tech businesses in the UK and instead favouring market-dominant corporations from abroad over our own domestic businesses when awarding Government contracts?

[Chris Bryant]

We are not.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

T2. As the Government produce their strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods in scientific procedures, what steps will the Minister be taking to ensure that that includes specific commitments to phase out the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures, replacing them with modern, human-specific technologies?

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

T6. My constituency is home to five games developers. Does the Minister agree that the use of AI in video game development should not be allowed to push out human creativity? What assurances can he give me that the Government are not being complacent in their approach to AI?

[Chris Bryant]

We are completely and utterly not complacent, and we are determined to ensure that creators are remunerated for their work. We would never surrender other people’s labour to a third party. I know that the hon. Member used to be the editor of Cruise International, and I very much hope that as a former journalist she will help us develop policies that can answer the question she asked.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. It is clear that Europe and the United States of America are diverging on how they will regulate AI. Given that our EU reset commits us to working closely with Europe on AI regulation, what talks has the Minister had about how we protect UK copyright in that context?

[Chris Bryant]

One of the issues that is undoubtedly at the heart of AI and copyright is how we ensure that the policy we advocate in the UK works with other countries’ around the world. I assure my hon. Friend that we are working closely with our European allies to ensure we do precisely that.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

T7. In July 2024, the Secretary of State pledged to launch a consultation on the regulation of frontier AI systems “shortly”. [Interruption.] However, recent reports suggest that it will not be forthcoming until summer 2026. As leading AI companies have admitted that their systems could be used to develop biological and nuclear weapons, will the Minister confirm why there has been a delay?

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid the shadow Chancellor came in during the question. I have known him for a very long time, and I would not cheer him quite so enthusiastically myself—[Interruption.] As charming a man as he is, it meant that I did not hear the question asked by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), so I am happy to write to her afterwards to confirm.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Stratford and Bow is a thriving hub of innovation, which is why the Prime Minister chose it for the launch of the AI opportunities action plan earlier this year. One brilliant example is Healthtech-1. Once a kitchen table start-up of doctors and tech experts, it now automates admin for 22% of GP practices, and its new patient registration system has saved the NHS a staggering 183 years of time. What are the Government doing to support home-grown innovation like that to scale up its work?

Pride Month

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Secretary of State to move the motion.

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

Not Secretary of State, Mr Deputy Speaker—well, I don’t think so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I should say, I do not know anything that the hon. Gentleman does not know.

[Chris Bryant]

And the things you do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker—anyway.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Pride Month.

I should start by declaring an interest in this Pride debate. The Daily Mail once referred to me as an “ex-gay vicar”. I am an ex-vicar, but the other stuff is coming along quite nicely. In fact, I am a practising homosexual—one day I will be quite good at it.

People ask me, “Why on earth do you need a Pride Month? Do you really need LGBT History Month? What’s the point of Pride marches and Pride flags? Hasn’t the world changed? Haven’t you already got same-sex marriage and adoption, gays in the police and the military, and laws that protect people from discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation or gender reassignment? What more do you want?” That is what I hear all the time, even from really well-meaning, liberal souls.

But we have always needed Pride. We needed it when people lazily assumed that a short haircut meant that you were a lesbian or a lisp meant that you were gay. We needed it when people laughed at Larry Grayson and John Inman but forced them to hide their sexuality. We needed it when people said that we should be harassed, arrested and locked up for loving who we wanted. We needed it when the police wore rubber gloves to arrest us, just in case we gave them AIDS. We needed it when we were called queer, faggot and arse bandit at school. We needed it when we were sneered at, spat at, punched, kicked and beaten up.

And we need Pride now—when kids are still bullied because they are camp or butch; when families still throw their LGBT children out of the home; when many are so worn down by abuse that they take their own lives; when so many are so terrified of coming out that they live lives of terrible, crushing loneliness; when people are abused for wanting to transition; when our cousins in Hungary are denied the right to demonstrate; when the state police in many countries deliberately entrap homosexuals; when trans people are treated as less than human; and when homosexuality is still illegal in 63 countries, including 38 that apply those rules to women, and including more than half the Commonwealth. Yes, we still need Pride.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt such a magnificent speech. The first Pride march in London was in 1972, and I have met many people who were on that first Pride march who thought that they would never need to march again, but they still need to march now. Does my hon. Friend feel sorry that Pride organisations have now said that no political parties are allowed to march because of how the LGBTQI+ community has been treated? I will still be marching, because I march with other groups, but does my hon. Friend agree that this is a sad state of affairs?

[Chris Bryant]

I think we should be proud of the fact that politics has changed the law in this country, and political parties were absolutely essential to that. I pay tribute to everybody in my political party who for many generations fought for equality—but that is true for the Conservative party as well, where people in many cases had to be even braver than they did in the Labour movement, and of course in many other parties as well. I do agree with my hon. Friend; I think it is an entirely retrograde step to ban people from political parties from taking part in Pride marches.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

In contrast to the Minister, I fully support the decision that has been made by the major Pride organisations to tell us that as political parties we are not welcome this year on parades or marches. Is the Minister not as sad as I am at the absolute state of political policy and discourse around trans rights that has directly led to this action?

[Chris Bryant]

I will come on in a moment to some of the problems that I think we have, but when I was first elected as a Member of Parliament, there were still many laws in this country that drastically affected the rights of LGBTQ people in this country, and it is because of political parties that we changed the law. We should not discard the democratic process; it is absolutely essential to being able to secure our rights.

We need to remember that in this country we used to hang men for having sex together and imprison them just for meeting or sending each other a love note. This is a serious business, but we also need to celebrate. I remember that on one of the Pride marches I went on, we shouted all the way, “We’re here, we’re queer and we’ve not gone shopping!” We chanted it all the way down Oxford Street, which is ironic in itself.

We have to celebrate, because not every LGBT story is a tragedy, and I wish the film and television industry would learn this. We are extraordinarily normal. That is a terrible word, really, but we are phenomenally normal. We bleed when we are cut and we laugh when we are tickled, and we can defy every stereotype going. I hate to break it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but not all gay men like musicals—I don’t understand that, but I have met a few—and apparently not all lesbians enjoy tennis or smoke cigars. [Interruption.] I do not know what is going on behind me.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I would like to put on record that I have never enjoyed a cigar, although I would dispute the fact that most lesbians do not enjoy tennis.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether it is tennis or tennis players—a bit like rugby and rugby players.

We can laugh at ourselves—of course we can—and it is a really important part of this that we are able to do so. A Member of the House of Lords told a colleague the other day that I was too macho. [Laughter.] That was not meant to be funny, actually. I replied, “What? As in the song that goes ‘Macho, macho man’?”—perhaps the campest song ever written.

People also still ask me why we need to come out. They say, “Can’t you just keep it to yourselves?” Let me explain. The rest of the world will always assume that most of us are straight—heterosexual—so it is a complex process when we learn that we are not like others. Unless you are very famous, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have to come out time and again, every time that somebody presumes that you are heterosexual.

We need to need to celebrate what LGBT people have given us. That includes Alan Turing, Ivor Novello, George Michael, John Gielgud, Alec Guinness, Wilfred Owen, Oscar Wilde, Edward Carpenter, Anne Lister, Maureen Colquhoun, Radclyffe Hall, Virginia Woolf, Clare Balding, Jess Glynne, Alex Scott, Jane Hill, Skin, Nicola Adams and Sandi Toksvig—and, from the Rhondda, I would add Daniel Evans, H from Steps and Callum Scott Howells, who go to prove that I am not the only gay in the village.

Coming out, Mr Deputy Speaker—I do not know why I keep on addressing this to you, as if you should suddenly leap forward—matters.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I think the Minister has been here long enough to understand that, actually, matters have to be directed through the Chair; he is entirely correct.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I thought there was a reason.

Coming out matters for our personal pride and our collective pride, so that every boy and girl growing up does not internalise hatred, scorn and shame as used to be the case but learns cheerful happiness and opportunity, and so that every family can take pride in their LGBT child, sister, cousin or aunt. From the first bricks thrown at Stonewall to this month’s marches, Pride is a movement rooted in resistance and the refusal to be silenced, sidelined or shamed. It is about visibility in the face of erasure—and, talking of Erasure, it is about a little respect.

There is one final reason that we need to celebrate Pride. The safest place in the 20th century for gay men was Germany in 1930, where men danced together and loved one another with impunity. But, within a decade, the Nazis were carting them off to Dachau and demanding they inform on others. When the war was over—perhaps equally shockingly—nobody wanted to memorialise them; we were erased, and erased from history. Our hard-won freedoms are never won in perpetuity; we need to secure them again and again in every generation. Progress is never inevitable; it must be defended, deepened and delivered to every generation.

Today, we speak against a backdrop of heightened tension. In the last decade, we have seen the consensus around LGBT+ rights begin to fray, we have seen public debate grow increasingly toxic and we have seen trans people in particular subjected to fear, misinformation and ridicule. Pastors in the United States today are calling for the death penalty for homosexuals. Jonathan Shelley in Arlington said that

“we should hate Pride, not celebrate it”.

On the shooting of LGBT people in the Pulse nightclub in 2016, Donnie Romero, who is also a pastor in Arlington, said that those who were killed were

“all perverts…they’re the scum of the Earth and the Earth is a better place now”.

That is what we are still facing today.

That is why the Government will not tolerate about a rolling back of rights, nor a politics of division that pits one group against another. That is why we are delivering a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. Those so-called therapies are nothing less than abuse. They do not work, they cause deep, lasting harm, and their continued existence is a stain on any society that claims to be inclusive. Draft legislation will be published in this Session, informed by wide-ranging engagement and guided by the need to protect, not punish—to prevent harm, not criminalise care.

We are also working with the Home Office to equalise all hate crime strands. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who raised the matter last week. No one should face abuse, violence or discrimination because of who they are or who they love, yet across the country LGBT people—especially trans people—are being targeted with growing intensity. In too many cases, the law does not yet offer equal protection. That is not justice; the Government will act.

We are also improving access to fertility services for lesbian and bisexual women. As of November, same-sex couples are no longer subject to unnecessary additional screening costs for IVF, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently reviewing its fertility guidelines, which will help to ensure more equitable access to NHS-funded treatment, regardless of sexuality or relationship status. This Government recognise that building a family is a human aspiration, not anyone’s privilege.

We are also strengthening healthcare services for trans people. We are launching a review of gender identity services to ensure they meet modern standards of equality, safety and accessibility. That includes reducing waiting times, expanding service capacity and improving mental health support throughout the transition journey.

We are investing in housing solutions for young LGBT+ people at risk of homelessness, too. Far too many are pushed out of their homes or fall through the cracks in mainstream services. We will soon establish an inter-ministerial taskforce on this, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, to co-ordinate efforts across all Departments.

Our commitment to dignity and equality does not end at our borders. Right now, 63 countries criminalise same-sex activity, and in 13 of those countries the death penalty can be applied. At least 49 countries actively target trans and gender-diverse people with discriminatory laws. In many of those countries, shamefully, that is a direct legacy of British colonial rule: legislation that we imposed continues to harm people. We cannot undo the past, but we must take responsibility for the future, which is why the UK is a proud member of the Equal Rights Coalition, why we have invested over £40 million to support global LGBT rights, and why our diplomatic missions work every day behind the scenes to support local advocates, challenge repressive laws and offer hope to those facing persecution. If there were any Reform Members in the Chamber, I would point out that that sometimes means putting up a Pride flag.

We are seeing a backlash, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) said, but we are also seeing breakthroughs. This year, Thailand became the first south-east Asian country to legalise same-sex marriage—hurrah! In Namibia and Dominica, consensual same-sex acts were decriminalised. In India, the Supreme Court is reviewing discriminatory blood donation policies. There is light in this tunnel.

I want to address the recent Supreme Court ruling, because I know it matters to a large number of people. It was, of course, a significant legal judgment, and one that has understandably prompted discussion and—in some cases—fear. Let me be absolutely clear: the rights and protections for trans people under the Equality Act 2010 remain firmly in place. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment still applies. Discrimination, harassment or victimisation of trans people is unlawful and will remain so under this Government.

The ruling has offered important clarity for service providers—particularly those offering single-sex spaces—and we respect the Court’s decision. We reject any attempts to weaponise the ruling to roll back the hard-won dignity and inclusion of trans people. This is not and must never become a zero-sum debate. We can protect single-sex spaces based on clear, lawful criteria while also protecting the fundamental rights and dignity of trans people who—let us not forget—are among the most marginalised and misunderstood in our society.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I welcome the tone with which the Minister has approached this really important point. Will he touch on the proposed guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which he will know is out for consultation? One section that really concerns trans constituents is about disclosures and requiring trans people to disclose their identity. I have to be honest: that seems to be nothing short of outing trans people. Will he provide reassurance that we will not see a situation in this country where trans people end up being compelled to out themselves?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; that is very important. Indeed, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 lays down clearly the privacy responsibilities of other Government Departments. In fact, one of my anxieties when we were considering the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 was that we seemed to be getting to a place where people would have to present their passport or a document to prove whether they could access a single-sex space. I honestly think that the rights of both these groups can be respected fully. We surely must be the kind of society that can achieve that.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Minister is rightly pointing out where progress has been made nationally and internationally, but when he was cantering through those points of light nationally, he missed out one group: the men and women serving in our armed forces. I am particularly mindful of that because Saturday is Armed Forces Day and, sadly, one of the chief advocates for LGBT people in the armed forces, Lord Etherton, died in May. Will the Minister pay tribute to Terence Etherton and comment on his 2023 report into the shameful way in which gay people were treated in the armed forces between 1967 and 2000?

[Chris Bryant]

I am really grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point, and it is good that it is a point of agreement across the whole House. There was a time when large numbers of people in this House would have thought that having gay men, lesbians or trans people in the armed forces was anathema, and I am so glad that we have changed. The shields on the wall up there are dedicated to Members of Parliament who were killed in the second world war, and at least five, if not six, of them were gay men who gave their lives in defence of this country. Bravery is available to people regardless of their sexuality or their identity. The right hon. Gentleman is also absolutely right to refer to Terence. His report was an essential part of changing the landscape in this country and making sure that compensation was available to the individuals who were affected.

We should acknowledge the fundamental truth that trans people have always been at the forefront of our movement. From Marsha P. Johnson in New York to Mark Ashton here in the UK, trans people and gender non-conforming people have led protests, shaped policy and built community, often with little recognition or safety in return. At Stonewall, at section 28 protests, in the founding of support services and HIV charities, and at the heart of every movement that pushed us forward, trans people were there and they led. We owe them a debt of gratitude, so to treat them now as a threat to the very movement they helped build is wrong. We will not forget their role, and we will not leave them behind. Trans people deserve safety, dignity and the same freedom to live their lives as anyone else, and under this Government they will have it.

On 29 August 1924, Edward Carpenter had his 80th birthday. He had famously campaigned for our rights and lived with his lover, George Merrill. Indeed, he was probably the model for E. M. Forster’s novel “Maurice”, which I think was published only after E. M. Forster’s death. Carpenter was a brave campaigner at a time when it was impossible to be brave. Men were still being imprisoned with hard labour for homosexuality in 1924, when he came to his 80th birthday, so it was a phenomenal act of bravery when every single member of the Labour Cabinet—there was a Labour Government in 1924—signed a letter to Carpenter wishing him a happy birthday.

That kind of magnanimity should be the hallmark of our politics today. We are not yet the country that we could be, but in all we do in our hospitals and our schools, in our laws and our language, in our foreign policy and our public services, this Government will uphold one principle: a little respect for all. Let that be the legacy of this House.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I have finished.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I am sure the hon. Lady will have the opportunity to intervene later on.

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the Minister and to speak in this important debate. I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone in the House, across my Daventry constituency and across the country a very happy Pride Month.

The Minister is absolutely right to say that Pride is still needed. I have certainly seen significant changes over my lifetime, including things that I never thought would be possible when I was growing up as a young gay man in Anglesey, but he is right to say that these are important issues that we should continue to discuss. On the whole, I have been privileged to have a life in which I have been accepted pretty much everywhere I have lived, but I have had those difficult occasions that I have spoken about before, not least being badly beaten up and my father coming to my rescue and being beaten up too, trying to protect his son. Those are the things that we need to remember.

We also need to remember people like the young man that I heard about in Manchester a few years ago who had been kicked out of his home because his parents could not accept his sexuality. His life took a nosedive and, sadly, he ended up selling himself for sex to survive. He was eventually murdered by someone who he was supposedly trying to get some money off. These are the disgusting consequences that may happen if we do not remind ourselves of the journey that we have been on as a country.

I have to say that things are pretty good for me. Most of the time, most people do not care that I am a gay man—

[Chris Bryant]

Are you?

[Stuart Andrew]

Yeah—but I am butch like you! [Laughter.]

As I was saying, most people do not really comment on the fact that I live with a man. They are more interested in the fact that he works for Marks & Spencer and gets 20% off. But it is important that we have these conversations because there are still people around the world, and in communities in this country, who cannot come out. There are people in communities in our country who live a different life from the one that they want to live, and there are people around the world, as the Minister rightly says, who will be put to death if they love the person they really want to love.

That is why Pride Month is important, and its theme of activism and social change emphasises a reflection on the contributions of LGBT individuals and communities in creating a better world for us all. We are lucky in this country that we have a host of people in our history who have been at the forefront of fighting for equality. Yes, there are the famous people—Dame Kelly Holmes, Tom Daley and Sir Ian McKellen, to name but a few—but there are so many inspiring LGBT people from right across the decades, as the Minister mentioned.

I would like to mention Sophia Jex-Blake, Scotland’s first female doctor, who fought for so many women to be allowed to train as doctors and founded medical schools up in Scotland, where she eventually met her life partner, whom she lived with until her death in 1912. I also want to mention Patrick Trevor-Roper, who was one of only three witnesses who could be convinced to appear before the Wolfenden committee. His evidence helped to start the journey to decriminalisation. Those people, in my view, are incredibly brave.

Given that we have commemorated the 80th anniversary of VE Day this year, I think we should also remember one of my personal heroes, Dr Alan Turing, a man whose brilliance cracked the Nazis’ Enigma code. This was an incredible feat, given that Enigma had 159 million million million settings. He played a crucial role in cracking the intercepted messages that enabled the allies to defeat the enemy in the Atlantic and in other engagements. We owe him so much, but his treatment later, when he was prosecuted for being gay, is a shame that I know we all find abhorrent. The Government rightly apologised and he was later posthumously pardoned. In my view, he is a true hero of our nation.

Of course, we have had champions in this place, too—people like Chris Smith, who bravely became the first openly gay MP; Edwina Currie, who led a debate on changing the age of consent; and too many other hon. and right hon. Members to name. I do want to name one or two from the Conservative side because I know everyone will do their own pitches. There are people like our former colleague Eric Ollerenshaw, who was on that first Gay Pride march in 1972. He recalled to me that he was actually spat at by the police—that is how bad it was. There are people like Mike Freer, who campaigned hard on issues like PrEP, and our former colleague Elliot Colburn.

I would like to take this opportunity to say happy birthday to LGBT+ Conservatives, which celebrates its 50th birthday this year, making it one of the oldest LGBT-affiliated groups for a political party in the world—a title it shares with LGBT+ Labour. I wish LGBT+ Labour a happy birthday as well. In 1975, the LGBT Conservatives were established by Professor Peter Walter Campbell. I am that old that I have seen LGBT Conservatives go through several guises over the 30 years since I first joined. Back then, it was known as TORCHE—Tory Campaign for Homosexual Equality. I pay tribute to the work it has done over those 50 years.

Little did those founders and that first generation of our LGBT Conservatives and Labour know it, but they were merely years away from a global HIV/AIDS epidemic. Around the world, hundreds of thousands of people would lose their lives, including people here in the UK. Gay and bisexual men lived in fear, and many felt powerless and hopeless. If we fast forward to 2025, we find ourselves in a truly different world, and I want to thank all those who have made that change possible. I recognise that those contributions have come from parties across this Chamber, and I thank them all for it.

I am proud of our record as a party over the last 14 years for the lives of LGBT people, not least the rolling out of highly active antiretroviral therapy treatment for HIV in England and funding the first ever HIV testing week. In 2013, we introduced same-sex couples’ marriage in England and Wales, which was one of the most memorable debates in my time in the House and one of my proudest moments here. We introduced the legalisation of self-testing kits for HIV, as well as a host of other things that we are proud to have done.

I also want to remark on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is no longer here, about people in the armed forces and to pay tribute to Lord Etherton. When I was the Equalities Minister, I had the privilege of meeting him several times as he went through that report. He did not just get evidence from thousands of people; he personally read every single testament because he wanted to know those stories inside out, and thank goodness he did that. I pay tribute to him for the work he has done.

Thinking about all these achievements and those of former MPs and other inspirational figures, I find it appalling and deeply disappointing that some Prides across the country have banned our political parties from this year’s parades. LGBT Conservatives, LGBT Labour, LGBT Lib Dems and all others are not allowed to attend. Like the Minister, I also remind the organisers that it was these groups and so many MPs in this House that brought about the changes we enjoy today. As Jo Cox said, there is more that unites us than divides us. Them causing this divide is a retrograde step, and I pay tribute to the likes of Owen Meredith and others who have taken up this fight. I call on the organisers to think again, especially as two parties celebrate their 50th birthday in terms of LGBT issues.

I am aware that many colleagues want to contribute, but I have a couple of questions for the answering Minister. I would like an update on the HIV programme. It touched me that people across the House want to embark on that ambition of having no new HIV infections in this country by 2030; of course, we have only one Parliament left to get that done. Could the Minister set out where the Government are up to on that and what plans they have to ensure that we meet that ambitious target? Will the Government ensure that they are working with our devolved regions to ensure a UK approach to eradicating new HIV cases—not just England, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, too? We can end new HIV cases without a vaccine or cure, and wouldn’t it be great for the UK to be the first place to do so? We want the Government to succeed on this issue, building on a lot of the work that we did in office and working with great organisations like the Terrence Higgins Trust. Let us make that an ambition for all of us. Let us remember why we have Pride in the first place, and make this Pride count.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire]

I warmly welcome the hon. Lady’s offer of being an ally, and I agree that it is so important to the LGBTQ+ community to have that alliance.

As well as politicians, public figures desperate for attention and relevance such as J. K. Rowling have poisoned the public discourse with attacks on our trans community, all under the false dichotomy that it is not possible to be a true feminist and protect women’s rights without attacking and abusing the trans community, a phoney culture war which has left trans people fearful just to be themselves. The tone of this debate has been so un-British. It is much more like the US, where everything is dealt with in extreme absolutes: black and white; right and wrong; no compromise; no respect or compassion for one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. It is horrible to see how hate has been weaponised for political gain.

I know how it feels to think of yourself as broken, to feel like society will never accept you, and to feel ashamed to admit to friends and family who you really are, and that things might be better if you just did not exist at all. Surely in 2025 we can do so much better and make sure that trans people are seen and valued for who they truly are.

To conclude, I urge the Minister to provide this House with an update on what steps he is taking to reassure the trans community that it will continue to receive protections and safe spaces following the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance, which has left many trans people confused and anxious. When will this Government ban conversion therapy in full? We have heard it from the Minister again, but no specific timetable has been given for both sexuality and gender.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Ben Maguire]

I invite the Minister to give way if he can tell us the timetable for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I think the hon. Gentleman is giving way to me, but, yes, I said that it would be in this Session of Parliament, which is a pretty clear timeline.

[Ben Maguire]

I thank the Minister for the intervention, but that is rather vague considering that we have many years left of this Parliament.

[Chris Bryant]

I said it would be in this Session of Parliament, not this Parliament.

[Ben Maguire]

Moving on then, as that has answered my question—[Interruption.] Yes, it was an excellent answer.

What steps are the Government taking to reduce the time that LGBTQ+ veterans are having to wait for their financial redress applications? I look forward to hearing an update on that later on. Finally, what action are the Government taking to address disproportionate rates of mental ill health and homelessness among the LGBTQ+ community? The Minister referred to a review, which I believe is to be chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, but we really do need urgent action now.

Let’s celebrate Pride Month while remembering that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights is far from over. The Liberal Democrats will continue to lead it, and we will not stop until everyone is free to live as their true selves, without fear and without apology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I completely agree with him. I am amazed that in this day and age, there are still places in which we dispute whether or not we should fly flags or have Pride celebrations. In my view, that is not British.

I want to briefly mention that in the days following the Supreme Court ruling, I had a trans constituent come into my office. She impressed upon me that her situation had fundamentally changed: she was worried about her rights, about being challenged in toilets, and that the Supreme Court’s decision ushered in a new era of uncertainty for trans people. I put on the record my support for the trans community, as Members from across this House who are present in the Chamber today have already done. However, we are in uncertain times, and it is incumbent on us all to make sure we stand up for the entire LGBT community. While I, too, was disappointed that political parties were banned from attending Pride in many cities this year, I understand why organisers have come to that conclusion. It is incumbent on all political parties to do better, and if we are honest, all parties have issues when it comes to LGBT rights. We should all try to make sure that we do much better.

As the Minister said, coming out is not a one-off event. I was fortunate enough that when I was at school, I never got bullied—my friend James might have punched anyone if they had taken issue with it.

[Chris Bryant]

We are not in favour of that, either.

[Tom Gordon]

We are not in favour of it, no, but it does help to have the rugby boys on your side. One comment was made after I actually did come out in the last year of high school. I can remember someone chuntering from the back of the classroom, going, “Oh, Tom’s gay!” I turned around and went, “Yes, and?” That was the end of it, so even in an ex-mining town such as the one I am originally from, people are much more tolerant than you would perhaps expect.

A disproportionate number of people who are LGBT are still impacted by hate crime, which is something that worries me in light of the hostility and, in particular, the rhetoric online. The most online abuse I have received has been when I have spoken up for trans constituents, which I am sure is an experience that many people across this House share. That is a damning reflection of how people seek to whip up hate and divide people, when we should be looking to come together.

The final thing I wanted to do was to plug the charity of the constituent who came to me to speak about being a trans woman. I had not heard of it before, but it is called Nutshell, and it offers talking therapies and counselling—not for trans people themselves, but for the families of trans people, who can often feel particular frustrations with finding out that one of their loved ones is trans. It is a holistic approach, and I endorse what that charity does.

I think I came out in this place in my maiden speech when I mentioned Eurovision. I will continue our campaign to make sure we get Eurovision back in Harrogate, and I hope the Minister will join me in that campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

As a straight man, I cannot speak from personal experience about the prejudice that LGBTQIA+ people have been the victim of, nor have I been a coalminer and experienced the feeling of having the source of my livelihood snatched away. However, in this Pride Month debate, I wish to share with the House a collaboration that emphasises the importance of allyship and—something this House does not hear nearly enough about—class solidarity.

This collaboration was between the London-based activist group Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners and the mining community of the Dulais valley in south Wales during the miners’ strike of 1984 to 1985. Co-founders of the LGSM, Mark Ashton and Mike Jackson, were inspired to combine gay rights activism with the labour movement after attending a talk by a striking miner. This duo brought collection buckets to the London Lesbian and Gay Pride march in June 1984 to support the miners and their families who were affected by the financial hardship caused by the strike.

The LGSM was subsequently set up to officially declare that members of the gay rights movement supported the striking miners, because the LGSM strongly believed that solidarity between the working classes was essential, as all of them would be suppressed if the Thatcher Government succeeded in weakening the National Union of Mineworkers and the wider trade union movement. Indeed, the miners and the LGSM shared very similar experiences and common ground, as both were targeted and vilified by a right-wing media, police brutality and the Government of the day. Attitudes towards the gay community soon began to change in the mining community. The LGSM visited south Wales, with the mining communities reciprocating the solidarity and friendship shown to them by the LGSM.

[Chris Bryant]

I just want to correct one thing in the film “Pride”, which is the plot my hon. Friend is referring to. The south Wales valley mining community—I represent the Rhondda and Ogmore—is portrayed as openly hostile to the lesbians and gays and, in fact, bisexuals who came down to support their cause. That was far from true; there was almost unanimous support for them.

[Brian Leishman]

I very much thank the Minister for that correction—I appreciate the intervention—and for subtly dropping in my mispronunciation of south Wales.

By the end of the strike, the LGSM had raised over £20,000. As the Welsh mining communities had made the Londoners feel so welcome, the LGSM organised a return visit, with a fundraiser called “Pits and Perverts” held at the Electric Ballroom in Camden. Despite the defeat of the mining industry, south Wales miners and their families marched alongside the LGSM at a Pride march in London the following year. At the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, this allyship was much needed. On 11 February 1987, LGSM founder Mark Ashton died of an AIDS-related illness, and his funeral was attended by many of the miners whom he had supported through the LGSM.

In a wider context, the NUM acknowledged the support shown by the gay community during the strike when the union called for gay equality at the 1985 Labour party conference and Trades Union Congress. In addition, the NUM backed the campaign against the hateful and harmful section 28, which was passed in 1988 by the Conservative Government. Altogether, the collaboration of those in the gay rights movement and the labour movement highlights the shared struggle and solidarity across communities bounded by oppressions and class interests.

Our labour movement must therefore show unwavering support to those in the LGBTQIA+ community, many of whom will march this summer to demand equality and protest against the rise in homophobia and transphobia. As the gays and lesbians and the miners showed in the 1980s, when two very different communities come under attack from prejudice and form an unlikely alliance to fight for what is right in the face of persecution, then understanding, kindness, respect and solidarity happen, and those emotions always win.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I congratulate the hon. Member on taking this opportunity to say what she has said. It is not easy to say something like that in a Chamber like this. Having done something similar not that long ago, I absolutely respect her, and I join her in celebrating Pride month.

[Chris Bryant]

And have an extra minute.

[Samantha Niblett]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention—and for giving me an extra minute, in which I would like to talk about my community.

I have one main hope about saying what I have just said and being openly bisexual. My daughter is so straight—it is so disappointing—[Laughter.] But if there are girls and women in South Derbyshire and across the country who think, “Oh God, it is okay to love a woman, to kiss a woman, to be intimate with a woman—and she’s said it, so it’s okay that I do,” then good. I say to them: take that comfort, and if you want to talk to me about it, please feel free to reach out.

Now I am going to talk about my constituency. It is an honour to speak in this important debate on Pride, not just as the Member of Parliament for South Derbyshire but as someone who has seen at first hand the power of community when it chooses inclusion over exclusion and love over fear. This past Saturday, I had the privilege of attending a truly fantastic Pride event at the Collective Hub in Swadlincote. The Collective Hub is a brilliant community space that fosters creativity, belonging and support for people of all ages. The Pride celebration it hosted was testament to everything that makes our community proud: diversity, resilience and joy. I want to pay particular tribute to Mikey, who leads the hub with passion, care and unwavering dedication. His work does not go unnoticed. He and all those who supported the event created a safe and welcoming space.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 49F and proposes, in lieu of the Lords Amendment, amendment (a) to Commons amendment 45, amendments (b), (c) and (d) to Commons amendment 46 and amendment (e) to the Bill.

I fear it is an inevitable aspect of ping-pong that there is a degree of repetitiveness about our proceedings. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), said last week that it reminded him of the film “Groundhog Day”, but that refers to the Pennsylvania Dutch superstition that if a groundhog emerges from its burrow on 2 February and sees its own shadow, it will retreat to its den and winter will go on for six more weeks. Well, I can see my shadow and I just hope that ping-pong is not going to continue for another six weeks.

Last week, I covered some misconceptions about the contents of the Bill and what we are trying to achieve separately in relation to artificial intelligence and copyright. I fear that some of those misconceptions persist. The Guardian carried the following sentence this weekend:

“The AI Bill, which proposes allowing‬ tech companies to use copyrighted material, has suffered‬ a fifth defeat in the Lords.”

That was repeated by one of the presenters on the “Today” programme, who stated that the Bill allows AI companies to use copyright material. I am glad the “Today” programme has apologised and corrected‬ the record. Let me reiterate: this is not an AI Bill and it does not propose changing copyright in any regard whatsoever. If the Bill goes forward in the way proposed by the Government, there will be no diminution in the robustness of the UK copyright regime. Sometimes I want to say, in the words of Richard II, “you have mistook us all this while.” ‬‬

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I accept what he said at the start of his speech, but the industry is desperate: its intellectual property is being stolen day by day, and the Minister does understand that it wants a timeline and a vehicle. I hope he will confirm that the Government are going to bring one forward.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not going to do that. He also knows that the enforcement of copyright law is not a matter for Government because it is not the Government who enforce it. I have the enforcement regulations in my hand. Chapter VI of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 makes it very clear that infringement is actionable by copyright owners. In common with many bits of the law and with statute law in the UK, enforcement is not normally by Government. It is by either the prosecuting authorities or by people taking a civil action. Those are the measures that exist in copyright law today and we are not changing them in a single regard. Having said all that, I acknowledge the strong feelings expressed in both Houses about the need to protect the intellectual property rights of 2.4 million people who work in the creative industries in this country, including the significant proportion of the creative industries represented by the tech industries, which this week are celebrating London Tech Week.

It must be said that their lordships have been persistent, so much so that they remind me of a poem by Robert Browning, “A Toccata of Galuppi’s”, about the 18th century Venetian composer Baldassare Galuppi. It uses several musical terms, such as the dominant, and includes the line:

“Hark, the dominant’s persistence till it must be answered to!”

The Lords have been persistent, which is why we have not just listened to them; we have heard them, and we are answering them. Although the Bill, which was drafted largely by the previous Government, did not originally refer to the matter of copyright at all, that is why at a previous stage we tabled specific requirements on the Government to produce an economic impact assessment of the options available to us and to report on key issues, including transparency, technical solutions, access to data and copyright licensing within 12 months.

In response to their lordships, we are going several steps further. First, we are adding two further reporting requirements on approaches to models trained overseas and on how transparency and other requirements should be enforced. Secondly, in response to the call for us to work faster—meeting the point just made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith)—we will deliver the economic impact assessment and reports within nine months, rather than 12 months. Thirdly, we are introducing a new requirement that the Secretary of State make a progress statement to Parliament about the documents within six months of Royal Assent.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The Minister is being generous, as always, in giving way. I welcome the amendments—I think they are helpful and useful—but they miss out and exclude transparency, which is what this is all about. The Lords, the creative sector and artists around this country want a commitment that this Government will deal with issues of transparency. Why will the Minister not sit down and compromise with the House of Lords and ensure that we get a solution that works for everybody?

[Chris Bryant]

In the end, the single most important compromise will be between the AI sector and the creative industries sector. That is the bit that we need to negotiate over the next few months. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the idea of simply putting one part of the jigsaw into this Bill. The truth is that if we are going to get to a proper compromise solution, it will require all the bits of the jigsaw to be put together into a comprehensive picture. That means that we need to go through a proper process.

The last time we discussed these things, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) referred to the noble Lord Peter Mandelson and amendments that he thought were tabled to deal with Napster in the Digital Economy Act 2010. Because I had some spare time over the weekend, I read all the debates on that Act in 2010, and we went through a process to get to that Act: we produced a White Paper and then legislation, which went through both Houses. It was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Mandelson and in the House of Commons by Ben Bradshaw. In fact, most of that Act was so controversial that in the end, it was never implemented by the Government who took over in 2010, and large chunks of the Act were taken out when it collided with the 2010 general election.

I am not sure that things were quite as the hon. Gentleman thought at the time, but the key point is that we need to go through a proper process of bringing forward conciliation in this area. That means introducing legislation once we have considered the responses to the consultation, bringing forward our economic impact assessments, considering all the different aspects that really matter to the creative industries and the tech companies, and then considering legislation. I want to do that as fast as we possibly can, because I want to get to a solution for all of this problem.

The Government have tabled amendments to put these commitments in the Bill. The amendments were initially tabled in the other place, but they were not voted on by peers, who instead insisted on the amendment that we disagreed to last Tuesday—in fact, as I understand it, the amendments were not moved. They show our commitment to ensuring considered and effective solutions, as I have outlined, and demonstrate that we have unequivocally heard the concerns about timing and accountability.

We need to do one other piece of work. The House already knows that we will bring together working groups to consider transparency and technical solutions. They will have AI and creative industry representatives on them and will be extra-parliamentary.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for being so generous with his time. On that point, will he outline how the Government will decide which parliamentarians will be on the advisory group and how they will be chosen?

[Chris Bryant]

I am about to come to that—my hon. Friend has a faster timeline than I have. There is of course expertise in Parliament, which is why I commit today that the Government will convene a series of meetings to keep interested parliamentarians informed on progress on this important issue, so that we can benefit from their input as we develop our thinking before any formal proposals are brought back to Parliament.

The working group meetings will include a cross-party group of Members, made up of MPs and peers. We hope that the group can act as an informal sounding board, but it is not intended to replicate or replace the normal scrutiny role of established bodies, such as Select Committees. I see that the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), is in her dutiful place as usual; I would not dream of seeking to tell her Committee what to do or how to conduct its business, but we would none the less like to be able to draw on its members and their expertise.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I thought that might happen.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Late on Friday night—after hours and to an unmonitored inbox—emails suggesting that approach were sent to the Chairs of the two relevant Select Committees: the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That was the first that had been heard of it. An all-colleague email went round on Saturday morning. This seems to be rather hurried, breathless and not very courteous to the House. The Minister has written two very respected books about Parliament, and I am sure that he did not intend disrespect, but we need to be clear that scrutiny is done through Select Committees and that policymaking is a separate thing. Combining the two is not really appropriate.

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree with the last point that my hon. Friend makes. Scrutiny of Government legislation through the proper processes in either this House or the other House—or through Select Committees, for that matter, which do it in a slightly different way—is one thing, and the business of developing policy is another. I completely apologise for the inadvertent sending of the email to the wrong address and all the rest of it.

We are simply trying to engage as many Members in this House and the other House as we possibly can, on a matter that clearly matters to a great number of Members of Parliament because of their constituents. That includes my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who I know has a very large creative community in her own constituency. We want to involve as many people as we possibly can. We may be moving faster on occasions than people want, but sometimes the demand is that we move faster. I apologise for the inadvertent discourtesy, but we are simply trying to engage as many people in the future debate as we possibly can.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Before I do, I will say that because my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is the Chair of the Liaison Committee, I wonder if it would be useful if she and I met in the next few days with the Chairs of the two most relevant Committees to discuss precisely what shape all that should take and what would be useful and informative, rather than doing anything that might undermine the process.

[Chris Vince]

The Minister partly answered my question as he went along there. My thought on the group is that it is really important that we get creative voices into the room to have that conversation. Once the group is formed, will part of its remit be to invite members of the creative industry in to discuss their concerns and how we can work together to solve them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I remind him that we have only an hour for the whole debate. We have four Back Benchers wishing to contribute.

[Chris Bryant]

I feel told off, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you very much. I have been told off for talking too long, for talking too short, for going too fast and for going too slow.

My point is that we are already committed to creating two working groups that will look at transparency and at technical solutions to the problems that we face. Both of them will have members of the creative industries and members of tech and AI companies engaged in them. In addition, we want to have a separate group of Members of this House and the other House who are engaged with and have an interest in the subject to help us to develop these policy areas. I think it is best to keep those separate, and that is the plan. As we know, the Secretary of State has already written to the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees, but I hope that what I have just said is helpful.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

I see that I am getting a slight nod from the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee about the prospect of our meeting to sort out a way forward on that.

I will say a few words about ping-pong. Some peers have suggested that different rules apply because the Bill started in the Lords. That is simply not true. Double insistence would kill the Bill wherever the Bill had started, and I take people at their word when they say that they do not want to kill the Bill. It has important measures that will enable digital verification services, the national underground asset register and smart data schemes to grow the economy; that will save NHS time; that will make vital amendments to our policing laws; and that will support the completion of the EU’s adequacy review. Its provisions have the support of all parties in both Houses, which is why I urge this House to accept our amendments in lieu and urge the Lords not to insist on their amendment but to agree with us.

It is worth pointing out that if their lordships do persist, they are not just delaying and imperilling a Bill that all parties agree is an important and necessary piece of legislation; they are imperilling something of much greater significance and importance economically: our data adequacy with the European Union. The successful renewal of our EU adequacy decisions is predicated on us having settled law as soon as possible, and we will not have that until the Bill gains Royal Assent. I cannot overemphasise how important this is, and I am absolutely mystified as to why the Liberal Democrats—of all parties—would want to imperil that.

I am equally mystified by the position of the Conservative party. They tabled amendments in the Commons Committee and Report stages that are almost exactly mirrored by what we have already added to the Bill and are adding today. I very much hope therefore that the Conservative party will agree to our motion. It is not as if it disagrees with any of the measures in the Bill.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness Kidron, who said in the Lords,

“I want to make it absolutely clear that, whatever transpires today, I will accept the choice the Government make.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 755.]

It was a point she reiterated later in the debate when she said,

“if we”

—that is, the Lords—

“choose to vote on this and successfully pass it, I will accept anything that the Commons does… I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 773.]

The noble Baroness is right. In the end, only one House is elected; only one House constitutes the Government of the day; and, especially where a Bill was adumbrated in a general election as this one was, the unelected House treads carefully. That is all the more important when the governing party has barely a fifth of the members of the other House. We have listened to the other House and taken action. There may be disagreements about the measures we have taken, but it would be wrong to say that we have not listened. It is time for the Houses to agree that the Bill must go forward.

I will say one final word about creativity. We live in an exceptional age. When our parents were young, they were lucky if their family had a television or a record player. They might occasionally go to a gig, concert or play. If they did have a television, they had a choice of just two or three channels. By contrast, today we are surrounded by human creativity in a way that no other generation was. Technology has brought us multiple channels where we can pick and choose whatever we want, whenever we want to see it. We watch more drama than ever. We can listen to our own choice of music on the train, on the bus or in the car. We can play games online with friends on the other side of the world. More books are published than ever. We can read or listen to them. Almost twice as many people went to the theatre last year as went to a premier league match. There are many challenges, all of which we need to address, including that of the interaction of AI with human creativity, but creativity is a quintessence of our humanity. It requires human-to-human connection, and I do not think for a single instant that that will change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not detain the House, as I have just a few comments to make. Let me begin by saying that it is an absolute pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). I had my criticisms of the previous Government, but they did not extend to her. She was someone who understood the issues, and someone who was prepared to try to find a solution. Whereas the previous Government were appalling in the way they dealt with these matters, she at least made every effort, through the work of her Committee, to get to the heart of the debate.

This has been an extraordinary episode, and I cannot believe that we are back here for the fifth time. The issues are usually resolved and dealt with in circumstances such as this, and a meaningful compromise is reached between the Lords and the Commons, but that has failed to materialise during what has been a remarkable session of ping-pong. The whole episode has been as interesting and dynamic as it has been entertaining. The Minister and I were elected at the same time—I think we celebrated our 24th year of continuous membership of the House over the weekend. I am sure he will agree that he has never seen anything quite like the way in which we have reached this stage, but if he can give an example to the contrary, I shall be keen to hear it—I know that, given his almost photographic memory, he would be able to provide the details.

What disturbs me is the Government’s failure to attempt to secure some sort of meaningful compromise. Their inability to do that is quite baffling. I am trying to think of a few ways in which we might get round this. It might be an idea to get the Secretary of State and Elton John in the same room and lock the door: perhaps when the two of them emerged, we might be able to come up with some sort of solution. We are in the realms of trying to find a way forward, and that might be one way in which we could do so.

By refusing to listen to the strong view of the Lords and respect the convention that ping-pong is a process at the end of which a workable compromise generally appears, the Government risk undermining their own legislative process. Having looked at the Lords amendment again, and having listened carefully to the debate the other day, I cannot see anything wrong with an amendment that simply asks for a draft Bill containing provisions

“to provide transparency to copyright owners regarding the use of their copyright works as data inputs for AI models”.

I thought that was what we were all trying to achieve, and I am surprised at the Government’s intransigent resistance to a fairly modest attempt to find solutions.

I have looked at the Government amendments as well, and I welcome them. As I have said to the Minister, the one that excites me most involves this House, parliamentary resources and the ability to play a meaningful part in these matters. I hope that he will be able to extend that to all parties across the House.

[Chris Bryant]

Even to you.

[Pete Wishart]

I am thrilled and excited by the prospect of being part of that work, and I look forward to joining the Minister, but I think that it must be as open as possible so that every single aspect of this can be harnessed and used as part of the Government’s work. What the Government amendments do not do, however—and this is a key issue—is pay attention to the transparency issues.

The peers have rejected amendments that the Government have tabled previously. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the Government are bringing these amendments back to try to distract us and give us the impression that they listened to the House of Lords and were near to reaching a compromise, but nothing of the sort is the case, because the key issue is the transparency that the House of Lords, the creative sector and artists across the UK want to see. The existing law should be enforced to protect the wages of 2.4 million creative workers, and the Government must produce a “meaningful compromise” amendment.

It is also entirely possible for the Government to take powers to introduce transparency via regulations, recognising the urgent need to prevent mass theft by AI firms at the earliest opportunity, and I do not know why they have not explored that option. The wages of those 2.4 million UK creators are at stake, as is the principle of the rule of law. The creative industries have made it clear that inaction on the Government’s part is giving “big tech” the freedom to break our laws and destroy jobs. Copyright is not an abstract concept; it is what secures our creative success.

The Government will win in this House today, and they will probably win the whole debate—they will get their way. However, they have lost the battle. One good thing that has come out of this is the fact that people now understand that our copyright laws—our gold-standard copyright regime—underpins the success of the UK’s creative industries across the board. Some of the greatest artists in the world are from these islands, and they have achieved their success because of intellectual property rights and our copyright laws. To muck about with those as we have over the past few months undermines all that, and undermines the ability of those artists to continue to lead in their sectors. I hope that, even at this late stage, some sort of compromise can be found with transparency at the heart of it, and I appeal to the Minister to consider that seriously.

[Chris Bryant]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a few comments, because it is important to respond to some of the questions that have been asked. Two of my hon. Friends referred to the report that the BFI published yesterday. I warmly commend it to all Members, not least because it makes points that others have made about AI, but also because it makes the point that if films and high-end television in the UK are to be successful in the future, we cannot have this critical shortfall in AI education, which is entirely piecemeal at the moment. We know about that in the Department, and it is one of the things that we want to change.

Several Members have asked who will be involved in the various different groups. I want to draw on all the expertise in both Houses to ensure that we can find the right answers. I do not want to undermine anything that the Select Committees might do, jointly or separately, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), I am keen for all the parts of the creative industries to engage in this process. The difficulty is that we might end up with a very large roundtable, and people might have to bear with us when it comes to how we structure that.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Okay, although my hon. Friend was not here earlier.

[Chi Onwurah]

I apologise for not being here earlier. I commend the Government for engaging in a cross-party discussion about AI, which is what the country needs to do, but the key issue is ensuring from the beginning that the tech companies understand that transparency in copyright and AI is not a “nice to have” but an absolute requirement, and that if they will not deliver it, the Minister will.

[Chris Bryant]

We have said from the very beginning that transparency is absolutely key to our ability to deliver the package that we would like to put together, and I do not resile from that, but it is only one part of the jigsaw that we need to join up.

I point out to the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) that some of the items on the amendment paper are things that the two Select Committees asked us to do. She is normally more generous to me, and to others, than she has been today. She has clearly forgotten that the last Government introduced plans that would have produced a text and data mining exemption for commercial exploitation of copyrighted materials without any additional protections for the creative industries. That seems to have slipped her mind.

We have moved a great deal since the introduction of the Bill. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—who is sitting beside me—and I have moved. We have listened to their lordships, and, more importantly, we have listened to what the creative industries have had to say. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me whether I had ever known anything like this situation. Other bills have gone to five rounds of ping-pong, but in the past the row has always been about what is in the Bill, not what is not in the Bill. This is not an AI Bill, and it will not change the copyright regime in this country. I want that regime to be as robust as it ever has been, so that those in the creative industries can be remunerated and earn a living, as they deserve to. That is precisely what we intend to achieve, but we want to get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. That is why I need the House to vote with us this afternoon, and I hope that their lordships will agree with us tomorrow.

Question put.