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.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49F.

I am tempted to start with a quote from “Macbeth”—

“When shall we three meet again?”—

because I notice there is a similar cast to our previous debates, but let me start by dispelling some misconceptions. We are not, contrary to what some have stated, changing UK copyright laws to the detriment of the creative industries. If the Government’s Bill is adopted, not a single word of copyright law will have changed in the United Kingdom. It will be as robust as it ever was. In fact, we have said repeatedly that creators should share in the value of this new technology, and we support artificial intelligence developers paying for the content that they use. We want to see more licensing of and proper remuneration for UK content.

We are not undermining copyright owners’ control over their work. We have said from the beginning that we want intellectual property owners to have more control over the use of their works. Some said in the House of Lords yesterday that we have not listened to them or to the creative industries, but that is simply not true. We have heard loud and clear the message from the creative industries and from others. That is why we put reporting commitments on the face of the Bill at a previous round, and we have committed to adding two further reporting requirements on approaches to models trained overseas and on enforcement. We have committed to delivering reports and impact assessments within nine rather than 12 months, and the Bill will require the Secretary of State to make a progress statement to Parliament about the impact assessment and reports within six months of Royal Assent.

It is also why the Secretary of State, who is sitting by me now, stated clearly that although we went into the consultation with a preferred option, we have heard the reaction to that. We want to consider the consultation responses in full, and—to quote him precisely—

“When we went into the consultation, I believed that opting out could have offered an opportunity to bring both sides together, but I now accept that that is not the case.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1233.]

As I have said, the Government have listened at every stage.

As I have explained to the House previously, the Bill was never intended to be about artificial intelligence, intellectual property and copyright. What we have is a Bill that will harness data for economic growth, improve public services and support modern digital government. We want to get the legislation on the statute book as fast as we possibly can.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Of course, it would be a delight.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

If only I believed the Minister. I pick up the frustration in his tone, and I appreciate that this must be exhausting for him, because this is the fourth time that the Government have been defeated on this issue in the other place. I understand that he just wants to get this piece of legislation done, but this time it only requires the Government to come forward with a plan to implement transparency before it is too late. He says that our copyright law is robust and that he is not seeking to undermine it—it is robust, but it is being ignored. How long will it take before the Government hold the AI companies to account for what is effectively the biggest copyright heist in history? How long will it take before the Government clamp down on what is basically the whitewashing of the behaviour of big tech? Who is really pulling the strings here?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, nobody is pulling my strings. I do not know what that final reference was to. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and the Select Committee, who have done important work in this field. Some of what we have committed to in previous rounds of ping-pong in this House has sprung directly from what her Select Committee asked us to do. We will continue to listen to that. As she knows, we have always said, right from the beginning, that a key aspect of any package we bring forward would be something around transparency.

I will come on to the precise matters in the new clause before us, and I hope that might explain why we are urging the House to reject the amendment today. It is a delight to hear from the hon. Lady, and she need not doubt me.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Another delight.

[Robin Swann]

I know that the Minister does mean it in this case. He talks about the speed of moving this legislation on to the statute book. I note that legislative consent motions are in from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but as yet there is not one from the Northern Ireland Assembly. Can he give me clarification as to what implication that legislative consent motion not being in place will have for those businesses and individuals in Northern Ireland who will be affected by this legislation?

[Chris Bryant]

I have spoken to Ministers in Northern Ireland, and they have already laid that legislative consent motion. My understanding is that that process will be fully done in time for Royal Assent, so he need not worry. We have sorted that one out, too.

I promised the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), that I was about to come on to the precise details of the amendment, so I will address that. First, as Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, my noble colleague, said in the Lords yesterday,

“the Government’s report on the use of copyright work in the development of AI systems will address two additional areas, specifically highlighted by the noble Baroness’s original amendment”—

the one that we are now considering—

“how to deal with models trained overseas; and how rules should be enforced and by whom.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 481.]

We will do subsection (1) of the new clause as part of our report and economic impact assessment. In other words, we have already committed to do half of what is in the amendment, and I would therefore argue that that half is unnecessary.

The second part of the new clause is problematic, and I think it would be problematic for any Government. It requires the Government to produce a draft Bill on copyright and AI according to a specific timetable. It lays out elements that that Bill must include and determines how it should be considered by this House. I cannot think of any Bill in our history that has included such a clause, for very good reason. A central plank of parliamentary sovereignty is that no Parliament can bind its successor. That does not just mean from one Parliament to another; it means that one Session of Parliament cannot bind a future Session. However, the Kidron amendment says that, for instance, the draft Bill

“must make provision for enforcement”.

What happens if it does not do so, or if the measures it includes for enforcement are not sufficient in some people’s minds? Where would that be adjudicated? How would it be decided?

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will just finish this point, if the hon. Lady will allow me. In addition, we are still working through a huge number of consultation responses. To prescribe a draft Bill in detail at this point would completely undermine that process and the policy work that is taking place. I would argue that not only is that bad policymaking, but it would completely disregard the input that so many respondents to the consultation have exhausted so much effort in providing.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Gosport, and then to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith).

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I think the Minister for giving way, but I think he is dancing on the head of a pin. The fact is that all legislation somehow binds those who are coming down the track, and others have spoken on many occasions about the urgency of bringing forward measures to provide transparency about what of people’s intellectual property is being scraped right now. I cannot understand why the Government are taking this position. This amendment is not asking for much; it is just asking for the Government to have a plan to sort this out in short order.

[Chris Bryant]

Of course, I understand the demand for us to act as swiftly as we possibly can, and that is our intention. One could argue that introducing a draft Bill, which would then be considered in various different places and presumably would be followed by a Bill, would delay things rather than speed them up. In addition—this is a really important constitutional point—as I said earlier, I am not aware of a single Bill in the past that has required a future Bill to be produced and specified things that must be in it.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I have got to give way to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon first, but then of course I will come back to my hon. Friend.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way. The essential point is that the creative industry is desperate to get a hook within this Bill to reassure it that this vacuuming up of its intellectual property will be controlled. The problem with all the commitments, the working groups and all the words that the Minister is saying is that they do not give the creative industry that reassurance. Yesterday’s debate was passionate about the need—somehow, in whatever way the Government want—to give the creative industry reassurance that this issue will be dealt with within a set timeframe.

[Chris Bryant]

I understand the concern of the creative industries—they have expressed it to me in no uncertain terms on many occasions, both individually and in larger groups. We have heard the message loud and clear. I think some people have been labouring under the misconception that this Bill is doing something to undermine copyright. I know that the right hon. Gentleman listened to the debate in the House of Lords yesterday, because I was standing next to him, listening to the fullness of the debate as a courtesy to the House of Lords.

As I have said before, I worry that to legislate on a part of this issue, rather than the whole of it, is a mistake. For the sake of argument, let us say that we only legislated in relation to what transparency should be required and did not come up with an enforcement measure. What would happen if the companies simply refused to provide that information? Would we have to introduce a new offence of not providing such information? What would we have to do? That is my argument for why I think—notwithstanding the clamour for us to go as fast as we possibly can, which I fully understand—we need to get it right and to legislate in the round, rather than just piecemeal on the back of a Bill that is not meant to deal with these matters at all.

I heard my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) attempt to intervene earlier.

[Ms Billington]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I understand that he is being extremely patient in these circumstances. May I draw his attention to something that happened before 2010? I know that that was a long time ago, but both he and I are old enough—and, indeed, ugly enough—to remember those times.

When Lord Mandelson was Secretary of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, what was then known as the Napster clause was included in the then Digital Economy Bill. That was done precisely to give reassurance to the music industry that if, later on, downloading became so problematic that the music industry was going to be hollowed out, the Government would give themselves the power to act. If my hon. Friend is giving the Government the power to report, surely it would be right for the Government to give themselves the power to act once they have received evidence that something is going wrong, enabling them to enforce the copyright law that we all now agree is clear and should therefore be enforced.

[Chris Bryant]

I will start with my hon. Friend’s very last point, which is that we all agree that copyright law is clear—we do. I hope people understand that the Government’s position is clear that copyright law is clear. I do not think that is in doubt.

Secondly, of course, we always have the power to introduce legislation. However, certainly if I were sitting on the Opposition Benches, I would doubt whether it would be right to introduce transparency requirements solely on the basis of secondary legislation, which—as I say—would probably have to contain some sort of enforcement mechanism and potentially a new offence. I would say, “Secondary legislation is unamendable—it is take it or leave it. That would be problematic.”

While again I understand the desire for us to move as swiftly as possible, I reiterate that I think it is better for us to legislate in the round, taking all of the subject matter into consideration. Some matters have not even been mentioned in this debate, such as what we do about the copyright that pertains to AI-created material. Should that material have any protection, or no protection? Should it follow the person who created the AI large language model, or should it stick with the person who asked the AI large language model the question?

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

The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) is quite right: back in 2010, the Napster provision was first enacted through the Digital Economy Act. Such provision is possible, and I just do not understand the Minister’s reticence about this amendment. It seems an entirely reasonable amendment to bring forward—it does everything that everybody wants to achieve when it comes to this Bill. Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, could he at least say that he accepts the principles of it and what it requires, and that he will do all he can to bring forward all the provisions it asks for?

[Chris Bryant]

I am trying to be tidy in the way I respond to people, so first, I note that I did not respond to the Napster point. Quite a lot of people have made the point to me that we got from Napster to Spotify. There are many problems with Spotify that many musicians, record labels and so on have raised with me, but at least it is better than people taking stuff for nothing. There is an argument—a strong argument, I would say—that in this debate, we want to move from Napster to Spotify, or to something even better than Spotify. I am not sure precisely how we get there, but I am absolutely certain that we need to legislate in the round for all of these issues.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me about the principles of the noble Baroness Kidron’s amendment. Of course we believe in transparency—we are fully subscribed to wanting to provide that. That has always been part of the package that we have wanted to present. There is still the question of what enforcement would look like, and many other issues that any Bill that comes forward would need to address. I am hesitant about introducing a draft Bill, because a draft Bill would take longer to go through.

We want to be able to legislate in this area as soon as we possibly can, but we also want to have listened to and borne in mind the full panoply of the responses. People may presume that they know what the 11,500 responses will say, but actually, they are much more diverse. I am not saying that everybody is clamouring for what the Government have laid out; I am just saying that those responses address a diversity of issues, all of which we need to address.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way again, as he has on so many occasions during these debates, and for his ongoing engagement in these matters, but does he agree that if the Government do not act now to enforce the law, we will basically be allowing what everyone already sees as theft to continue? Would he accept that in any other industry, such as retail or farming?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is entirely right about the issue of enforcement, although traditionally it is not for Governments to enforce the law. It is for the courts to do that, although in certain circumstances when there has been a breach of the criminal law, it will be for the prosecuting authorities to consider. In a way this makes my point, which is that it is all very well to legislate on transparency requirements, but if there are no enforcement measures it will not make the blindest bit of difference. All this has to be done in the round.

We have already said that we want to engage with the creative sector and, of course, the technology sector as much as we can. We believe that such engagement will help to chart the way forward on both transparency and technical standards, and possibly on technical solutions to the problem. It may be that the working groups bring other benefits, such as interim voluntary arrangements, until longer-term solutions can be agreed on and implemented. However, we must see what comes of the process rather than imposing preconditions at this early stage.

For all those reasons, I urge Members to vote against the Lords amendment. The first part of the proposed new clause is a helpful addition to the work that we will do and are now committed to doing, but the lion’s share of it would lead to what I believe is confusing law and constitutionally uncertain.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I echo the comments of my hon. Friends about how open and engaging both the Minister and the Secretary of State have been on this issue. As for the consideration of working groups, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s policy is to ensure that both sides are in the room at the same time, with the Minister and the Secretary of State? This has been rehearsed before; the last Government failed, and talks broke down. May I urge this Government please to ensure that both voices hear each other? Their job is to manage that process, as well as leading it.

[Chris Bryant]

I agree 100%. There would be absolutely no point in not having both sides—indeed, I would say several sides—of the argument in the room at the same time. Yesterday morning I had an interesting conversation with someone who is very prominent on the music scene. He told me, in granular detail, what we would need to do for transparency in the music sector, but added that obviously it would be completely different for the publishing sector. That is the kind of detail we will have to go into. If we are to bring about a licensing regime that really works, it will have to work differently for sound, music, words and images, which means that we will have to have all those people around the table, as well as AI—not just “big tech”, a phrase that was used frequently in their lordships’ House yesterday, but tech from the UK. That is a very important part of what we need to be promoting. So yes, I can guarantee to my hon. Friend that we will have everyone in the room, and also that we want to get on with it as soon as we possibly can—

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

And I want to be able to sit down as soon as I possibly can, but I am being prevented from doing so.

[Mike Martin]

The Minister is being extremely generous, as he always is. I pressed him on this point on the last occasion when we met across the Chamber, but some time has passed since then. He speaks of dealing with the issue “in the round”, which is a sentiment that I understand, but when? Can he give a timetable?

[Chris Bryant]

“As soon as possible”, I am afraid. I know that there are lots of parliamentary terms for these matters, such as “imminently” and “soon” and so on. The difficulty is that there are plenty of other priorities for legislation at the same time. I am not the Leader of the House, so I fear that I cannot give a guarantee about a timeline, but we have given some guarantees about when the Secretary of State will report back to the House—within six months of Royal Assent, and I hope that that is within six months of “soon”—and we have given guarantees about our other reports back, which will be within nine months, shortened from 12 months.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will try to crack on.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I thank the Minister for giving way again: he is being very generous. He has spoken about trying to bring the AI sector together with the creative industries. The last Government tried that in response to the text and data mining exception. They formed an AI working group, which, as the Minister knows, fell into abeyance because the AI companies did not engage. Does he think that that could be a problem this time, and has he heard any signals from the big tech companies that they would be more forthcoming with their engagement in response to this attempt?

[Chris Bryant]

We will make sure that they engage. In a strange way, I think that the campaign that has been led by the hon. Lady and others, in the House of Lords and elsewhere, will help to make people engage in what will not necessarily be an easy process, but one that I think could deliver a win-win for us in the UK and could potentially enable us to lead for other countries in the world. Every indication that we have had thus far suggests that everyone wants to sit in the room together, and, of course, we will have to provide significant leadership in those meetings to be able to drive them forward. As I said on the last occasion when I was talking about these matters at the Dispatch Box, I should like to be able to get on with that as soon as possible, but we have a duty to get the Bill out of the way first.

Let me now say a few words about ping-pong. As Members will know, this is in large measure the same Bill that was presented, twice, by the previous Government. The second Bill fell at the general election, but both major parties committed themselves to reintroducing it, in a broadly similar form, in the new Parliament. None of the parties intended to introduce any matters relating to copyright into the Bill when they discussed it in the run-up to, and during, the general election.

I warmly commend those who are fighting the corner of the creative industries—of course I do; I am the creative industries Minister—but there comes a point at which the Lords is barring the Commons from fulfilling a pledge made by both major parties. We shall now be entering the fourth round of ping-pong. Few Bills in our history have gone this many rounds. In the cases of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill of 2004-05 and the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2006-07, at issue was what the Government had put in rather than what it had not included. Neither of those Bills had been openly advocated by both main parties at a general election. By tradition, the House of Lords does not interfere with Bills to which Governments have committed themselves at the time of a general election. Everyone agrees that this Bill is a valuable piece of legislation, and for that reason I urge their lordships to let it pass into law.

[Sir Julian Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, all right.

[Sir Julian Smith]

The Minister was present at yesterday’s debate. Their lordships were acutely aware of not wanting to fetter the House of Commons, but at the same time they are trying to represent thousands of people who are desperate about their incomes. I think it worth putting on the record here that all those who spoke were very aware of what they were doing, but on balance felt that fighting for the underdog was the best thing to do.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not making an criticism of any individual Member of the House of Lords. I listened to the debate, and it was clear that people felt passionately and were arguing entirely in good faith. I fully understand that. As I have said, however, this a Bill that was not intended to include elements relating to AI and copyright. In the last Parliament it was supported by the Conservative party and by us on the Opposition Benches, and was referred to by both sides during our general election campaigns. Neither of us said that we were going to include anything about copyright in the Bill, but that is what is now holding up Royal Assent. There are economic benefits that would flow from the Bill, but they will of course be delayed if we further delay Royal Assent.

Let me end by saying that, as I think I have said several times, I fully understand the concerns expressed by people in the creative industries about artificial intelligence. Many use it already, but they are understandably concerned about where it will go, and they fear for their jobs. It is true that, for many, the strikes in the US had an even more cataclysmic effect on their careers, but I would just add one corrective to those fears. There is a moment at the end of “The Winter’s Tale” when Paulina takes Leontes to see a statue of his wife, who he thinks died of grief when he falsely accused of her adultery many years earlier. We all know when we watch it in the theatre that the statue is actually the actress playing Hermione; it is not a statue at all. Yet the moment when Leontes touches the statue and says, “O, she’s warm!”, still shocks us and brings tears to our eyes. Why? Because it is human to human. Yes, of course it is artifice laid upon artifice, but it is humanity face to face that really moves us. The Government have heard the concerns expressed by this House and the other place, and we have set out our plans to address them. I believe the Bill must be allowed to run its course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Public Switched Telephone Network Migration: Communications Campaign

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government are publicly supporting the national telecare communications campaign, which has been funded by BT and Virgin Media O₂ and is being launched today. This campaign seeks to raise awareness of the migration of landlines from the old analogue copper landline, also known as the public switched telephone network, to digital voice over internet protocol.

The Government and industry want to appeal directly to vulnerable people and their friends, relatives and carers to ensure that they are migrated carefully. The national campaign is designed to raise awareness amongst support networks and encourage vulnerable individuals who use telecare alarms to identify themselves to their communication provider.

The campaign aims reach this target audience across the UK through various multimedia channels. It includes TV adverts, print, and community radio, with translations of the script to ensure that the campaign has a broad reach across the UK.

Further information for the public is available at www.digitalphoneswitchover.com as well as on www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-transition-from-analogue-to-digital-landlines

The PSTN is a privately owned telecommunications network, and the decision to upgrade it, which has been taken by industry, is a necessity due to its age and deterioration and is therefore supported by Government. In the period April 2024 to March 2025, there were over 2,600 major incidents on the PSTN, each affecting 500 or more customers, posing risks to vulnerable individuals, such as those using telecare devices, as well as a risk to critical services such as power plants, traffic lights, and hospitals.

Over two thirds of PSTN lines have already been migrated to VoIP, leaving fewer than 5.6 million lines operational. However, it is imperative for their own safety that vulnerable people are safely migrated.

The previous Government secured voluntary charters in December 2023 and March 2024 from the major communication providers and network operators, pausing non-voluntary migrations. A non-voluntary migration is where a communications provider migrates a customer without their consent following multiple attempts to contact the customer using different means, as it is essential that everyone is safely migrated.

In November 2024, I secured safeguards from communication providers and network operators to protect consumers, particularly the vulnerable. This includes anyone relying on their landline for any reason, including where mobile coverage is lacking, such as in rural areas. These safeguards are set out in the non-voluntary migration checklist at www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-switched-telephone-network-non-voluntary-migration-checklist/pstn-non-voluntary-migration-checklist The checklist includes data sharing agreements with local authorities to identify vulnerable people; timely and repeated communications with customers; free engineering visits; and providing vulnerable customers with a battery back-up for use in the event of a power cut. At the same time, I secured commitments to protect our critical services through a critical national infrastructure charter.

For these safeguards to work it is essential that vulnerable people are identified. This is being facilitated by data sharing agreements between the communication providers, alarm receiving centres and local authorities. As of May 2025, over 96% of local authorities that provide telecare have signed a data sharing agreement with at least one communication provider, reflecting significant progress since the first agreements were signed in May 2023. I will be writing to all authorities that have not signed data sharing agreements to encourage them to do so.

Anyone who is concerned about what the PSTN migration means for them, or their friends and family, should contact their communication provider and let them know. They should do so particularly if they identify as vulnerable for any reason, including age.

[HCWS668]

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson]

While I agree with most of the Secretary of State’s music recommendations, I pay tribute to Girls Aloud, who are the ultimate pop icons in the British music industry.

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

Sugababes, surely!

[Sally Jameson]

A close second. Will the Secretary of State commit to chairing a cross-sector working group with the AI industries and the creative sector in the room to help to inform any future legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Darlington]

Does the hon. Member agree that what that quote proves is that AI cannot capture the wit and humour that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) brings to this Chamber?

[Chris Bryant]

And fashion.

[Emily Darlington]

And fashion. In fact, AI is a poor copy of what my hon. Friend represents and bring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I have to say that I am slightly surprised that no Labour Back Bencher is willing to speak in support of the Government’s position, but it means that I have more time to speak than I had initially thought would be the case. I will not repeat the arguments that we have had in the lengthy debates on these measures that have already taken place, but I want to make one or two points.

In his contribution, the Secretary of State said that he had never mentioned the word “uncertainty” and implied that he thought that copyright law is clear. I have to say that that contrasts with an awful lot of the debates we have had previously, in which his colleague, the Minister for the Creative Industries, has talked about there being uncertainty.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Member must have missed several of the debates in which I expressly said that I did not think there was any uncertainty about the law as it presently stands.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Well, the ministerial foreword to the consultation paper suggests there was uncertainty, and that has consistently been one of the reasons why the Government have said they need to carry out all these consultations. Even if the law is clear, as the Secretary of State suggests—personally, I believe it is clear—the important thing is that it can only be enforced if those who have their copyright breached are aware that that has taken place. That is why transparency is of critical importance, as I know the Government have acknowledged.

The Secretary of State has said this afternoon that he is going to set up more working parties. Our concern is that, as the Secretary of State has just said, a large amount of copyrighted material is already being scraped by generative AI. His working parties and further consultations—we wait to hear when legislation might arrive—mean that it will be another few years before we actually have this measure on the statute book. There is an opportunity to have something on the statute book now, and he will be aware that the existing provisions—the robots.txt provisions—are simply being ignored. They are not working, and it is important that we act immediately to send a very clear signal that we expect transparency to be in place and for generative AI companies to properly remunerate licence holders.

I want to mention some of the other provisions. On the Order Paper, the Government have said that Lords amendment 49D “engages financial privilege”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to help incentivise film production in the UK.

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

We support and incentivise film production in the UK through our range of audiovisual tax reliefs, through support for business rates relief, and through funding directly to the industry.

[Lewis Cocking]

In Broxbourne, we were meant to be seeing the £700 million Sunset Studios project, which is now sadly not going ahead, in part due to the national insurance increase, new employment regulations and this Government’s handling of the economy. Is that what the Government mean by supporting the film industry?

[Chris Bryant]

What utter nonsense! The hon. Gentleman may only just have arrived in this House in the last year—of course, today is the anniversary of the moment when the former Prime Minister called the election and it rained on his parade. I simply point out that the company suspended its plans in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in 2023, when there was a Conservative Government.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

We have fantastic film and TV sectors in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, and I am determined to make sure that more of our young people can access them. I recently had the pleasure of joining North Herts college to open its fantastic new Purwell Studios, meaning that young people in my constituency can access state-of-the-art training facilities in their area. How is the Minister working with the Department for Education to make sure that more young people can access the fantastic career opportunities that the film sector offers?

[Chris Bryant]

I am glad somebody is celebrating the film industry. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to make sure that kids from every single constituency in this land can think of the possibility of working in the film industry. I am delighted that since we introduced our two new tax reliefs in last autumn’s Budget, we have already seen a large number of people making applications to the British Film Institute, and I am absolutely certain that that will mean that the British film and television sectors in the UK will be very lively for many years to come.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to support the provision of grassroots sports facilities in Cannock Chase constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

4. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the cultural co-operation agreement between the UK and India on economic growth in the UK.

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

The programme of cultural co-operation, which the Secretary of State signed earlier this month, creates significant opportunities for the UK’s cultural sectors to reach a market of over 1.4 billion people in India. We expect this agreement to create skilled jobs and opportunities for young people from Southall to Kolkata over the next five years.

[Deirdre Costigan]

The Liberty cinema in my constituency of Ealing Southall, now the Himalaya Palace shopping centre, was the first cinema in the country to regularly show Bollywood films, and Southall has formed the backdrop of many a Bollywood movie since then, so I welcome this agreement to increase co-operation between the UK and Indian film industries for the benefit of both economies. What more can the Government and the Minister do to encourage cultural partnerships, so that the next generation of the British Indian diaspora in Southall can continue to enjoy their vibrant heritage?

[Chris Bryant]

There could not be a better constituency MP than my hon. Friend to highlight this subject, and to show this symbolic uniting of Indian and British culture. I think British bhangra originally came out of Ealing Southall, and so many Anglo-Indian writers have been quintessential in determining the future of the British language, and will be part of our literary future. I am absolutely delighted that we have this cultural agreement, and we are determined to work with our Indian colleagues on progressing all the ideas that my hon. Friend and others have come up with.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Whether it is Bollywood, Hollywood or Borehamwood, I am sure the Minister will agree that our British cultural and creative industries are our global economic superpower. While the Secretary of State is AWOL today, rumours abound that the whole Department for Culture, Media and Sport is for the chop. The Minister must see that this sends a terrible message to those sectors about how little their Government value the power of those industries. Will he take this opportunity to put that rumour to bed, and if he cannot, will he take this chance to put on record that it is a horrible idea?

[Chris Bryant]

If we were to get rid of the Department, one of the worst consequences would be our having to get rid of the Select Committee as well—and, for that matter, all those on the Opposition Front Bench. Oh hang on, maybe it is a good idea.

No, let us be serious. First, the Secretary of State is not absent without leave. She is doing the very important job of building our relationship with Japan. Secondly, I am not going to put this rumour to bed—I am going to bury it. I am absolutely certain that in a year’s time we will be able to sing, in the words of Stephen Sondheim from the musical “Follies”, “I’m still here”.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to help increase the number of covered tennis courts in Hartlepool constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I was absolutely delighted that the Prime Minister’s EU-UK deal included a direct reference to the importance of touring artists and cultural exchange. I have already been in touch with my EU counterpart commissioner, and I intend to take the matter forward as soon as I can.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but it is over four years since I first raised this matter in an urgent question in the House of Commons. In that time, nearly half of UK musicians say that they have lost work in Europe and precious income as they confront all the Brexit barriers, visa issues and cabotage restrictions. The Labour manifesto vowed to resolve this, and we were all grateful for the warm words in the reset document, but real action is required. When can we see our wonderful UK artists back in the concert halls and arenas of Europe, travelling freely and without any restriction?

[Chris Bryant]

That is absolutely our aim and intention, and the hon. Gentleman knows that I am as committed to that as he is. Obviously, the UK-EU deal is very good, but we want to make sure that we pursue all the individual issues that were raised that have not yet been resolved, and this is one of them. As I said, I have already made contact with Commissioner Micallef, and I intend to chase this down as fast as I can. I know the hon. Gentleman does not like being happy, but if I might just quote “Hamlet” to him:

Our doubts are traitors,

And make us lose the good which oft we might win

By fearing to attempt.

[Mr Speaker]

I think we’ve got the return of Sir John Hayes.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his encouraging remarks about the progress of the UK-EU deal. Does he agree that the changes that we are making will support the vitality of London’s west end, and provide a strong foundation for tackling the issue of carnets in our future negotiations with the EU, so that we can continue this great work?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The west end of London is very important to not just our film industry, but our tourism. Cultural exchange with other countries in Europe is a really important part of the deal that we have struck, and we want to build on that. The more we can do so over the coming months, the better. Mr Speaker, I do not know if you talk to your counterparts anywhere else in Europe, but if you could raise the matter with them as well, that would be very helpful.

[Mr Speaker]

Marvellous. We’ll talk to Carolyn Harris now. No, I do apologise; I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to not be forgotten today. [Interruption.] If we are abolished, perhaps we will all be forgotten. There have been previous positive statements on touring performers, but there was no concrete good news in the UK-EU deal. Touring performers are reliant on this Department to fight their corner, as are the rest of the creative industries, not least on artificial intelligence and copyright, which we are talking about later today. The Minister says he is burying the rumour about the abolition of DCMS, so why do so many people here think it will happen, and why is it being briefed to the press so often?

[Chris Bryant]

The question I am asking myself is: why on earth is the hon. Gentleman perpetuating daft rumours? Honestly, the Department is not going to be abolished; it would be absolute madness. This Department touches the lives of nearly everybody in the country, every single day of the week, whether through sport—football, rugby, cricket, tennis—broadcasting, or our wonderful creative industries. So many different aspects of what we do touch everybody’s lives. I cannot see any way in which the Department will be abolished.

The hon. Gentleman’s question was about EU touring. If he talks to all the liberal-leaning Governments in Europe, I talk to all the socialist-leaning Governments in Europe, and the Tories speak to, well, their colleagues in Europe—for that matter, Reform could speak to some of the barmpots in Europe—then we might manage to secure EU touring.

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

7. What discussions she has had with the Premier League on the distribution of funding to lower league football clubs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to support the growth of creative industries in Wales.

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

Our primary support for the creative industries in Wales is through the tax reliefs available to video games, the audiovisual sector, theatre, museums and orchestras, and also through the screen industry’s research and development firm Clwstwr, which is based in the Cardiff region.

[Catherine Fookes]

A musician, an animator and a horror writer are among the many constituents who have written to me recently to express their concerns about generative AI being trained on their work without compensation and without their consent. They need action now, not in 18 months when the damage will have been done and their work will have been scraped. What will the Minister do with the opportunity before us this afternoon in the Data (Use and Access) Bill to ensure that our fantastic creative industries have their copyright protected and can grow?

[Chris Bryant]

The UK is a creative content superpower and we should do nothing to undermine that. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, there is a famous gallery that produces blue plaques, which celebrate many of the creative industry heroes around the country—I launched the one for Cary Grant in Bristol not long ago. I am keen that we make sure that we protect those industries and enhance them for the future. She basically asked whether we could have a debate later today on the data Bill, and we are going to have one.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The creative industries in Wales are incredibly important, but it is also incredibly important to have creative industries everywhere in this United Kingdom. There is an opportunity for those in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England to have creative industry exchanges. Is that something that the Minister has considered, so that the benefits from Wales can come to Northern Ireland, Scotland and England and we can all gain?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, very creative.

[Chris Bryant]

Very creative indeed—all the way from Monmouth to Northern Ireland. All our creative industries function across the whole of the UK. Making those links between different parts of the UK is a really important part of ensuring that we prosper into the future. I visited Bad Wolf studios in Cardiff a couple of weeks ago to see the phenomenal filming work that is being done there. Obviously, Dr Who has been filmed there. I know that many of the people who have worked in Cardiff will also work in Northern Ireland, which has a very lively high-end television sector as well.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

10. What steps her Department is taking to support the growth of creative industries in Bedford constituency.

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

The most important thing we have done for Bedford is secure the Universal Studios theme park, which will be the biggest theme park in Europe and one of the biggest investments in the UK for many years.

[Mohammad Yasin]

Huge congratulations to the Department on securing the Universal Studios park—it is a major investment in Bedford. With the creative industries rightly a priority for growth, does the Minister agree that this success must also support grassroots venues such as Bedford’s iconic Esquires, which is now seeking community ownership through the Music Venue Trust’s “Own Our Venues” campaign? Will the Minister back efforts to protect the local institutions that nurture talented community identity?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is great that the theme park is coming. The shadow Secretary of State says that it was all down to him, but he did not get it across the line. The whole point of a deal is that it is not a deal until you actually get it across the line, which we did. My hon. Friend is also right that we do not just need to develop massive theme parks; we also need small venues such as the one he refers to, where I think George Ezra has performed and where Coldplay have performed twice in the past. That is one reason I am really glad that we have now managed to get over the line a levy on arena tickets to help fund small music venues across the whole of the UK.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

T1.   If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

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

Since the last Question Time, we have closed the deal on a multibillion-pound investment in a new Universal Studios theme park, and the Secretary of State has signed a cultural co-operation agreement between the UK and India, which helped underpin the free trade agreement that we concluded this month. I have been working with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to deliver a solution to the ongoing uncertainty facing the advertising and broadcasting sectors, as will be reported today in a written ministerial statement. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), the whole of the Department and the Secretary of State worked hard with thousands of others, including the Royal British Legion, to deliver an 80th anniversary of VE Day that we can all be proud of.

Mr Speaker, I should just say that today’s Order Paper, as you know, refers to Members of Parliament who gave their lives during the second world war, which is actually an idea I came up with many years ago. However, there is a little mistake in it today. It refers to Major John Cartland, but it was actually Major Ronnie Cartland who gave his life in the war. He was one of the bravest people, and he protected thousands of others by giving his life in the retreat to Dunkirk.

[Mr Speaker]

I am glad you had a good idea, and I am glad I could fulfil your idea.

[Melanie Onn]

Congratulations, Mr Speaker.

GrimFalfest is part of Grimsby’s brilliant award-winning Viking festival. It launched in 2022, attracting more than 20,000 visitors, and now talented local producer Julia Thompson is developing the concept and turning Grimsby into the destination of Havelok’s kingdom. What support can the Minister offer for heritage-led tourism projects, which create economic opportunities in places such as Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes?

[Chris Bryant]

I have looked at some of the material for Havelok’s weekend—I think he is getting a weekend. I did not know the story of Grim, the fisherman who saved the young Prince Havelok, but it is a great story. It is also good to see that there is a new artwork to modernise the old artwork outside the Grimsby Institute. My hon. Friend is right that we need to do more for our coastal communities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

The Minister will know that our creative sectors, including our artists, writers, publishers and the fashion industry to name a few, are all fighting for their professional lives as artificial intelligence companies use their intellectual property for AI models. Why will the Government not put an end to the AI copyright issue and back the amendments from the Lords, which have such overwhelming support?

[Chris Bryant]

For a start, we will have that debate this afternoon. I am determined that through this whole process we will get to a place where creators of every different kind, whether in music, word or images, will be able very easily to protect their copyright and gain remuneration. I also want to get to a place where AI companies will pay for the work that they look at and use to create their systems. I note that the Conservatives are all over the shop on this issue. They have a had a free vote, a vote on one side and a vote on the other side, and we will see whether even their Front Benchers vote this afternoon.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

T2. Recently I have been contacted by constituents with concerns that breaking into the arts and creative industries, and staying in those industries, is incredibly difficult for those from lower-income backgrounds or those living outside major cities and media hubs. As the Minister knows, having visited Monmouthshire many times, we have no cities—only small towns. What actions are the Government taking to create more opportunity for talented people to enter and stay in the arts industries, regardless of their background?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. One of the things that worries me about the creative industries in the UK is that often the only people who conceive of them as a possible career are those whose parents worked in them. I do not want the creative industries to be hereditary; I want everybody to have a chance, whatever their background. That is partly about making sure we champion the creative industries, which are our economic future. We must embrace them and ensure that everybody gets a decent chance in life.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

T3. Apart from the sensational ice cream, I am sure the Minister will join me in congratulating Skegness on being awarded the prestigious blue flag for the quality of its beach. I am concerned that not enough people can enjoy that, however, because of the lack of direct public transport from London. National Express has not restored its coach service since the pandemic and there is no direct train from London to Skegness. Will he work with me and the Department for Transport to try to improve direct transport links?

[Chris Bryant]

That is a bit transporty for me. First, the best ice cream in Britain is produced in the Rhondda by Subzero, and I am happy to have a contest with the hon. Member any day of the week on that front if he wants. Secondly, I suggest gently to him that one of the reasons the beaches in the UK improved was that we joined the European Union. Before our membership of the European Union, all our beaches were filthy and covered in tar.

[Mr Speaker]

And obviously Frederick’s ice cream in Chorley.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

T4. Earlier this week, I attended the launch of the Independent Venue Community, which is a charity aiming to bring community activity into night-time music venues when they are usually closed. Does the Minister agree that such innovative thinking is beneficial to health and wellbeing, the arts sector more generally and town centre renewal? What support can the Department offer to see such schemes rolled out nationwide?

[Chris Bryant]

All I really want to say is yes, because I agree with everything my hon. Friend said. Since you like brevity, Mr Speaker, and brevity is the soul of wit, I am just going to say yes.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

T5.   One of the best experiences I had as a Minister in DCMS several years ago was visiting 114 places around the country. I extend an offer to the Minister to come to Salisbury to see the work of Wiltshire Creative. Salisbury international arts festival is starting this weekend, and we would welcome his insights on how collaboration to maximise investment in cultural growth in south Wiltshire can be facilitated.

[Chris Bryant]

I get a lot of invites. [Interruption.] Yes, I honestly do get a lot of invites—and some of them I take up. I am a bit Ado Annie:

I’m just a girl who cain’t say no

I’m in a terrible fix

I always say “come on, let’s go”

Just when I orta say nix.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

T6.   Cannock Chase is home to many fantastic dance schools such as the Crystal Academy in Hednesford, which has been crowned dance school of the year. Dance can empower people from all backgrounds, but a third of schools are not teaching it, despite its being on the national curriculum. A varied, high-quality sports offer should not be only for a privileged few. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that all schools can inspire their students through dance?

[Chris Bryant]

I think my hon. Friend asked what steps I am taking to promote dance. Well, it takes two to tango, and we are working with the Department for Education to try to ensure that creative education is a really important part of everything we do in all our schools. The fact that fewer kids are now studying creative subjects is a problem, and we need to rectify it.

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

T7.   I heard the Minister mention this in passing, but would he not concede that the voluntary grassroots music levy is not making the progress we had all hoped for? The Music Venue Trust has revealed that almost 95% of arena and stadium shows do not have any levy at all. We need that income to rejuvenate grassroots venues; the Minister knows that. Surely it is now time to think of a formal levy and even legislation, if required.

[Chris Bryant]

I have said that we will make the levy statutory if we need to do so, but we are making progress. I had wanted us to have made substantial progress by the first quarter of this year. The levy has already been applied to half a million tickets and I want to get to much bigger numbers by the end of the year. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee did a really good job in coming up with the idea and we are determined to push it forward. If the hon. Member could be less grumpy, that would help. If he could ring everybody he knows in the industry and persuade them to sign up to the levy, that would be great.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

T8. As this Labour Government deliver a national youth strategy and open a network of Young Futures hubs, what assurances will the Minister give that the Department will learn from the best practice of charities such as the Thirst Youth Café and FUTUREhope in my constituency? Will she join me to meet them and find out more about how they deliver for young people in Hertford and Stortford?

--- Later in debate ---

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

The issue of copyright and creatives is big in the news because of artificial intelligence, but it has also been a long-running issue and it is good that the spotlight is on it. Will the Minister look into a levy on IT equipment, so that people who provide their creative material on that receive some effective royalties, as happens under the book lending scheme? This is an early idea, but if he starts talking about it now in government, we might get some success.

[Chris Bryant]

I am happy to look at anything, but we are reluctant to start putting levies on things that close down the British business. My hon. Friend makes a good point about trying to make sure that people have an opportunity to make a career and a living out of the creative industries. It strikes me that with more than 50% of people working freelance in the industry, that is one of the things we definitely have to look at, and I know that my hon. Friend has a large sector in her constituency.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Somerset is home to some iconic film locations such as Glastonbury Tor, which featured in “The Kid Who Would Be King”; Montacute House, which featured in “Wolf Hall” and “Sense and Sensibility”; and Wells, where “Hot Fuzz” was filmed. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the film industry in the UK thrives and continues to use our iconic locations?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady is right: one of the things that brings a lot of people to the UK as tourists—we want to reach 50 million international visitors by 2030—is seeing places where things were filmed. I went to Bath recently and saw many different places where there has been filming for “Bridgerton” and lots of different movies. It is an important part of our business and sometimes we need to make sure that local authorities take up such opportunities.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

There has been rapid expansion of new homes in my constituency. However, the development of sports facilities in areas such as Ashby-de-la-Zouch are not keeping pace, and in Hugglescote we see a fight to save the rec. How will the Minister ensure that when new homes are created, we protect and develop new sports facilities in parks for local people?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

The bands I played in never quite got to a European tour—[Interruption.] Artists tell me how much they and their teams have suffered in the disastrous post-Brexit landscape for touring artists. We have the best bands and artists in the world and they bring huge joy to us here. They want to share the love abroad and in so doing bring a lot of money to the UK economy. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he is acting with haste? As Shakespeare said,

All the world’s a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances.

Let us open more doors for them.

[Chris Bryant]

And,

“one man in his time plays many parts”.

Clearly, my hon. Friend is one of those people. We are determined to sort this out. I know that there are many of us who fear that we lost many things when Brexit happened. However, there are other wise words from Shakespeare. As Queen Margaret in “Henry VI” said:

“wise men ne’er sit and wail their loss, but cheerily seek how to redress their harms”.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

The amazing dancers at Eastbourne’s Shining Stars Dance Academy have qualified for the dance world cup in Spain this July. It will cost thousands of pounds to get them there, though, so they have launched a crowdfunding campaign. Will the Minister back their campaign to get to the world cup and congratulate them for their achievement?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, and if the hon. Member sends me a link, I will contribute myself.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Please accept my apologies because, in my haste to stand up for British horseracing, I forgot to refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests detailing an event I attended at Doncaster racecourse in my constituency last year.

Broadband and Mobile Connectivity: Rural Areas

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Mr Stuart, what a delight to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing the debate. She probably should have secured an hour and a half, or three hours, or even a whole day, because this issue obviously matters to a lot of people.

The two key things to discuss are mobile and fixed connectivity. Both of those could occupy all of us here, because many of the issues apply equally, I would argue, to rural and urban constituencies, albeit in slightly different patterns. I will push back slightly on the idea that rural areas are getting a worse time than urban areas; actually, in some urban areas, the fibre is theoretically passing down the street, but it is not going into the building where the flats are because of wayleave issues. There is a problem in cities as well as in rural areas, and we need to address both—they probably need different answers, but we need to address both.

In the end, our ambition is to get to 5G stand-alone across as much of the country as we possibly can, as fast as we possibly can, and to get full fibre to premises. Full fibre will not be for 100% of the country; that would be impossible, and financially it would not make logical sense. In some cases, getting to the cabinet is good enough, where it is a relatively short passage from the cabinet to the premises and there are only a few premises, so there will not be the same contention problems as there would be with a lot of premises on that same passage. We want to go as fast as we can and as far as we can, and the hon. Member made some very strong points, although I will come to another area later where I completely disagree with her.

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will, although I granted the hon. Lady permission to speak earlier.

[Caroline Voaden]

On the issue of not being able to get to every premises, particularly in very rural areas—the highlands and islands would be an example—have the Government given thought to satellite internet provision, and perhaps to subsidising the cost of that for homeowners?

[Chris Bryant]

We have looked at satellite provision. The difficulty is that there is not much of it left. It is already pretty occupied and it is quite expensive. There are other options as well, such as fixed wireless, where the connection is delivered to an area locally and the rest is delivered wirelessly. It would not be gigabit capable, but it would run at significant speeds that would match most people’s modern needs. We are looking at all of those options.

My suspicion is that in the next few years, technology will advance at such a pace that that will become easier for us, rather than more difficult. There probably needs to be more than one operator providing satellite options to people’s homes, and that might arrive in the next couple of years as well, with Amazon and perhaps others. That will definitely be part of the mix. There will always be a tiny percentage of properties that are simply impossible for us to reach with fibre; it would be crazy for us to try to take a piece of fibre down a 25-mile road just to serve one property.

We have obviously aimed to deliver as much connectivity as we possibly can on a commercial basis first, because that just makes sense. However, that is quite difficult in itself, because commercial operators change their investment plans. Some of that is about the availability of money to them in the market. We have been working on some of those issues so that they might be in a stronger position, but sometimes they make very specific decisions in local areas that make it difficult for us to know when we should intervene to provide a subsidy and when it should be delivered simply on a commercial basis. That makes Building Digital UK’s job of managing those decisions phenomenally complicated.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

Openreach has changed its mind several times about the affected community of Affetside in my constituency. What advice would you give that resolute, resilient community as it tries to convince Openreach to honour not just its historical commitment, but the one that it made, through me, only in December, and has since reneged on?

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I will give no advice, but the Minister will.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, you often do give advice, Mr Stuart, but that is another matter.

We will have to take this conversation elsewhere, because I am not sure whether that is a Project Gigabit-delivered contract or whether Openreach is rolling out its own commercial decision—[Interruption.] I will not take another intervention because I do not have very much time.

Sometimes all those elements change because the commercial operators say, “Well, actually, we have realised that this business park”—which is outside a town and feels more rural even though it is sort of theoretically attached to a town—“isn’t going to be connected unless we connect another bit that is contiguous.” They constantly change their commercial decisions. We try to help them to make sensible decisions that fit with our subsidy plans, but it is not always easy. That also applies to the shared rural network, which obviously deals with mobile connectivity. A large number of masts have been put up through the shared rural network, including in large chunks of Wales.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I congratulate the Minister’s BDUK officers, who are really useful. The radio teleswitch service switch-off will affect people, and it is starting to happen on 30 June—just over a month from now. There are 11,000 households in Wales that are presently dependent on it, and if they do not have access to signal, as many off-grid homes do not, it will have an immediate effect on them. I beg the Minister to discuss with his colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero how to resolve that for vulnerable people.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful for the last bit of that, because the right hon. Lady reminds me that I need to talk to my colleagues in DESNZ about that. It is not directly my responsibility but, if she writes to me about it, I am happy to get it to DESNZ or to ensure she gets a response from DESNZ as soon as possible. She makes a perfectly legitimate point, and we need to get that right. I thought she was talking about a different switch-off, which is why I was confused.

Reporting of mobile coverage is something that frustrates many of us. The Ofcom site may say, “96% of all four networks available everywhere across the whole of your constituency,” but I say, “No, you can’t get a signal anywhere in Hannah Street in the middle of Porth—end of story.” I have been in discussion with Ofcom, and we have exchanged letters, which I have placed in the Library of the House of Commons, about how it is going to change its reporting.

That reporting has historically been based in part on two things: first, the coverage predicted by the mobile phone companies, which might not necessarily match people’s experience; and, secondly, 2 megabits per second, which frankly is of no earthly use to anybody—most of us now want 5 megabits per second. From about the middle of June, Ofcom will be reporting across the whole of the country on 2 megabits per second and 5 megabits per second, so people will have a much clearer understanding of the situation on the ground. I hope that might drive further commercial investment from the mobile phone operators, which will say, “You know what? We need to make sure we have more masts in this area, because frankly it’s not good enough.”

The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) mentioned Chichester; I have Godalming in my head, because I was at the Pizza Express there one Saturday evening and I could not order a taxi because there was no mobile signal at all. You would think that in the middle of Godalming, with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer as its Member of Parliament, that would have been sorted. There are lots of places like that around the country where the mobile signal simply is not good enough and we need to strengthen it.

Much of that will be me trying to get the mobile companies to work harder to make sure that that works across the whole of the country. I want to work out with them what some of the problems are, and whether those are to do with the planning issues that have already been referred to. It seems to me bonkers that we would even consider building a new housing estate without making sure that it has proper mobile signal available and proper connectivity of every kind. One would think that that would just be quintessentially part of the offer. These are all issues that we are going to address.

The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked me three specific questions—I try my best to answer specific questions when people ask them, in the hope that that will encourage people to ask specific questions. First, she asked me about the promised map. That should be happening fairly soon. “Soon”, obviously, is a parliamentary word that has a moderate quantity of meaning, but I am trying to make it as fast as I possibly can. The advantage that will come roughly in the middle of June is that Ofcom will be providing a completely different understanding of mobile coverage in all our constituencies, which will be helpful.

I too thank everybody in BDUK; I think that when we have done the drop-in sessions for MPs, everybody has found it very helpful. It has been able to provide specific details about what is happening in a particular village and a particular street. We will continue to do that, so I would say, “If anybody has not booked in, please do.”

The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked me what would happen in the spending review. I will not answer that question, because I do not know what will happen in the spending review. As I said, our ambition is to get full fibre to as much of the population as we possibly can, as fast as we possibly can, and our ambition is to get to 5G stand-alone. For many public services, 5G stand-alone would be far more useful than a version of 3G that is not very efficient and not very functioning. For instance, the police would be able to use 5G stand-alone. People would be able to download video, to take part in video conferencing and so on.

We also need to do better at enabling people to have mobile signal inside their home and not just outside their home. I live in Wales and my house is stone built, which means whatever signal I get in the garden is not very available inside. I moved to VoIP, or voice over internet protocol, because I know how to do that—but of course many people do not, so we need to enable that more.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The Minister asked for specific questions. Part of the problem is that the cost of customer acquisition is four to five times larger in rural Britain than it is in urban areas, so the big companies prioritise urban areas, where they can find a lot of customers, leaving rural areas to small businesses that then face the capital cost issue that he refers to. My specific question is this: how can the Government help those small businesses that are trying to connect rural communities to go faster?

[Chris Bryant]

That is precisely what Project Gigabit is designed to do. That is what we are doing, and it has been a significant investment already. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been to one of our drop-in sessions with BDUK staff, but they would be very happy to go through every part of his constituency and work through precisely what we are doing to try to help.

I need to temper people’s expectations about the speed at which some of these things can happen, partly because there are skills needs out there that must be addressed. There is likely to be, I would guess, some consolidation in the altnet market in the weeks and months ahead. In addition, where there has been competition between them, some of the altnets have ended up putting in ducts and poles, which are not exactly welcome in local communities that have never had poles before. It is not always an easy thing to arrange.

I want to correct the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on one thing, because she referred to the Government’s switch-off process. It is not a Government switch-off process; it is led by the industry, for the very fine reason that copper is failing. The number of occasions on which copper is now failing far exceeds the problems we have had in any other way.

The thing that keeps me awake at night is, if people are moved from copper to fibre—they have an entitlement under the universal service obligation to a landline-only fibre connection, if they want it—whether their telecare device will work with that. That is why, since I was elected to this post, I have worked with the industry as hard as I possibly can to address some of those issues. We have been working with local authorities to identify all the vulnerable customers, trying to make sure that the operators switch people over only when all these issues have been dealt with and they know that their telecare device will still work, and saying to the telecare companies that they should stop selling kit that will work only in an analogue system and not in the new system.

On top of that, many companies have now moved to a much longer battery life back up than the one hour provided for by Ofcom. That is not Government-led, but obviously, we are trying to make sure that the sector and the industry deliver in a way that is safe for all our constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 32 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 32B and 32C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 34B and 34C proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment 34.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 43B.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 49B.

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 52 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 52B and 52C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement.

That this House does not insist on Commons Amendment 55 to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 55D and 55E proposed in lieu of Commons Amendment 55.

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment 56B

[Chris Bryant]

Notwithstanding the views of the Chinese Government, it is a delight to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am only saddened that I have not been sanctioned, which feels a shame—nor by Russia, for that matter. There is still time.

I am delighted to be here today to discuss the Bill, which we last discussed in depth a week ago today. First, I would like to express how pleased I am that the other place has agreed to the Government’s amendments relating the national underground asset register and intimate image abuse. I pay tribute to all those Members of the House of Lords who took part in getting that part of the legislation to the place where it is now. I am glad we have been able to work with them. I will start by encouraging the House to agree to those amendments, before I move on to discuss the amendments relating to AI and intellectual property, scientific research, and sex and gender—in that order.

Lords amendments 55D, 55E and 56B, which were introduced to the Bill in the other place by the noble Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, place a duty on the face of the Bill that requires the Government to: review the operation of the “reasonable excuse” defence in the offences of creating and requesting intimate image deepfakes without consent, or reasonable belief in consent; publish the outcome of the review in a report; and lay that report before Parliament. The Government were pleased to support the amendments in the other place, as we share the desire to ensure that the criminal law, and these offences in particular, work as the Government intend.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I think we all appreciate the amendment, because we want to protect vulnerable women, children and anybody who is at risk of this sort of harm. Could we not look at doing something similar to the amendment, and the carve-out we have created with it, for our creative industries? If we can protect our vulnerable people, can we not also protect our creative industries from copyright infringement by having territorial exemptions similar to what we have with deepfakes?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is jumping the gun slightly—I will come on to those issues.

I want to praise Baroness Owen with regard to this part of the legislation. If it had not been for her, I do not think it would have ended up in the Bill. There was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing between her and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that we got the legislation in the right place. As I said in last week’s discussions, one of the issues was whether Baroness Owen’s original version of the second offence really worked in law; I think she agreed that our version, which we tabled in Committee, was better. We have been able to tidy up the question of the reasonable excuse. It is perfectly legitimate to ask how on earth there could be a legitimate or reasonable excuse for creating one of these images or asking for one to be created, and we went through those debates previously. I am glad that the Government have come to a settled position with Baroness Owen, and that is what I urge everybody to support here today.

The Government made a manifesto commitment to ban sexually explicit deepfakes, and the Bill delivers on that promise. For the first time, there will be punishment for perpetrators who create or ask others to create intimate deepfakes of adults without consent.

Secondly, I turn to the national underground asset register, which it does feel has been a long time coming. Of course, that is partly because the Bill is in its third iteration. Amendment 34 relates to the national underground asset register. An amendment was previously tabled in the House of Lords requiring the Secretary of State to provide guidance on cyber-security measures, which was rejected by this House. Last week, the Government tabled amendments 34B and 34C in lieu on this topic, which were drafted with the support of the security services. These amendments expand the scope from cyber-security only to general security measures, clarify the audience for the guidance and extend its reach to Northern Ireland, alongside England and Wales.

On all the amendments I have spoken to thus far, I thank our noble colleagues in the other place for their work and support to reach agreement in these areas. I urge colleagues here today to support these amendments, too; otherwise, we are never going to get the Bill through.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

On the subject of never getting the Bill through, I will, of course, give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Steve Barclay]

One reason for getting the Bill through, one would hope, is to deliver on things like content credentials, which firms like Adobe have championed, to show who has produced a file, where the ownership sits and whether artificial intelligence has been used to edit it. Can the Minister confirm whether the Bill will deliver on that commitment on content credentials, and if not, why not?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, it is because the Bill was never intended to deal with copyright and artificial intelligence at all. The Government have not introduced any provision relating to AI or copyright, and I think that specific issue would probably be ruled out of scope if it were to be tabled.

There are very serious issues in relation to AI and copyright, which I am about to come on to, and I know the point the right hon. Gentleman is making on technical standards. [Interruption.] He keeps on talking at me—I am happy to give way to him again if he wants, but I cannot hear what he is saying.

[Steve Barclay]

My point is about AI being used to change photographs, and having the ability to see that through content credentials or the digital fingerprint. The point I am raising is that the Government themselves have still not adopted that, in terms of their official communications. Will the Bill deliver on that, and if not, why will the Government not adopt that best practice?

[Chris Bryant]

I am honestly failing to understand the point the right hon. Gentleman is making. The Bill is not and has never been intended to deal with the kind of issue he is referring to. As I say, I think that if somebody were to table amendments to that effect, they would be ruled out of order. The Bill does not deal with copyright or artificial intelligence; the only measures in the Bill on AI and copyright are those introduced in the House of Lords, which I am about to speak to.

Although I was not able to listen to the whole of the debate in the House of Lords the other day, the Secretary of State and I stood at the Bar of the House to listen carefully to considerable parts of the debate. I want to make two separate but interconnected points on AI and intellectual property in relation to the Bill. First, there is an urgent issue that must be addressed—namely, what is happening today, and, for that matter, one could argue what happened yesterday, last week, last year and two years ago. To be absolutely clear, I will reiterate that copyright law in the UK is unchanged. Works are protected unless one of the existing exceptions, which have existed for some time, such as exceptions for teaching and research, applies, or the rights holder has granted permission for their work to be used. That is the law. That is the law now, and it will be the law tomorrow if the House agrees with the Government and rejects the amendment tabled by Baroness Kidron and supported in the House of Lords. As I have said previously, I am glad that several creative industries have been able to secure licensing agreements with AI companies, including publishers, music labels and others, under the existing law. I want to see more of that—more licensing and more remuneration of creative rights holders.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It is wonderful to hear my hon. Friend talk about the importance of copyright and the fact that we have existing laws that we can use, but I wonder whether he is aware of the growing concern in industry about the risk of expansive US-style fair use principles creeping into UK practice and what we might do to secure our safeguards. We must not allow foreign interpretations of fair use to erode our copyright laws.

[Chris Bryant]

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the US system of fair use is different from the UK’s—ours goes back to 1709, with the first of our copyright Acts, and it has been very solid. When we introduced this Bill, I said that this country should be proud of the fact that a succession of different generations have ensured that rights holders can protect their copyright. Interestingly, one of Charles Dickens’ big battles was being able to protect his copyright not only in the UK but in the United States of America, where he felt he had fewer protections. It is for us to develop our own copyright law in our own country, and I say to my hon. Friend that the law as it is will not change one jot as a result of what we are intending to do in the Bill.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I probably ought to give way first to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and then to the hon. Gentleman.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

Yesterday the Minister appeared before our Select Committee and said, “The best kind of AI is the kind of AI that is built on premium content, and you can’t get premium content without paying for premium content.” Now, as well as being concerned about the overuse of the expression “premium content” in that sentence, I am also concerned about the fact that, as we speak, there are copyright works out there being scraped underhandedly by AI developers, some of whom are feigning licensing negotiations with the very rights holders whose works they are scraping. Surely now is the time to require developers to tell us what copyright works are being used to train their models and what their web-scraping bots are up to. Surely he agrees that Lords amendment 49 is a very good way to move this forward to see what works are being used to train AI models.

[Chris Bryant]

The first thing to say to the right hon. Lady is that I completely stand by everything I said to the Select Committee yesterday. I do believe that the best form of AI will be intelligent artificial intelligence. And just like any pipe, what comes out of it depends on what goes into it. If we have high-quality data going into AI, then it will produce high-quality data at the other end. I have spoken to quite a lot of publishing houses in the UK, including Taylor & Francis in particular—

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Let me finish my point and then I will give way first to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who gets very cross if people queue-barge.

I am aware that there are quite a lot of publishing houses in the UK that are determined to secure licensing deals with AI companies, both in the UK and overseas. First, they want to ensure that those AI companies remunerate them and, secondly, they want to ensure that they have very high-quality, up-to-date information and data going into them, so that if somebody searches for immunotherapy, for instance, they will have the latest information on immunotherapy, not stuff that is five, six or seven years out of date, or that may have come from a dodgy source.

The second point I want to make is this. The right hon. Lady said that this amendment would sort the problem today, but it would not. It would do nothing today, or indeed for a considerable number of months. Therefore, there is an issue about what we do today—what we as a Government do, and what we as the creative industries and everybody working together do, to ensure that we protect copyright under the existing law as it is today.

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister keeps saying that we have existing copyright laws that are there to protect the creative industries and our artists, but practically our whole creative heritage is being scraped. There are probably songs in the top 40 that have been totally designed by AI, and there will be books in the top 30 or 40 bestsellers that will be based on AI—probably fully AI. This is happening right now. Surely artists and creators should know when their works are being used. That is why Lords amendment 49B is so important for transparency.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are works out there that have been created with the use of AI. As I have said several times, I have never thought that the creative industries are in any sense luddite; I have always thought that they are at the forefront of innovation in so many areas—at the Select Committee yesterday I referred to Fra Angelico. This is true of every creative industry: they have to innovate in order to succeed. A video games company would say that it is using AI all the time, not necessarily to save money but to improve the product and be at the cutting edge of what they are doing. Even Björn from ABBA has said that he has been using AI because it enhances his work.

One area that is in our consultation but is yet to be addressed by anybody in any of the debates I have heard in this House or the other place is this: what we do about the copyright status of works that are solely or largely created by AI, because it is a moot point what we should do about it under existing law? My point is simply that we need to address all these issues in the round rather than piecemeal, and I will come on to that in more substance in a moment.

[Jonathan Davies]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. Central to what he is saying is transparency. Does he agree that enforceable transparency obligations would reduce legal uncertainty, deter infringement by increasing the legal risk to AI developers, and enable faster redress by allowing the courts to establish precedent where copyright is breached?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Yes. I do not think that people should breach copyright law. I have said that in several debates, and it is the settled view of the Government. We believe that people should not breach copyright law—they should not break the law. Some of the issues my hon. Friend raises have been or are being tested in the courts, and they will be contested more in the courts in future months.

A point I made right at the beginning, when we introduced the consultation, was that there is a fair use system in the United States of America, while we have our system in the UK, and then there is a slightly different system in the EU, which has largely relied on the Napoleonic code understanding of what an author is and what a work is. All those systems are slightly different and have been implemented in different countries in different ways, and they may lead to different conclusions in individual court cases.

That is why we have wanted to look at every single element of this issue, from transparency to technical data, access to high-quality data, issues of enforcement and personality rights. There are a whole series of issues, many of which are yet to be addressed in debates in either Chamber. That takes me back to my point that I do not think this is the Bill in which to do this piece of work, and I do not think that the amendment we are debating will secure what people hope from it.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the consultation. Could he confirm that the Government no longer consider an opt-out model to be their preferred approach to copyright and AI, and if so, what alternative approach is now being actively pursued or developed with the sector?

[Chris Bryant]

I will say two things. First, we have always said that we were consulting on a package, and part of that package was a technical solution so that rights holders would be able to protect their rights better, in a way that—

[Samantha Niblett]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will in a moment, but I am still answering the intervention. I had two points to make, and I will now probably forget the second one.

As I was saying, it was always going to be a package of measures, and we always said that we would not introduce that package unless we were secure in the belief that we could deliver for the creative industries a technical solution that made it simpler for them to enforce their rights and seek remuneration and that would lead to more licensing. That is a whole package.

When we last debated this, I said two things: first, that we are open-minded about where we are in relation to the consultation, and secondly—perhaps just as importantly—that our amendment 16 would require us to undertake an economic impact assessment of all the different options included in the consultation. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question. Somebody else wanted to ask another question.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and then I will probably go over to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton).

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The other week, an Observer article reported that a source close to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said that

“proposals to introduce an opt-out system of copyright rules was no longer his preferred option but one of several being given consideration.”

That is a very welcome change of heart, potentially, but it does not mean anything unless Ministers are prepared to repeat it in Parliament. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that that is an accurate representation of the Government’s position?

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid that I will repeat what I just said. First, in the consultation we introduced a package of measures and it hinged on the issue of whether we can deliver not only for AI companies but for the creative industries, to protect their rights more effectively than they presently can. Secondly, as I think I have now said twice at the Dispatch Box, we are open-minded about the responses to the consultation. We have had 11,500 responses to the consultation and we are making our way through all that. A lot of different issues have been addressed.

The issue of the economic impact assessment is a serious one. It is one thing to say that the AI sector in the UK, which is the third largest in the world, is worth x billion pounds to the UK economy, and that the creative industries are worth £124 billion—that is a number that a lot of people have used—to the economy. It is quite a different matter to draw up a proper economic impact assessment on the basis of the various different options.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is in a queue. It is quite a long queue, and it seems to be getting longer.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I thank the Minister for—

[Chris Bryant]

No, no. I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) is next.

[Samantha Niblett]

On the point of finding a solution in the round, if no credible technical solution is in sight, will the Minister confirm what non-technical legislative or regulatory measures the Government are considering to protect rights holders in the interim?

[Chris Bryant]

That is precisely why we need to do this in the round, rather than just piecemeal. I understand the attraction of what is on the amendment paper today, but I do not think it would deliver the answer that the people need now to the issues that the creative industries are facing now. In another debate we referred to the issue—

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Hang on! Madam Deputy Speaker, we will have to set up a queuing system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The Minister is very popular.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure that it is popularity, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The important point is that we need to look at this in the round, rather than piecemeal. I do not think that what is on the amendment paper today would deliver anything now. Indeed, it does not purport to; it instead purports to give something in six, nine or 12 months’ time, or sometime in the future.

[Torcuil Crichton]

We can assure the Minister that he remains popular, as well as generous with his time. He mentioned the Government consultation. It has caused deep and sustained anxiety across the sector. When can we expect a substantive response to the consultation?

[Chris Bryant]

I wish I could give my hon. Friend a timeline. The main thing I want to say about the timeline, as somebody who I think all hon. Members know cares passionately not just about the anxiety that has been created in this sphere because of the consultation but about the anxiety for many creative people about their future careers, is that I get that anxiety—100%. That is the bigger point.

Frankly, I would like to stop doing the Data Bill and start going out and engaging with the Minister for AI and Digital Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), to have as many sessions with creative industries and different parts of the sector and with the AI companies—in particular UK-based AI companies—to work out how we can get to proper solutions to all of this. However, until I get the Data Bill out of the way, I will struggle to do that.

On another point, I think of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley as a musician, because she is still a member of the Musicians’ Union. There is a really important part here for the different sectors within the creative industries. Word, image, music and sound will all probably need different technical solutions. That is the kind of nitty-gritty that we need to get into, which we can only really do when we consider the whole issue in the round, rather than just one specific aspect of it. Now, I think Margate calls.

[Ms Billington]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being extremely generous with his time.

The Minister is talking about the possibility that the amendments put forward would not do anything today, but there is an urgency in the creative industries because the stuff that they create is being scraped now. Will he prioritise transparency by committing at the Dispatch Box to introducing enforceable obligations, if not through a statutory instrument then at least through a clear public commitment, so that transparency will be central to the Government’s approach to AI and copyright?

[Chris Bryant]

First, I completely get the urgency of this. In many ways, I wish we had been addressing this two or three years ago, because we are some way behind other countries in relation to this. Secondly, we will prioritise the issue of transparency in all the work we do as we go forward. I have said that from the very beginning. Transparency is essential to the issue of licensing; licensing is essential to the question of remuneration; and remuneration is essential to the process of AI being high- quality, effective and able to be deployed in the UK. All these things have to be addressed in the round and together, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that without transparency, it is worth nothing.

The AI Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North—is chuntering in my left ear, which is helpful because she makes the point that this was the very first thing we discussed when came into office. With both of us in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we discussed how we could get to a resolute piece of legislation that enabled greater licensing, greater deployment of artificial intelligence in the UK, in particular UK companies, and greater transparency. So I completely agree on that—

[Ms Billington]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way, but I have the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) waiting.

[Ms Billington]

Again, my hon. Friend is extremely generous with his time. Will he therefore consider interim measures or guidance that would deliver similar outcomes while legislative options are being explored? That is what the creative industries are looking for.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not know what interim measures would look like. All three of us on the team, including the Secretary of State, have often said that we are open- minded about anybody coming through the door with a good solution. We are in the business of good ideas, and if anybody has any good ideas, we are happy to look at them, but I honestly cannot make the guarantee that my hon. Friend asks for because I do not know what interim measures that were not legislative would look like. It is not our intention—I would urge people to abide by this—to legislate piecemeal in this Bill, which is not about artificial intelligence and copyright.

[Mike Martin]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry he has been waiting so long.

[Mike Martin]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous, although I might suggest that he works on his queuing system a little bit.

I understand that the timetable issue is a difficult one, and most things seem to be arriving in the spring with this Government, but could we talk about the format? Are we going to have the consultation, then a White Paper and then a Bill? Is that what it is going to look like? Will that perhaps be in the next King’s Speech?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

If I was unable to suggest what interim measures would look like, I am not sure I will be able to please the hon. Gentleman by suggesting what will be in the next King’s Speech. I do not even know when the next King’s Speech will be. As the Minister for the creative industries and for data, I want, along with my colleagues in Government, to be able to get on with the business of trying to get together the working parties I have referred to. I want to get people from the AI companies and the creative industries sitting around the same table to work out what a proportionate and effective system of transparency would look like and what the technical solutions might be. Other countries have struggled with drawing this up; the EU is struggling with it at the moment.

That is the next stage. At the same time, we are considering what our response to the consultation should be. We have heard what many people in this House and in the House of Lords have said on this issue, and of course we will bear all that in mind. We are keeping an open mind in relation to that. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for when we will publish that consultation, but we are working on it as fast as we possibly can.

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

My hon. Friend told our Select Committee yesterday that it is not for us to give away the labour of other people to third parties for free. Given that the Government have now said they are open-minded, and if open-minded means there is no technical solution, is the Minister open-minded to the idea of legislative solutions to protect copyright and enhance it for all our great creatives? It is not just ABBA’s Björn; it is people in Rochdale and low-paid creatives across the whole north-west and country.

[Chris Bryant]

One of the special and unique aspects of the creative industries as a sector, which has grown faster than the rest of the UK economy and for whom we hope to lay out our plan in the next few weeks in the creative industries industrial strategy, is that they exist in nearly every part of our land. Often, the jobs are not well remunerated, and we want to change that. That is a key part of what we seek to do. We also want to ensure that more people can come into the creative industries and realise their ambitions in those areas, and they will not be able to do that if they are not remunerated. That is why I have made the point from the beginning that we want to get to a technical solution, which is not far distant. It is a possibility—I would not deride it. It does not exist at the moment, but there are those who want to work on it. Frankly, somebody might earn a decent penny if they were to come up with a solution so that all rights holders would be able easily, simply and without great expense to protect their rights across all AI platforms deployed in the UK.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Oh my Lord—I am almost as keen to get on to the next bit of my speech as I am to get the data Bill through to Royal Assent, but I probably ought to give way to the right hon. Lady and then I will come back to my hon. Friend.

[Dame Karen Bradley]

I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I get the sense that he is perhaps needing to go long, and that might be why he is taking so many interventions—I am happy to assist him in that process. I want to give him an opportunity. I know him well enough and know how much he values this place, but I have been slightly concerned by his comments throughout that he is keen to get on with it. Would he like to put on the record that he is first and foremost a parliamentarian and that being in this place is the bit of the job that he values most?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, the right hon. Lady was at my 60th birthday—I know it is difficult to believe.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

A long time ago!

[Chris Bryant]

“A long time ago!” says the rather ungenerous Member sitting at the back.

Honestly, I have not been asked to go long. I am simply, because I do believe in parliamentary scrutiny, trying to answer all the questions and engage in a proper debate. I know that colleagues want to press me on a series of issues. There are some issues coming up that they might want to press me on that are completely different from this, and I am happy to be pressed, including by the right hon. Lady, as many times as she wants. But I do not think there was a question in her point. She thought she was trying to help me go long, but I am trying to go slightly shorter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

To help the Minister for a moment, because colleagues are looking bewildered: I do not know who was or was not invited to the Minister’s 60th birthday party, in case they are feeling a little left out.

[Chris Bryant]

I know it is out of order to say that an hon. Member is not telling the truth, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were there! [Laughter.] And I accept your apology.

[Mr Frith]

The hon. Gentleman has been generous with his time today and in the process to date, and I thank him for that. I understand the Government have long maintained that this Bill is not the right place for these amendments. Given the Government’s anticipated removal of the Lords amendments and the use of financial privilege, what definitive action will the Minister take to address the ongoing serious concerns of our world-leading creative industries, particularly on copyright and transparency? What does he advise those of us seeking stronger commitments to do next? Would he point to any specific timeline, mechanism or legislative tool that will be used to offer the certainty that the sector is crying out for?

[Chris Bryant]

Notwithstanding the hilarity, this is obviously a very important matter to a large number of people. For many people in the creative industry, it feels like a kind of apocalyptic moment—they think that their careers are disappearing in front of their faces. I fully recognise that.

The moment that the Bill is out of the way, I and the two Departments I sit in—the Departments for Culture, Media and Sport and for Science, Innovation and Technology—would like to get people back in to work on two working parties. One would work on transparency and precisely what it looks like in granular detail—very high-level stuff does not really meet the moment. The second would work on technical standards and solutions that might deliver greater access to data for the AI companies, and on the ability for the creative industries to protect their works.

I do have some sympathy with Lords amendment 49B. There is one element that I would like to explore, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). It is one thing for Getty Images, for example, to go to court and protect its rights under the existing law, because it has deep pockets and can engage lawyers. It is quite a different matter for individual artists, who may want to promote their work by putting it on the internet and do not want it to disappear from the internet, but also do not want it to be scraped and turned into another version of their work created by AI.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will in a second. Then I probably ought to move on to the next subject, Madam Deputy Speaker.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Oh dear.

I take very seriously the point that this is not just about people with deep pockets; it is also about individual artists. We want to ensure that they are protected. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Simon Hoare]

There is little doubt that the Minister takes the issue seriously—I think the House accepts that—but does he acknowledge that what he has said in answer to questions from the Opposition and from his hon. Friends will offer the sector rather cold comfort? He recognises that this is an issue, as the Government do, and argues that the Bill is not the place to resolve it, but he does not give strong leadership by setting out a clear timetable and a clear direction of travel or sharing with the House his thinking on how the issue could be solved. Many people are facing this problem today, and he is asking them to take comfort from his intention to do something at an unspecified time, with the exception of convening two working parties. It is not quite enough to meet the magnitude of the concern from that vibrant and growing sector, which, as he rightly says, is represented in all constituencies across the country.

[Chris Bryant]

Of course, I would like to be able to move faster, but as the hon. Gentleman said to me last week in Committee and in various different places, this is not an easy knot to untie. It will require a great deal of goodwill from a large number of people to secure a settled outcome that works for everybody. I still believe that there could be a win-win situation, but that will happen only if we can gather everybody around the same table in order to deliver it. I am perfectly happy to provide leadership, and to be punched in the nose for providing that leadership if people think that I have got it wrong, but I do not think that is the problem at this particular moment.

Let me give the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) one reason why I think Lords amendment 49B does not really work. Yes, we all agree that we should introduce transparency measures—although it is difficult to work out precisely how they would be proportionate and effective and work equally for big and small companies—but there is no point in having transparency measures unless we have an enforcement measure. An element of the proposed new clause refers to enforcement, but it basically asks the Secretary of State to draw up that enforcement. One would not expect to be able to do that in any other area without a full Bill devoted solely to that purpose. I wish that I could move faster, but I do not want to move faster than is required to secure an outcome.

[Chi Onwurah]

rose—

[Mr Frith]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will take only one more intervention, I am afraid, because I have taken so many. I probably ought to give way to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way, which has made this a real debate. I commend him for his determination to bring together the tech sector and creatives to develop a solution—I know that many creatives are technical, and many technical people are creative. May I urge the Minister to ensure that he works with a wide range of tech companies? As I have said to him, I do not believe that large tech platforms have the right incentives to develop an appropriate tech solution to this, and I urge him to be transparent about how he engages with them.

Finally, the tech platforms refused to appear at a joint sitting of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but it is through transparency that we can ensure competition to identify the best technical solution.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I completely agree. My hon. Friend makes the good point that in the UK, many of the creative industries—roughly 40%—are tech. They are fast-growing, and part of what we want to incentivise. She makes the good point that we need to talk to lots of different kinds of artificial intelligence companies, just as we need to talk to lots of different kinds of creative industries. All those points are well made, and what she refers to is precisely the work that I and the team will want to take forward as soon as we can.

[Mr Frith]

This will be my last intervention for now. Will the Minister make it his policy to include representatives of the creative industries on the technical committees that are working on AI and copyright reform? We arrived at this point because there is a sense that one Department speaks to some people, and another Department speaks to others, whereas there are implications for both sectors. We should have both sectors in the room, talking about each other with the Minister and his Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree with everything my hon. Friend said, and I can give that guarantee. Interestingly, when we started this process after the general election, the first consultation meetings that the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), and I had were with the creative industries in one room and the AI companies in another. Perhaps it would have been better to mix them up in the way my hon. Friend has suggested, and that is precisely the job of work that I want to get on with.

We are determined that wherever we can, we will take creative industries with us, and we will be transparent about the work that we do. I want to lay to rest the idea that there are two Departments at war with one another. That simply is not the case. The two Departments are trying to work together to achieve good outcomes for everybody.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

The Minister is being unbelievably generous in taking interventions, but before he moves on, I wanted to say that it is really important to have those involved in AI and in the creative industries in the same room at the same time. He must not forget that the reason the creative industries are in such a state of panic and despair about this is because a hare was set running a few months ago by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, when it published an AI strategy that said that the copyright opt-out was a way to grow the AI industry. The Government then published their consultation, in which they indicated that the opt-out was their preferred mechanism, despite the fact that the document also mentioned prioritising transparency. I understand that, but the Minister must understand that panic has set in. Words matter; what we say matters. He needs to do everything that he can to bring this issue to a close.

[Chris Bryant]

As the hon. Lady knows, I am sympathetic to the direction of travel that she is trying to take me in. Some people will think that I am splitting hairs, and that is not my intention, but I have been keen to avoid the term “opt-out”. As I said, we have brought forward a package of measures. They were reliant on our being able to deliver greater control, through technical measures, for the creative industries and others who had rights to protect. That is why we referred to “rights reservation”, rather than “opt-out”. I take her point, and I am sure that we will be debating it for some considerable time. She is a Select Committee Chair, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). I should have said earlier that when I was Chair of the Committee of Privileges, we produced a report, which has yet to be implemented or even discussed in the House, about how we could ensure that witnesses appeared before Parliament when Select Committee Chairs wanted them to.

If it is all right with the rest of the House, I will move on to further subjects. The issues around scientific research—I can never work out where the emphasis lies when I say the word “research”—are embodied in Lords amendment 43B. Some people have suggested that the Bill will somehow create a wild west for research, but that is simply not true. The Bill does not change the threshold for what constitutes scientific research; we are sticking with what has been and is a fair, clear and proportionate measure, using the “reasonableness test” that is common in other legislation and well known by the courts.

As Lord Vallance said in the House of Lords earlier this week, this amendment would go against the good work done by the previous Government on avoiding unnecessary red tape for researchers. We have a world-class research sector in the UK. We want to empower it, not tie it up in red tape. We believe that documents such as the Frascati manual, which are useful and interesting in other settings, are not designed to contain legally binding requirements, so the amendment is misplaced.

If the amendment were carried forward, researchers would need to be able to demonstrate their work’s creativity to a legal standard. If someone’s work is aimed at testing or reproducing another researcher’s results, is it truly creative? That is a legitimate question, but it takes on a whole new meaning, and brings a whole new layer of bureaucracy, when enforced to a new legal standard, as the Bill insists, backed up by the potential for huge regulatory fines.

Similar issues arise in relation to requirements for research to be “systematic” and “ethical”. Those words are not necessarily well known in the courts when it comes to this legislation. As Lord Winston argued powerfully on Monday, if the amendment had been law 50 years ago, we may never have had in vitro fertilisation and the benefits spinning off from that, including valuable cancer research. Those are the issues caused by putting such a test in a legally binding setting that it was never designed for.

[Chi Onwurah]

On the point that Lord Winston made in the other place, will the Minister explain how setting a test for scientific research, so that data could be reused, would have prevented in vitro fertilisation?

[Chris Bryant]

Lord Winston’s point is that by introducing a requirement that research be systematic, ethical and creative, we are creating a whole new idea of what constitutes research. When he wanted to start his IVF work, it was generally thought that it would be unethical to explore that territory. Today, we would consider that view to be misplaced. We believe that the task of deciding what counts as scientific research is best approached by drawing on guidance and the opinion of experts. That is what the reasonableness test allows. It is a concept that is well understood by the courts. While I sympathise with the intention, expressed in the other place, of guarding against misuse, and while I understand the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West and I have discussed on several occasions, the Government believe that the amendment is unnecessary as the Bill already contains sufficient and, I would argue, considerable safeguards.

A controller who wishes to change the purpose of data processing to scientific research must first ensure that they comply with clause 71’s rules on purpose limitation. Scientific research is not listed as grounds for exemption where data was collected on the basis of consent. Secondly, the controller would have to ensure that they passed a “reasonableness” test; thirdly, they would have to ensure that they had lawful basis; fourthly, they would have to ensure that they met the requirements of the safeguards in clause 86; and fifthly, they would have to ensure that the new processing was fair and complied with the wider data protection principles in UK GDPR. That is a very substantial set of safeguards. The Government cannot see how the Lords amendment would add value, on top of all those requirements against misuse, but it would have an effect on genuine researchers, as I have set out, burdening them with red tape and uncertainty and potentially excluding important research.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way again. I will sum up at the end of the debate, so if she wants to raise issues again, I will take interventions then. [Interruption.] I think you would like me to get a move on, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I turn finally to the issue of sex and gender, particularly in the context of the measures on digital verification services. I have tabled amendments to remove the measure that was voted for in the House of Lords on Monday, for reasons that Lord Vallance and I have noted in previous debates. For clarity, the data accuracy principle requires personal data to be accurate and not misleading for the purpose for which it is being used. That safeguard should ensure that personal data shared by public authorities with digital verification services for the purposes of verifying a particular attribute appropriately confirms the specific attribute in question. Public authorities and digital verification service providers are legally required to comply with that principle at different stages of the digital verification process. As I said last week, although it is very unlikely that digital verification services will be used in the kind of cases raised by Opposition Members, the provisions mean that if an organisation requests verification of a person’s sex at birth, the public authority must not share data that records gender more widely for the purpose of that check. Likewise, digital verification service providers must not rely on data that records gender more widely as part of the verification process in that scenario.

This Government recognise that there are instances where sex and gender data appear in the same field in public authority data sets. Existing legislation requires personal data to be accurate for the purpose for which it is being used, which means that personal data processed as part of digital verification checks must reflect the specific requirements of that check. I assure the House that if the Government were to identify an instance in which a public authority was sharing with digital verification services gender data that was mislabelled as biological sex data, we would respond appropriately.

To reiterate, this Government consider the issue of data accuracy to be of importance, and accept the Supreme Court ruling. That judgment and its effects must be worked through holistically, with sensitivity and in line with the law. The Government are already undertaking extensive work on data standards and data accuracy that will consider upcoming updated guidance from the equalities regulator. I do not think it would be appropriate to legislate in the way proposed without having taken those steps, particularly given the sensitive nature of this matter and the potential impact on people’s privacy and human rights.

I finish by noting your opinion, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Lords amendments 49B, 52B and 52C engage the financial privilege of this House, which the Government do not believe it is appropriate for this House to waive. I am sure that the other place will reflect on that carefully during its further consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to all those Members who intervened, and I hope that I have not managed to cut off anybody before their prime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was a substantial opening speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I rise to speak to Lords amendment 43B, which deals with the safeguarding of scientific research and ensuring that the exemptions in the Bill are used for the purposes of such research alone.

On Second Reading, the Minister was unable to address the points that I raised; he ran out of time because of the length of the debate on AI and copyright, and I rather feel that the same has happened today. In the meantime, however, he wrote to me extensively to address my concerns. Although I do not think all of them were fully addressed, I was convinced that the Minister and, indeed, the Government did not intend this measure to widen the circumstances in which data could be reused for scientific research without consent. I am thinking of circumstances in which data would be reused for the training of AI models which were in themselves not contributing to new, creative scientific research. I believe—let me emphasise this—that all scientific research is creative, and that even if it is simply reproducing existing findings, it is creating confidence in the stock of scientific knowledge. I understand that the Minister does not intend to create a wild west, and I hope that he can confirm specifically that it is not the policy, intention or effect of the provisions to enable the reuse of personal data for AI.

[Chris Bryant]

indicated assent.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Minister makes a hand signal, but I am of the view that hand signals are not reflected in Hansard. The Minister has far greater knowledge of proceedings in this House than I do, so I suspect he knows that too. If he would like to intervene on me, I would be very happy for him to do so.

[Chris Bryant]

I am being very badly behaved. I did not want to take up more time, but I will respond at the end. I think my hon. Friend will be happy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I would always agree with the noble Lord Brennan. As somebody who played with him for many years in a parliamentary rock band, I think we all miss him in this House. He was spot-on when he said that: we have to act now.

Even if the Government want to change copyright law—I still do not know whether that is their intention, and the creative sector strongly opposes that—it will be years before creators have the slightest hope of protecting their work against creative theft. This sector has seen its work taken, used and exploited by tech companies. They came into this process hoping that they would finally get some protection, but instead of being heard, their hopes have been set aside again.

Lords amendment 49B does exactly what the sector has been calling for over many years. The fact that it has been tabled is a credit to the sustained campaign from our artists in the creative sector, who have organised themselves so efficiently and put such a compelling case. They have put so compelling and knowledgeable a case that our constituents have started to understand the complexities of copyright law, and they now realise its value in ensuring that the works of the artists they love, respect and like to listen to are recognised and that they will be compensated for their wonderful works. Despite what the Government say, merely enforcing the existing law will not be burdensome for AI firms, particularly as Lords amendment 49B allows the transparency requirements to be modified for small AI developers and for all UK-registered developers so that they are proportionate. This will prevent start-ups from being burdened with overly onerous regulation. In fact, all this proposal does is put UK start-ups on a level playing field with US tech giants that gain an unfair competitive advantage by ignoring copyright law. Transparency will make the legal risk of copyright infringement too great for AI firms to break the law. It will allow courts to hear cases quickly, establish precedent and kill any argument that there is uncertainty in UK law. If we can see what has been stolen, it is easier to stop its being stolen and to get redress when it continues to be stolen.

It is now up to the Government to fix this. If they are serious about protecting our creative industries—they should be, and I accept that that is what they intend to do—then they cannot stop at working groups and economic impact assessments. That is the bare minimum; it is not, by any measure, enough.

If this is the last opportunity we have to put the case, it is a black day for our creative sectors. They had hoped that this would be the day the Government appeared with something that satisfied at least some of their concerns. They deserve to have their work protected fairly. They were looking for anything from the Government to see that they were clearly on their side and were prepared to do something. I think we already know exactly what they will decide, but the Government now have a choice: remove Lords amendment 49B and turn their back on the creative industries, or find an actual way to protect our creative sector and make sure that they back it.

[Chris Bryant]

I was anticipating more contributions from other Members, but it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow on from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I will not speak at great length, Members will be delighted to hear.

First, I want to refer to the matter of financial privilege, because the hon. Member referred to it just now. It is not the Government who decide whether financial privilege is engaged. It is a simple matter decided on advice from the Clerks to the Chair, which is determined from two motions, from 1671 and 1678. Where there is any financial implication of a Bill, or in this case an amendment that comes from the House of Lords, it is a simple matter as to whether or not the financial privilege of the House of Commons is engaged. Anything that obviously requires a system of enforcement is likely to require expenditure. That is why we would not choose to waive our financial privilege in relation to these amendments today.

[Pete Wishart]

A money resolution to the Bill was passed with Second Reading. I looked at it and there is nothing that says there is any financial limit on any measures included in the Bill, so I am a bit confused about why financial privilege has to be invoked on that basis.

[Chris Bryant]

It is not the Government who invoke financial privilege. It is the House that does it, via the Speaker’s Chair. I am afraid that that is a debate we will have to have at another point. Much as I love debating motions from 1671 and 1678, I think we might move forward.

The only point I will make to the hon. Gentleman about his contribution on the creative industries—he knows that on many of these issues we completely and utterly agree—is that if there were a simple way of being able to enforce those rights today, I would seize it. If he wants to write to me with a suggestion on what that actually looks like and what we would do today to be able to enforce the rights under the existing law today, then of course I would be happy to look at it.

I also said that I would respond to the point from the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). The Bill creates no new permission to reuse data for scientific research. It is not the effect of the provisions to provide blanket approval of the reuse of personal data for AI training under the banner of scientific research. I hope that that meets some of her understandable concerns.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that it is completely not in order, but I am going to say it anyway and end on this point. We have discussed some very serious points, but I do just wish that Remember Monday will win the Eurovision song contest on Saturday evening, with their song, “What the Hell Just Happened?” I wish Lauren, Holly-Anne and Charlotte all the best of British.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to ensure that rural communities are supported in the transition from analogue to digital landlines.

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

One of the things that keeps me awake at night is how we ensure that people are protected—the most vulnerable and rural communities in particular—as we transition from the copper network to fibre. That is why I was glad that, in November last year, I was able to get all the network operators to sign up to a new code of conduct that will, I think, provide precisely that protection.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Dominic’s aortic aneurysm burst at his rural home five years ago. With no phone signal in their stone-built house, it was a 50-minute landline call to emergency services that helped his wife keep him alive while they waited for an ambulance. As Dominic waits for more open heart surgery, can the Minister reassure his family that we are doing all we can to mitigate the risks to him and other vulnerable people during power cuts?

[Chris Bryant]

I certainly can. I send my best wishes to my hon. Friend’s constituent. He said that it is a stone-built house; he is absolutely right that there are particular difficulties with mobile signal in stone-built houses—I live in one myself, in Porth in the Rhondda. One thing that we have done recently, as a result of the pressure that I have put on people, is to ensure that the battery back-up power is not just the Ofcom-guaranteed one-hour minimum, but considerably longer, and that is what lots of the operators are now providing.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

What awareness is there in very rural areas where there is not great broadband coverage and very poor indoor mobile phone coverage—sometimes no coverage at all—of the effect of this change, particularly in places where there are frequent and sometimes extended power cuts? When can we expect a full national awareness campaign?

[Chris Bryant]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments—I am glad that he is expressing an interest in this issue. He took part in a Westminster Hall debate on it only a few weeks ago, when I was a bit grumpy with him, for which I apologise. He makes some good points. He may not be aware of the campaign, which is already up and running, so obviously the awareness campaign needs to do a bit more work to make him aware of the awareness.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

2. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of rural broadband coverage.

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

Rural broadband coverage simply is not good enough.

[Steff Aquarone]

Many rural villages in my constituency still suffer from poor broadband access, with no clear date for when it will get better and more demands for huge expenditure to get them connected to the network. I think particularly of residents in Banningham, who have suffered from poor broadband access for years and feel they are at the bottom of the pile. In Finland, the broadband roll-out started with the hardest-to-reach properties and reached inwards, tackling the biggest challenges first. Does the Minister agree that a roll-out strategy like that, rather than one that goes for the easiest properties first, would have served those communities better and faster?

[Chris Bryant]

The largest chunk of broadband delivery will be done on a commercial basis by the private sector. We do not want to do with taxpayers’ money what could probably be done by the commercial sector. I did not catch the name of the village that the hon. Member referred to. I am not sure whether he has been to one of my Building Digital UK drop-in sessions, but if he needs further information for that particular village, I would be very happy to try to sort it.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

In my constituency, residents of the rurally isolated community of Balquhidder did not wait for a major provider; they dug and laid 34 km of fibre optic cable themselves using the Government’s broadband voucher scheme to partner with a small business and deliver gigabit broadband—a remarkable achievement. That success is now at risk, however, because for well over a year the Government payment processes have been struggling to engage with the volunteer-led project. Will the Minister meet me to help resolve that, and will he join me on a visit to the beautiful Balquhidder glen to see at first hand what that resourceful and determined community have delivered?

[Chris Bryant]

Everybody tells me that Balquhidder is very beautiful—in fact, my hon. Friend told me earlier this morning. I would be interested in a visit if it were also possible to visit the new film studio that I think might be coming to his constituency. Stirling is one matter, but Strathallan and the very wide rural areas in his constituency are different. I would be very happy to try to sort out the specific issues that he has in Balquhidder.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to improve digital inclusion in North Somerset constituency.

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

It is important that we have the right data on which places are missing out. That is why, as I have said before, I am desperate to ensure that, if people check Ofcom’s online announcements on coverage in their area, it matches their lived experience. I can announce that Ofcom will be radically changing its online coverage network system. I have placed a letter in the Library today between myself and Ofcom which lays out when we will do that in June.

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

I welcome the investment in my constituency from Project Gigabit’s £157 million deal to upgrade Scotland’s broadband. The remote jobs market opens up employment opportunities for those who live outside the major cities. However, several constituents from more rural areas around Bridgend, Armadale, Bo’ness and Bathgate have told me that they have lost out on opportunities for flexible working, and even lost jobs due to poor connectivity. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that they will not lose out on future opportunities because of where they live?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: in a digital world, we cannot have some people engaged and who have the connectivity they need while others do not, because that simply will not drive forward economic growth in this country. She makes a very fair point, and yes I can give that guarantee.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I thank the Minister for his response. During my recent visit to the Nailsea & Backwell disabled access café, I had the privilege of meeting remarkable residents such as Alison. A recurring theme emerged about accessing Government services, which often assumes internet access and capability. What additional measures is the Department implementing to ensure that everyone in North Somerset, particularly those with disabilities or limited digital skills, can access vital Government forms and assistance in formats that truly work for them?

[Chris Bryant]

There are so many parts of delivering our public services where we can improve productivity if we manage to do so on a digital basis. I am conscious that, for example, a Doncaster hospital still employs 42 people just to carry around physical medical records. That is clearly nonsense and we need to change it. My hon Friend is absolutely right: if we go to a digital future we must be able to take everyone with us. That must mean that non-digital options should be available to those who are not able to take up digital options.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

My constituent John wrote to me to highlight the slow and weak internet connectivity in Boyatt Wood. Meanwhile, constituents who live in the centre of Eastleigh regularly struggle to get online. Does the Minister agree that all my constituents deserve access to fast and reliable broadband? What assurances can he give them that that is a priority for the Government?

[Chris Bryant]

I would argue that her constituents have a right not only to good broadband—if the hon. Lady wants to come to one of my Building Digital UK drop-in sessions she would be very welcome; we can go through street by street if necessary—but to mobile connectivity. I bet there are people in her constituency, as there are in every constituency in the land, who see on the Ofcom checker that they have a perfect signal and know that they do not. That is one thing that I am changing with the deal I have done with Ofcom.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

There are some really good examples of the delivery of innovative products that provide access in remote and rural areas and some good small-scale providers, but in the Cairngorms national park area a provider recently unexpectedly ceased the service. Consumers have been left out on a limb, so is it time to put in place, as with the energy system, consumer protection should a provider fail to provide a service?

[Chris Bryant]

I have long thought that digital connectivity is now akin to a connection to electricity, water or any other public utility. That is how we should treat the law, and I think that would assist the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to support innovation in Hertfordshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

T2.   There are incredible dividends from digital for government administration and service delivery, but some older and vulnerable constituents tell me that they cannot use smartphones or are not online and are worried about being left behind. I am liaising with Citizens Advice, the local council, Age Concern and others to take action locally to help them. Can the Minister reassure me that sufficient advice, support and funding will be made available to my constituents to ensure digital inclusion as we rightly seek to utilise digital far more effectively?

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

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are older people, and others for that matter, who either have no online access or do not have a smartphone, who would not be able to access things in a digital world. That is why we introduced a digital inclusion plan, and that is one of the key differences between a Labour Government and a Tory Government: they did not have any interest in digital inclusion and they did not have a plan for 10 years, and we brought one in.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the Speakers of Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat and St Helena.

Future of Public Libraries

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a delight, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I will not comment on how well dressed you are today.

It is a great delight to take part in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing it. He talked a bit about the history of libraries. I absolutely adore a library. I have used the British Library many times, when it was in its old place in the British Museum and in the new building—still new to me, that is; younger people here will not remember its old place. I have used the London Library and libraries in Worcester, Stoke, Manchester, Birmingham, Southwark, Newcastle, Oxford and Cambridge. I have used Lambeth Palace library, as well as libraries in Cardiff, Treorchy and Porth. I absolutely adore using libraries. Many hon. Members mentioned their constituencies, but I agree with the Argentinian writer, Jorge Luis Borges, who said,

“I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire made several points about titles. Being in two Departments, I have many bits in my title,. Sometimes people say we should have a tourism Minister, a this Minister or a that Minister. The real question is whether we engage sufficiently with the sector and get the work done. I know that Baroness Twycross, who took over these responsibilities from me relatively recently, is very engaged in this work. I want to give her space to lay out what she will be able to achieve and the work she is engaged in, before we start talking about titles and reassignment.

Responding to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) puts me in a slight difficulty. Quite a few hon. Members referred to things that are extremely devolved. Libraries are fundamentally devolved responsibilities. The hon. Member made extremely good points about how libraries can help with mental health and health generally and issues such as loneliness, but I am not going to tell people in Northern Ireland how to run the library service. If I did, I would suddenly get an email and a demand for a meeting, so I will be careful.

That also applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane). There is a competition in size of constituencies going on today. I know areas of my hon. Friend’s constituency well because I was—arguably—educated partly in Stirling. I note that Bannockburn library is closed today. When libraries are closed or open is a financial issue, which is tough for many local authorities. I was a councillor in Hackney a long time ago and know how difficult it is for local councillors making tough financial decisions, desperate to keep libraries open every day if possible, but struggling to do so.

My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) referred to Andrew Carnegie, who was an extraordinary donor and investor in libraries. As the MP for a former mining constituency, I am aware that mining communities often had to do for themselves. The miners’ unions and trade unions played an important part in ensuring that their members learned how to read. It was not just about being able to read “Alton Locke” by Charles Kingsley, one of the early Christian socialists, or “The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists” and other socialist tomes that were so important to the trade union movement. Libraries were a vital part of enabling the working classes to get on in life, so for Labour MPs, this debate has a particular piquancy.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) wants to reopen the library alongside the creative campus in Folkestone. When I visited on a day that was gorgeous sunny, though slightly windy, I was impressed by Tracey Emin’s discarded sock sculpture on the floor and other brilliant artworks around the town. I tried to pick up the sock, of course, because I thought it was litter, which was the whole point. Integration of all creative industries working together with the library service is a potent thing. The library building my hon. Friend referred to is beautiful. Had it been better looked after by Kent County Council in recent years, it would be more readily accessible and better preserved for the future. Like my hon. Friend, I hope very much that the library will reopen.

I am not sure about the statistic, mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, that there are more busts of Rabbie Burns than of anybody else. I am very happy if there are, but I suspect that there are more of Gladstone—there may even be more of Winston Churchill. None the less, he made the point about Carnegie. Of course, philanthropy is an important reason why we ended up with so many libraries around the UK. I want philanthropy to play an increasing part in the future. That is not because I want local authorities to walk away from their responsibilities, but simply because I applaud those philanthropists who gave away every single penny of the vast wealth that they made in their lifetimes. The more we can do to enable that, the better—not only for our libraries, but for our creative sector, museums and galleries, many of which, especially those associated with local authorities, are struggling in exactly the same way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) is a former councillor who has experienced some of the difficulties of trying to keep local authority libraries going. Incidentally, those difficulties affect not just local authority libraries, but libraries in universities and in so many other public institutions. They have struggled to survive. Some of them are independent libraries. He made a good point about how important it is to diversify, and mentioned that one library in his patch has a gym. A few weeks ago, I was in Ogmore Vale, in my patch, where the library, gym and community function are all part of the same service; they are very much thought of in an integrated way. That is the pattern adopted by lots of local authorities, which sometimes still run the libraries in house, and sometimes decide to hand them over to a third party to allow for further financial investment.

The hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) referred to the specialised advice that libraries may provide. Advice to businesses has not particularly featured in our debate, but it is an important part of what the British Library and many local libraries often provide. If someone wants to set up a business in a local area, they will need to understand that local area, and one of the most important facilities for that is the local library, which will have statistical advice. The library will want to help them in whatever way it can—with planning law or whatever it may be. Losing that aspect of what libraries provide would be bad for economic growth—our ability to grow not just in some parts of the UK but everywhere.

From the day I started as MP for the Rhondda in 2001, one of my strategies was to look at how many local businesses I had. People often think that the way to get more local jobs is to get one big business that will employ 1,000 or 2,000 people. Actually, in most constituencies, it is more effective to enable lots of small businesses to grow—to go from employing two people to employing five or 10 people. There are few areas where we can do that without libraries having a role to play.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) rightly referred to VE Day celebrations, in which libraries up and down the country played an important part, because of their important role in enabling and helping the community. Our libraries are sometimes associated with an archive facility, which has a particular value. British people, like people all around the world, love to explore their genealogy, so it is really important to make those archive facilities available to people. In a library, someone can investigate what their grandad or auntie did in the war, or where they lived, for free—something that they otherwise might have to pay for. I note that Hexham library has “Rhymetime” tomorrow morning at 10 am; on Saturday at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, it has “Ukrainian Stories”, which I think is a book launch.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) admitted to reading Nancy Drew mysteries, which I think were marketed primarily at girls. I read several, but I had a cover to hide the fact that it was Nancy Drew. Modern books for young adults and kids are very different and not specifically targeted at boys and girls. There has been a complete transformation in that market, and hurrah for that. I think it was Alexander Pope who said:

“A little learning is a dangerous thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring”.

This is one of the great things about libraries. Not only do they enable us to take our first step into reading, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said, they enable us to move on from Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys to Dickens, Shakespeare and many others. I am sure that none of us—I think we can say this of every single Member—would have arrived here if we had never used a library, and none of us would have ended up as a Member of Parliament.

My hon. Friend was right, as others were, to pay tribute to the House of Commons Library. It has a slightly different role because it provides so much advice for us to inform our contributions to debates. It also has an awful lot of books, including some of mine.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) referred to the Data (Use and Access) Bill debate later, so I will leave the bit about copyright and AI for this afternoon’s debate when I will appear in a different capacity. She is absolutely right about volunteers. So many libraries either rely entirely, as community libraries, on volunteers to run them and keep them open, or have volunteers as part of a team. I pay tribute to all the people who have managed to keep libraries open. My father, who is no longer with us, lived in Alderney in his latter years. He and his wife loved spending a day as volunteers at the library. I think he quite liked the business of issuing fines—one of his favourite moments was when he found out that his next-door neighbour had not returned his book for 17 years or whatever. My hon. Friend is also right that libraries are a vital part of the social infrastructure.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) was also a councillor. I think councillors have a particular interest, as I have mentioned, and insights to bring to this debate. He referred to Braunton library and the 300 community events. That is mirrored in every single library up and down the land. No library is characterised by Ali MacGraw stuffiness. It is a place entirely open to the public. People have referred to the role of libraries during covid. They have also referred to them as non-judgmental spaces where people can simply just be, including in the winter. Sometimes it is a place to feel warmth, which is really important. One of my favourite moments in a library was a few years ago when I persuaded the British Museum to lend one of its articulated Japanese dragons to my library in Treorchy. I do not know whether we Welsh are just obsessed with dragons, but I remember seeing kids looking at that Japanese dragon and they were absolutely fascinated and loved it. That sense of enticing people into being curious is another aspect of why libraries can be so important.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) referred warmly to his experience in his constituency. I am going to bridle slightly because he referred to our Budget decisions. If we refer to the 14 years of Budget decisions that caused the difficulties facing the library service across the whole United Kingdom, we could be here a lot longer. The truth is that many local authorities have had a really tough time with their budgets cut year after year, and one of my anxieties was always that. One of the dangers for national Government is saying, “Right, we are going to tell local authorities to do more while giving them less money, because we—national Government—will not then have to make the cuts; somebody else has to.” That is a thing that happened to the library service over all those years.

I hate all the gloom about libraries. I hate it when people keep banging on about how all the libraries have closed and all the rest of it. The truth is that, as people have referred to, roughly a third of people in the UK have used a library at least once. I do not think that is an annual pilgrimage. Many of them will have used it repeatedly and there are people who go to the library every single day of the week, or every week.

Libraries are all about promoting and enabling reading. Sometimes we forget that role—if I could get every child in the country to read one extra book a year, would that not be a success in the end for them individually and for the economy? We have not referred to the publishing business in the UK, which is an important part of our creative industries. We export more books than any other country in the world, and I want to keep it like that.

We have referred to libraries as community spaces. I have also referred to their archive responsibilities and how important those are for many people. Libraries are constantly evolving: 47 libraries in Norfolk provide a service to weigh babies and, as I understand it, in Devon they provide 3D printers. I and many other Members have referred to libraries that are doing innovative and fascinating new things all the time.

Last year, upper-tier local authorities spent £694 million on libraries in England.

[Mr French]

Will the Minister give way briefly?

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, all right.

[Mr French]

One of the key asks from this debate from Members across the House is that the Government publish a national strategy on the back of the Sanderson review. Can I push the Minister to commit to that today?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is such an impatient man—it is not as if his party did not have 14 years to produce a national strategy, or anything like that. One of the asks was about titles, and one of the others was about whether there should be a national strategy. As I said earlier, I am keen to allow Baroness Twycross, who has only recently taken on responsibilities in that area, to go where she wants to on this.

One of the difficulties with a national strategy is that so much is devolved. Of course, we try to foster good relations with our Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland counterparts, and there is a regular get-together with the devolved Administrations to promote that, but a lot of these decisions are made by local authorities and in other Departments. When local authorities and Departments get only an annual settlement, rather than a three-year settlement, it makes it much more difficult for them to make coherent, long-term decisions. I hope that we will change that in the spending review—that is one of the things I hope will help with funding. However, I have no idea what budget allocations there will be for independent Departments. So I am somewhat resisting the idea of a national strategy. At the moment, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is already producing three or four national strategies on different subjects, so I am hesitant to advance down that route.

The Sanderson report made key recommendations, many of them not for Government at all, but for the sector. We are keen to see those play out and be adopted wherever possible. We are working with the sector and with Arts Council England, which has a specific responsibility in relation to libraries in England.

Several hon. Members have referred to the amount of money—£5.5 million—that we have set aside this year for improving libraries. We also have a superintending role. The 1964 legislation was deliberately drafted in a rather ambiguous way, which is one of the issues we always face. In ’24-25 we engaged with 53 local authorities in a superintending role, and we have engaged with seven since April this year.

As Members have said, 276 libraries closed between 2010 and 2023. We do want to make that closure process stop because we believe passionately in libraries.

United States Film Tariff

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if he will make a statement on the potential implications for the UK film industry of the United States’s proposed 100% tariff on foreign-produced films.

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

As the House will be aware, President Trump announced on Sunday that he had authorised the Department of Commerce to initiate tariffs on all movies produced in foreign lands. He has made other comments since. This is a very fluid situation and we will continue to take a calm and steady approach. I spent most of Monday talking to UK and US film makers and the general secretary of Bectu, among others, and I can tell the House that we are already in active discussions with the top of the US Administration on this subject.

We are working hard to establish what might be proposed, if anything, and to make sure our world-beating creative industries are protected. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the film industry can continue to thrive and create good jobs right across the UK. UK film and high-end television generated production spend of £5.6 billion in 2024, and we want to work with our domestic industry and international partners to continue to build on that success.

We are absolutely clear that the deep ties between the US and UK film industries provide mutual benefits to both countries. Productions are, by their very nature, international partnerships, which are often developed and created across different countries and locations. Indeed, US movies are often multinational precisely because US movies earn far more overseas than they do domestically in the United States. The UK and the US both benefit when the likes of “Star Wars” and “Mission Impossible” are filmed in the UK, just as we both benefit from the close working relationship between our producers, talent and crew.

Our countries have a long history of working together to drive the growth and creative success of our film and television sectors. From Cary Grant to Hugh Grant, and from Alfred Hitchcock to Christopher Nolan, British talent has often been at the forefront of the US sector, and I am absolutely sure this will continue in the years ahead. I was once told by a film producer, “Never judge a film by the first 10 minutes.” I think we can say the same of this.

[Stuart Andrew]

I thank the Minister for his answer. As he rightly says, we learnt over the weekend that the President’s Administration intend to impose a 100% tariff on all films produced outside the US. It is understood that he has directed the US Government to begin implementing the policy immediately.

I welcome the fact that the Minister recognises the film industry in this country as a jewel in our crown of world-leading creative industries. I also point out that the sector alone is worth £1.96 billion here, and supports 195,000 jobs up and down the country. It shows off our great British culture and values, the talent we have, and some of the most amazing settings for so many films of different genres.

I am glad that the Government are working to ensure that all is done to give confidence to our directors, actors, screenwriters and producers that they are thinking about them, because for both independent film makers and major studios this action could result in cancelled projects, lost investment and a significant decline in UK film exports, which is especially hard given that they are still recovering from the covid pandemic. But I have to say that it is disappointing the Government failed to start the negotiations with President Trump’s team for five months after the election and fired Britain’s top trade negotiator. It is difficult not to wonder whether a different approach could have led to a different outcome.

None the less, the priority is to protect our film industry, so what assessment has the Minister made of the potential impact on the UK film sector? What immediate steps are the Government taking to engage with the US and ensure that the investment in UK facilities by many US businesses, which would be affected, is highlighted? What contingency plans has he prepared in the event that no exemptions can be secured? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the potential drastic cut in BBC Studios’ profits from sales to the US market, and what impact could that have on the licence fee?

[Chris Bryant]

First, may I, on a co-operative note, say that one reason we have a very strong film and high-end television sector in the UK is the joint policy, adopted across several years by both Conservative and Labour Administrations, to ensure we have very competitive tax credits. I pay tribute to the work done by the previous Government, which we were able to enhance when we brought in two new tariffs—I mean two new tax credits—in the Budget just before Christmas. No, we are not in favour of bringing in tariffs. I think I am right in saying that in 1947 the Labour Government did bring in tariffs on US films, because we thought too many US films were being shown in British cinemas. That strategy did not go very well: the Americans simply banned the export of US films and we ended up watching “Ben Hur” repeatedly in every cinema, as well as a film called “Hellzapoppin’” which I do not think anybody has watched since. However, the successful bit of what we did in 1947 and 1948 was that we invested in the British film production system, which led to films such as “Hamlet” and “Kind Hearts and Coronets”. That is the pattern we still want to adopt.

Let me be absolutely clear: we believe that there are mutual benefits to both of us if we continue on the path we have selected. I am not sure precisely what is intended: I do not know what a tariff on a service would look like and I do not know whether the intention is for it to be on movie theatres. The danger is that the US already has two major problems with its film industry: one is distribution costs, so if the US went down that route, it could lead to heavy problems for the industry; and the other is the very high cost of making movies in the US.

Most films these days are an international collaboration of some kind, and we want to maintain that. Even the British production of “Paddington”—I am looking at the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) only because I suspect he is about to mention it; and he has just given me a Paddington hard stare—was made by StudioCanal, which is, of course, part of Canal+. It had Spanish actors as well as British actors. This is just a fact of modern films: they are multinational and that is one of their strengths. Incidentally, I do not think that Paddington ever went to Peru—I do not think they filmed any of it in Peru. I am also told by my Peruvian friends that there aren’t any bears in Peru.

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

I welcome the Minister’s measured and thoughtful response to President Trump’s latest announcement and his full-throated support for the British film industry. He will be aware that my constituency is very much a filming venue for both film and television. In his discussions with the United States, will he ensure that he is also championing high-end television, as I think he briefly mentioned, which is often filmed, produced and made in Hackney? I also make a plea for all the creative industries in my constituency that feed into the film industry. Can the Minister ensure there is good communication from the Government on these negotiations? This is creating a great a deal of uncertainty.

[Chris Bryant]

I know Hackney very well; as my hon. Friend knows, I used to be a councillor there. It is not just London that is a phenomenal place to make a movie, but the whole United Kingdom. We have some of the best scenery and some of the best buildings. It is not only Bath, which gets used endlessly in lots of films—when I was there a couple of weeks ago, I heard about a long list of them. My hon. Friend is also right about television. What is the difference between making “Bridgerton” and making a movie? In fact, the pattern is very similar; international collaboration is important because it delivers international audiences, and we want to maintain that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

British film really is the marmalade sandwich in the lunchbox of our creative industries; it has given us Bond, Paddington, Harry Potter and Monty Python. Donald Trump clearly thinks he is a god-like figure, but on the Lib Dem Benches, we are clear that he is not the messiah—he’s a very naughty boy. If he had his way, we would be watching “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Alcatraz”, or perhaps “Harry Potter and the Executive Order of the Phoenix”. Will the Minister confirm that all options will be on the table to protect our film industry, including working with allies such as Canada and Australia, which have shown strength in recent weeks by voting anti-Trump? Will he commit to immediately meeting film industry leaders in the UK to co-ordinate a response in this area, and will the Government back our world-leading creatives by doing the right thing on AI and copyright?

[Chris Bryant]

I could have predicted half the hon. Gentleman’s question, because I knew Paddington would get in there. On a serious note, I am meeting industry representatives tomorrow afternoon, and I look forward to understanding their precise concerns, in addition to the obvious concerns that we all share.

I want to caution slightly against a word that has been used three times now, I think, with Members saying that President Trump has “announced” something. A clear policy has not been announced—I think we need to be careful about that. As I said earlier, it is difficult to see how a tariff would be imposed on a service or on films in this way. I want to be careful and precise in the way we move forward on this.

I have been asked what we are doing: we have already had people in Washington DC talking with people in the Trump Administration at the highest level, and we will progress that. Of course, we want to do everything we can to preserve the strength of the industry.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I declare an interest, as one of my little sisters works in the UK film and TV industry; I am immensely proud of her. I urge the Minister to look at how we bolster home-made film and TV as part of the soon-to-be published creative industries sector plan, particularly in Northumbria, where we have some of the most wonderful landscapes; a couple of years ago we sadly lost Sycamore Gap, which provided a memorable backdrop, but we also have Hadrian’s wall. We also have a fantastic workforce, but too often I see young people having to leave the north-east to get creative opportunities elsewhere in the UK.

[Chris Bryant]

That is an extremely well-made point, and I would add to it something I said when I appeared before the Select Committee—from whom I suppose we might hear in a moment—which is that I am very keen on having a mixed economy in the British film industry. Sometimes we will be making films for other markets; sometimes we will be making films that tell predominantly British stories about the way we are in this country and selling them around the world, but where the intellectual property remains with British production companies. That is the mix that we need to achieve.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) referred to our relationship with the US. I should also say that the Secretary of State was in India last week; both she and I want to ensure that we also have a much stronger relationship with India, which is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. We think we can do a great deal more in that film production space as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

There is no doubt that this speculation will cause huge worry to those working in British film production, but, as the Minister says, it highlights once again the importance of bolstering the British screen sector. We recommended steps to deliver that in a recent Select Committee report, yet within days of publishing it, his Department had already asked for an extension to the time in which it would respond. This weekend we heard rumours that the whole Department is up for the chop under his Government—I am not sure if that is before or after he has sacrificed our creative industries on the altar of AI. The Minister is a brilliant communicator, and I know that deep in his heart he cares passionately about this issue, but when will he show some grit and action on behalf of our world-leading creative industries, in particular our screen sector?

[Chris Bryant]

I hope the hon. Lady accepts that there are areas where I have taken very deliberate action on the back of recommendations from her Committee, not least in relation to a levy on gig and arena tickets to fund support for small music venues—but I take her point. I was not aware that we had asked for an extension. We will get on with providing a response to her as fast as possible. It was an excellent report; I have read it. It contains lots of good things that I want to take forward, but we probably will not be able to do everything in it.

It is really important that we focus on skills in the UK screen industry; that has been raised repeatedly with me. I want every kid in the country to have a chance to work in the creative industries, including in film and high-end television. Many would not even think that that was a possibility, so we need to transform the whole pathway into those industry skills; I know that that is one of the things that the hon. Lady’s Committee has raised.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Whether it is because of the fantastic, state-of-the-art Shinfield Studios just up the road, access to fantastic filming locations such as Swinley forest on the Crown Estate, or our incredible transport links, Bracknell Forest is increasingly becoming a go-to location for the film industry. As the Minister has already touched on, we need to see more emphasis placed on home-grown skills, so that young people in Bracknell can access the fantastic opportunities that the film sector offers. Will he say a bit more about what this Government will do to break down the barriers to opportunity in the film industry?

[Chris Bryant]

We have already invested significant amounts of money in the skills sector, and more came as a result of the Budget. My hon. Friend is quite right that his patch is a go-to area for film production. One reason that US companies—and, for that matter, companies from many places around the world—come to the UK to make films is for our skills; we have some of the best cinematographers, technical experts and designers, as well as the acting talent, which means that it is possible to make a very convincing film in the UK more effectively and cheaply than in many other places. We are determined to ensure that the UK remains the best place in the world to make movies.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Film studios are a really important part of our economy in Hertfordshire and give opportunities, jobs, apprenticeships and work experience to people in my constituency. As the Minister has recognised, it is not remotely clear yet how the tariffs will operate, and many have said that they are unworkable, but if America goes ahead and we have to take action in this country to ensure that our film industry is competitive, I urge him to look at the business rates regime with the Treasury. Sky Studios Elstree near my constituency has seen its business rates go up by more than 600%—they now account for 30% of its operating costs. I encourage the Minister to look at tackling that regime, as one measure to ensure that we protect our creative industries and the film sector here in the UK.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, which has been raised with me by several other Members. We made special provision in the Budget to ensure that the business rates for studios are protected until 2034, and I think that is a good measure. I know that some of the very large studios are finding it more difficult, and I am happy to continue looking at the issue. Let me read some statistics that may be helpful. According to a report published in January by the Motion Picture Association of the United States of America, in 2023 the US earned $22.6 billion in film and television exports, and its services trade surplus was $15.3 billion, or 6% of the total US trade surplus in services. It is mutually beneficial for the US and the UK to remain with the system we have, without tariffs.

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

As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, Harlow is the birthplace of Rupert Grint, Jo Joyner and Rik Mayall. I have to mention Leila Khan too, because I used to teach her and she is an up-and-coming star. Harlow has also recently doubled as Paris in an episode of “The Crown”. Does the Minister agree that Harlow, as well as the rest of the UK, has a huge amount of talent and that, far from relying on US film imports, we produce some fantastic films in this country and our film industry is growing? What can this Government do to support it to continue to grow and thrive?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is quite right about Harlow. I would argue that many different parts of the UK that have never yet managed to get into films need to up their game. Local authorities can play a role in ensuring that their area is considered as a potential place to make a film. It is often about whether other facilities are available in the local area that can contribute to that. He makes a fair point on behalf of Harlow, and if there is a film, he will be starring in it.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I may be able to help the Minister: Paddington Bear actually lives in Borehamwood, because the movie “Paddington” was produced in my constituency at Elstree Studios, which sits alongside Sky Studios Elstree as a jewel in the crown of the British industry. It is no surprise that Donald Trump is jealous because, by many accounts, more film and television content is produced in Hertfordshire than in Hollywood.

As the Minister rightly said, the current situation is of mutual benefit to our two nations. There is one thing that he could do right now, though, and for once I agree with the Minister—sorry, I meant to say the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper); I will get my facts right in a moment. The key point is that business rates are proving to be crippling for many of our studios, including Elstree, so I urge the Minister to have another go at the Treasury. I remember a similar situation with the culture recovery fund; the Treasury is resistant to begin with, but if he keeps going, he will get some further movement. That would be a huge fillip to the industry and would help it to withstand whatever shocks it may face.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very confused about who is and is not a Minister these days. I accept the point: it is clearly an issue. I remember that when we were in opposition, I was regularly knocking on the door of the now shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), trying to get him to do something to persuade the Treasury to do something about business rates. I am fully on board, and I understand the problem. I look forward to the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) assisting me in more endeavours in the future. Hugh Bonneville told me that he was slightly upset when he signed up to “Paddington in Peru”, because he thought that he would be filming in Peru, but he only got as far as Borehamwood.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

The economy is set to benefit from a £50 billion boost from the Universal theme park in Bedfordshire, which will star Paddington Bear; all Members will welcome that. Does the Minister agree that stars like Paddington Bear have an enormous amount of soft power? We have heard that in the Chamber today. What can the Minister do to reassure me that he will ensure that we protect and support the next generation of Great British storytellers?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am delighted that the theme park will happen; it will be transformational for the British tourism industry, apart from anything else, and it will be the largest theme park across the whole of Europe. I am very grateful to my colleagues in the Treasury, who certainly delivered when it was necessary in relation to that. I emphasise how important not just our film industry, but our high-end television—and, for that matter, the very existence of the BBC and stuff produced by ITV and many others—is as part of our soft power, although I think Paddington probably counts as hard power.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Shinfield Studios in Wokingham borough has brought hundreds of jobs to my constituents and to many across Berkshire. It is a very important part of our local economy and a symbol of the UK’s creative strength. We must not forget that Berkshire is the Hollywood of Britain, and it must be protected from Donald Trump’s reckless tariffs. Will the Minister condemn these harmful tariffs and work with the film industry to ensure that the UK remains the world’s premier destination for film investment?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We want to maintain the UK as the premier destination for international investment from not just the United States of America, but India, which I have already referenced, and Nigeria; I would like to see a lot more co-production between the UK and Nigeria. It is worth bearing in mind that 51% of our movie exports go to the European Union, so this is a genuinely open market, and my belief is that free trade is better than tariffs.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that the UK has a world-leading film and TV workforce that flies the flag for collaboration, British talent and economic growth around the world. But he will also know that much of our film workforce is freelance and that they will be watching this news with anxiety, particularly as many of them are still recovering from the impact of the recent US industrial action. I thank the Minister for his hard work. I am pleased that he has spoken to Phillipa Childs, the head of Bectu. The union Bectu is a fearless champion for our industry in the UK. Will he join me in reassuring Bectu members and our film workforce that we are on their side and that, whatever happens, we will help protect film talent in the UK?

[Chris Bryant]

I shall make two points in reply to that question. First, there have been difficulties over the past couple of years in the UK film and high-end television industry because of what happened in the United States of America. That makes the point about the mutuality between the US and the UK film industry all the stronger. The truth is that I would like the US movie industry to be strong, because if it is strong, our industry will be strong as well. There are net benefits for both of us, and there is a win-win situation.

The second point is about freelance work. I have often worried that so much of the creative industries relies on freelance workers. In many cases, that is great, because people want that kind of career, but they also need some degree of security if they are to be able to take out a mortgage and plan their economic future. That is definitely one of the things that we will look at in relation to the industrial strategy, which we hope to be publishing soon.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The film industry is enormously important to the Buckinghamshire economy. Pinewood Studios is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), but many of my constituents are supported in jobs not just at the studios themselves, but in the many supply-chain businesses that feed into them. Pinewood goes over and above most other businesses I know in providing opportunities for young people through its Futures Festival, which showcases every single career that can be had in the film industry. Much of that success is actually achieved on American money, because companies such as Disney and Amazon use Pinewood out of choice. Therefore, on top of what the Minister has said about working with the Trump Administration to try to avoid these tariffs, can he assure us that he is working with companies such as Disney and Amazon to ensure that those American brands are speaking up to say why they are choosing Pinewood and other UK studios?

[Chris Bryant]

I think the first text message that I received early on Monday morning was from Pinewood. So, yes, I am on that case as well, but it is not just about Amazon and Disney; it is also about the streamers and a whole series of other such organisations making their product here in the United Kingdom. Of course, Pinewood is the home of Bond, which also makes the point, because historically the distribution rights for Bond were, I think, with an American company, but the production rights were with Barbara Broccoli and her relatives. All of that is now with the US, but let me put it this way: I am very hopeful that Bond will still always be British.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I am glad that the Minister mentioned the phrase “win-win”, because in international trade in the film industry and the creative industries, it has to be about win-win rather than zero sum. When I discussed this industry with Fabien Riggall, the founder of Secret Cinema, it became absolutely clear that we have such incredible innovators in our creative industry, and in the film sector specifically. For them to flourish, we need to retain that sense that it is a win-win situation internationally and for the UK, not zero sum.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I will, if I might, just leap off the word cinema to make the point that film is not just about production, but about finding audiences. One of my concerns in the UK is about how we make sure that cinemas—or movie theatres as they are known in the US—can flourish as well. They can be a really important part of dignity in a town. A town that has a cinema is likely to be a place that has respect for itself, and I would like to ensure that that continues into the future.

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

Scotland is now one of the most sought after film destinations in the world, and US film companies regularly base their operations in Scotland. We have featured in everything from Batman to Indiana Jones to “World War Z”. All of that, as well as developing the film sector in Scotland, will be put at risk if there is any concept of tariffs at all. Will the Minister work closely with the Scottish Government in his response to the US? Will he state quite clearly that such a move would be mutually self-destructive, and that all parties are set to lose if the US proceeds with anything approaching tariffs?

[Chris Bryant]

I have already made the point that we think there is a win-win situation. A strong US movie industry will benefit a strong UK movie industry. I believe in fair trade and free trade. In fact, over recent years, it has been worrying that more and more countries have wanted to put up protectionist measures around a whole series of industries. It has tended not to happen in services, and to be more about goods, which is one of the other issues. The hon. Member is right about Scotland. I am very keen on working with all the devolved Administrations to make sure that we remain the best place in which to make films and high-end television. I do not know whether anybody has watched “Havoc”—[Interruption.] Sorry, I was not referring to the Conservative party. Returning to my point, “Havoc” was all filmed in Wales, but it looks as if it is an American dystopian city.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Warner Brothers Studios Leavesden is in my constituency and a genuinely world-class film and TV production centre. It provides thousands of jobs, generates significant wealth for the UK economy, and earns South West Hertfordshire the reputation of Hollywood in Hertfordshire. Major international blockbusters, including “Barbie”, “Mission: Impossible”, “Paddington” and the Harry Potter franchise have been filmed there, and the recently confirmed HBO Harry Potter TV series is set to be filmed there this summer.

Leaving aside the decisions that the Chancellor has made and the impact that they have had on the economy, can the Minister reassure us that he will continue to update the House and the industry more widely about how the Government will mitigate these tariffs if they come to fruition?

[Chris Bryant]

We are working on making sure that we have a proper trade deal that would not just mitigate the tariffs, but mean that we would not end up in the situation that the hon. Gentleman has just described. I know Leavesden well, and, for that matter, Warner was in touch very quickly—actually I think I was in touch with it very quickly on Monday morning. I am very hopeful that it will be part of our discussions when I gather the industry together tomorrow afternoon, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point none the less.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Unlike many others in the House, I cannot say that my area—Totnes—has film studios, or that a major movie has been made in my constituency, but we do have a lot of creatives living in our community, from writers to musicians and producers. We also have a costume maker, who happens to be my daughter. I am very proud of her and she is entering this industry—an industry that we should all be proud of. If these tariffs materialise, they will deal another blow to the UK film industry following the strikes that we have already seen. Will the Minister assure us that he is ready to protect and insulate the UK film industry and all the jobs that it sustains, particularly freelance jobs, by pushing for either tax credits or business rate adjustments?

[Chris Bryant]

I find it difficult to believe that there has not ever been a film made in Devon, but if that is the case, one of my major aims must be to make sure that in the next few years a film is made in Devon. Perhaps we will be able to get the hon. Member a bit part. I will, if I may, just refer back to Cheltenham. One of the films made in Cheltenham many, many years ago was “If”, which is wonderful and was directed by Lindsay Anderson. The word “if” is a very important one at the moment, because we are talking about if these tariffs were to be imposed.

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

On Sunday, the President of the United States said:

“WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!”

Does the Minister agree that the key to making great movies is to ensure artistic freedom and expression and to grow the necessary skills? With that in mind, would he visit Tech Trowbridge in my constituency, which is doing a good job in upskilling young people in multimedia?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

As a one-time producer of a British-made film, I am proud that North Norfolk has been the backdrop for many great films, including “Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa”. It is no wonder that President Trump would want to dissuade such a film from coming to America, as Steve Coogan himself has said that

“the only person on Earth who’s more Alan Partridge than Alan Partridge is Donald Trump.”

Can the Minister assure the blossoming creative sector in North Norfolk that he values its contributions to our economy, and can he give reassurance that the Government will do everything they can to protect the sector from another Trump trade tantrum?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member refers to some things I have already spoken about, but why did he not make his film in Devon? He has obviously not got the message from his party colleagues. There are lots of great British films that will be watched in American cinemas over the weeks to come, and I am certain that no President would want to say, “Don’t watch British films”. One of the films I enjoyed most over the last few months was “Conclave”, which was a phenomenal success and remarkably timely.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The film industry is important in Northern Ireland; the Executive have poured a considerable amount of money into Northern Ireland Screen, and the internationally successful “Game of Thrones” was filmed in Northern Ireland, much of it in my constituency. We can see the benefits of that, as tens of millions of pounds have been poured in for building sets, for costumes and for catering, and even now thousands of tourists come every year to see where the filming was, so there is a long legacy.

I welcome the way in which the Minister is dealing with this situation. Tariffs are speculation at the moment, but before they become policy it is important that we get the message over to the Administration. Will he ensure that in constructing his arguments he consults with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard in these discussions?

[Mr Speaker]

A rather “Lawrence of Arabia” question.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have already had discussions on other matters relating to the creative industries with Members of the Executive in Northern Ireland, and I think I have another call next week, so I will of course make sure they are consulted. He makes a very good point about tourism. An awful lot of tourists who come to the UK want to see the places where some of their favourite movies and television series were made. That is one of the things that VisitBritain is capitalising on at the moment with its “Starring GREAT Britain” campaign.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I very much enjoy discussing the British film industry, because Members across the House stand up and say that they have the Hollywood of Hertfordshire or Bedfordshire and everywhere else. I am blessed in Spelthorne to have Europe’s biggest film studios and the second biggest in the world in Shepperton—interestingly, it is second not to Hollywood but to China. There is a certain amount of nervousness in Spelthorne as a result of the posting on Truth Social that the Minister has come here to talk about. I agree with him that it is incredibly difficult logistically and technically to unpick the US-UK intellectual property in a film, and I think it will prove to be so. I therefore commend him for his considered run at this; I think it is the right thing to do.

A couple of weeks ago I visited Cineco, one of our many British film support companies, which makes sets and props. One point it made on skills is that the apprenticeship model does not work terribly well for industries that have so many freelancers and such lumpy work schedules. As a sidebar to the Minister’s meeting with industry leaders tomorrow, would he please raise and discuss that with industry leaders?

[Mr Speaker]

Another “Lawrence of Arabia” question.

[Chris Bryant]

Interestingly, I was at the Bad Wolf studios in Cardiff last week, and one thing Jane Tranter raised with me was how important the security of knowing that they have a number of projects in their studios has been to taking on apprentices in the company. They have been making not just “Doctor Who” but “His Dark Materials”, and “Industry” is being filmed there at the moment. There are a whole series of different projects, and that enables the studios to take people on not just on a daily basis. We need to change the apprenticeship levy in the UK so that it works better for the film industry and so that the industry can make long-term commitments to people’s future careers.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I appreciate the Minister’s comments this afternoon. I am a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and we have heard over and over again how important UK film tax credits are to the industry and about the tangible difference they make to film makers across the UK. Can the Minister say whether the Government are considering increasing or adjusting them in any way to maintain competitiveness with US and other international markets, given the context we are now working within?

[Chris Bryant]

I have always said that I support film tax credits. Labour first introduced them under Gordon Brown. They were continued by the Conservative Government, and then we introduced two new ones. Incidentally, I think that the independent £15 million movie tax credit will make a significant difference to the UK, particularly at this point. I note that some documents produced around the semi-announcement in the United States of America have praised the way that we have done things in the UK, and other parts of the world want to mirror it. I will take praise wherever I can get it.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The uncertainty of President Trump’s comments puts an unsettledness in the industry, especially in Northern Ireland, where we have the Titanic Studios and Northern Ireland Screen working away. Titanic Studios is already working on “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms”, which is a prequel to “Game of Thrones”, so there is a lot of activity going on in the industry. Will the Minister consider including Northern Ireland Screen in his meeting tomorrow with the industry, rather than leaving it another week to engage with it?

[Chris Bryant]

That is a very fair point; I am happy to do that.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I am deeply proud that St Margarets in my constituency has been home to Twickenham Film Studios for over 100 years. The studios have been involved in production and post-production work for big-name films including “The Italian Job” and “Ghandi”, and most recently they did the Oscar-winning sound production for “Top Gun: Maverick”. However, they have been beset by financial challenges, from the US writers’ strike to the sky-rocketing business rates mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). The tariffs could deal a fatal blow to studios such as Twickenham. Can I urge the Minister, as others have, to work with the Treasury and the Valuation Office Agency on bringing down the rateable value of film studios? Can I also invite him to follow in the footsteps of Tom Cruise and come to St Margarets to visit Twickenham Film Studios?

[Chris Bryant]

The thing is, Tom Cruise does all his own stunts, doesn’t he? I am a little bit nervous about being dangled off the back of a helicopter or dumped in a vat of—I don’t know. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister says he will happily arrange it. Well, then, I invite him to see the Rhondda tunnel; we can dangle him down a hole as well.

The hon. Lady is making a point that has been made several times. Tom Cruise is one of the biggest investors in the UK because of all the movies that have been made here, and we are very grateful to him. The British Film Institute will be honouring him next week, and I think that is really good. As I say, we are the best place in the world to make movies, and we want to continue that.

I feel very left out, not having a studio in my constituency, but we have produced some of the best actors in the world, including Sir Stanley Baker. I think one of his best films—you will know this, Mr Speaker—was “Sodom and Gomorrah”.

[Mr Speaker]

I was thinking of a different film.

[Chris Bryant]

What film were you—hang on, we are not meant to do this, are we? Order, order. As I was saying, I am also very proud of the young actor Callum Scott Howells, who is doing phenomenally well.

[Mr Speaker]

For the final episode, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Never the final episode—still a wee bit to go yet. I thank the Minister very much for his answers, and for the energy he displays on behalf of the sector. In a question in the Chamber yesterday to the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security, I highlighted the £330 million income for the film industry in Northern Ireland since 2018. The importance of USA films to that cannot be overstated; they include epics such as “Blade Runner”, to say nothing of “Game of Thrones” and “Star Wars”. So many films use our highly skilled studios and work, due to the cost-effectiveness of this option. The Trump tariffs will negate much of this benefit. I am quite confident of the Minister’s response, but how can he emphasise the need to give consideration to our film sector, which is an integral part of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Chris Bryant]

I thought the credits were already rolling, and then up comes the hon. Gentleman. It may be just that I am an optimistic person by nature, but I feel very optimistic about where all these negotiations will end up. I am hopeful that we will end up with some kind of deal. I also passionately believe that wherever that deal ends up, the UK film industry will succeed, because we have always been a great nation at telling stories that people want to watch all around the world. We have some of the greatest actors. We may be a small nation, but we manage to dominate on screens all around the world because we are just talented, and everybody will still want to keep on buying that talent, whatever the deal may be.