Public Libraries: Usage in England
Chris Bryant Excerpts(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for Gambling and Heritage and DCMS Lords Minister, Baroness Twycross:
This year will be the 175th anniversary of the very first Public Libraries Act—an Act which established the principle of free public libraries for the
“instruction and recreation of the people”.
This principle has supported the creation and development of the public library network across England. Over 2,500 library branches make up the statutory library provision in this country—one of the most extensive networks of local community assets we have.
Libraries reach millions of people every year, providing inspiration, education and entertainment in free-to-use, safe, trusted and welcoming spaces. But use has declined over the last decade, and we want to better understand why that is the case and what, together, we can do to tackle this.
Last October we published the first phase of our research to consider this question. That work used in-depth focus groups to question what prevents people from using public libraries and what might support them to re-engage. We committed to commissioning further research to test these findings at scale; this work took place between December 2024 and March 2025.
Today’s report provides a comprehensive picture of people who do not use public libraries in England, exploring who they are, what their perceptions of libraries are, the barriers that might be preventing them from using the library, and the services or approaches that might entice them back. For the first time we have a picture of the complex landscape of people who do not use libraries, noting five distinct groupings whose experiences and views of public libraries vary and who may require different interventions.
Barriers that were consistently noted included:
Lack of personal relevance and availability of services elsewhere;
Lack of awareness of the full range of library offerings and outdated perceptions;
Accessibility challenges including opening hours and parking.
The work then drew on the involvement of library staff, at both senior leadership and branch management levels, to identify potential actions and interventions that could be explored to reach different target groups and turn the tide on the use of public libraries. Some of the potential interventions explored were:
Widening the library reach by seeking to engage those who do not currently use libraries through social media channels;
Bringing those who do not use libraries to the library space through hosting other services or working with partners to use library space—e.g. health, breakfast clubs, early years;
Encouraging people who do not use libraries to re-engage with the library by increasing their understanding of why using libraries is beneficial—e.g. sustainability, money saving—and targeting these messages to specific groups.
We know that implementing these or other potential actions will look different depending on place and that it will be important to tailor interventions to specific audiences and local context.
Since I became libraries Minister I have met with representatives of the public library sector to discuss the challenges in the sector, reflect on priority policy areas and consider how best we can support the sector, drawing on this research. I know the wider sector is already aware of this work and keen to see this final report so that library services can actively consider how they might use the results.
DCMS will continue to encourage and support local activity. We will also consider what action the Government might take to reinvigorate library use. With their extensive network of trusted spaces, used by all kinds of people, libraries are uniquely placed to reach into communities and to support us to deliver on our plan for change.
I will place a copy of the “What works to engage library non-users” report in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS806]
Space Weather
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
It is a delight to see you in your place, Mr Turner, and to take part in this debate.
Given the weather we have been having, it is somewhat ironic that we are worrying about space weather. People sometimes think the sun is a wonderful thing and a delight when it comes out in the UK. It also helps ice cream sales, with the best ice cream in Britain coming from Subzero, made in the Rhondda—I note no contest on that. But having suffered from stage 4 melanoma, I am also conscious that the sun can cause enormous damage through normal exposure. One of the fastest growing forms of cancer in the UK is skin cancer, as a direct result of people being over-exposed to the sun. My advice is that people should avoid the sun between 10 o’clock and 3 o’clock and, if they are out in the sun, that they should cover up or use high-quality sunscreen.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for securing the debate, which relates to an important part of the resilience we need in this country. Of course, it is something we need to do not on our own but with our allies. As he said, we are intimately involved with the European Space Agency, and we will address some of these issues with allies in other countries.
The hon. Member is right to highlight the importance of space weather. He referred to the 1989 Quebec incident, and there are many others, although some have not been quite as severe. He did not mention what happened in May 2024 when, to the great delight of many people, the aurora borealis was visible all the way down to Kent, which antagonised my husband, who has on many occasions gone to Norway, Iceland and all sorts of other places, where he has sat in car parks to try to watch it without ever seeing it. At the same time, 5,000 Starlink satellites had to perform autocorrection manoeuvres to make sure they were safe. The system survived, but it shows that severe space weather can have a profound effect on our satellites.
The Royal Academy of Engineering has reported on some of the potential impacts if we were to have a repeat of the Carrington event. We might be talking about the grid carrying 13 times its normal voltage, which would damage transformers. Two coastal nodes could experience disconnection. Blackouts of a few hours could occur in major urban areas across the United Kingdom. As for our satellites, 10% of the operational fleet could experience temporary outages lasting hours to days, and all satellites would experience rapid ageing due to damage to their solar arrays. There would be an effect on space-based PNT—positioning, navigation and timing—and a loss of lower-frequency Satcom and HF radio communications for between one and three days.
People often think that space does not really matter to how we live our lives, but I would defy anybody in this country to live a whole day without engaging with something that is affected by satellites or by space, whether it is going shopping, navigating by car or on foot—exiting a tube station and knowing whether to go left or right—using the internet or knowing that the supermarket is ordering the right things. So many aspects of our lives are determined by such things, including forecasting the weather so we know whether to take an umbrella to Wimbledon. All those things are affected by space, which is why it is all the more important that we take it extremely seriously.
The UK is a world leader in forecasting space weather. The Met Office space weather operations centre in Exeter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) mentioned, makes a high-quality contribution not just to our own country but to other countries across the world. The Met Office is currently evaluating a five-year £20 million research programme sponsored by UK Research and Innovation.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley was right to mention monitoring and observation of the sun, which is essential to understanding and predicting space weather. That is why we are the leading funder of the European Space Agency’s Vigil mission, which he referred to. This will be Europe’s first dedicated space weather mission, it will provide data and imagery 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and it is expected to launch in 2031. Vigil will work in tandem with United States spacecraft to improve the provision of solar observations. These will provide critical data, enabling forecasters to predict when solar eruptions will impact the Earth. The mission demonstrates that the UK and Europe are committed to space weather monitoring, and it holds equal importance for the US, the UK and European partners. That combination is important for all of us.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley was also right to mention the issues that apply to the Ministry of Defence, as this is not just about space weather; it is about potential damage to satellite constellations. It is a simple fact that if we wanted to dominate a terrain or a domain on the Earth in a conflict situation, we would want to dominate the satellites in space as well. That is why, if there were to be any kind of major conflict, it would almost certainly start in space before it started on Earth. That is why it is so important that the UK has a joint operation between the civil side, through the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the military side, through the Ministry of Defence, to track everything that is happening in the several layers of space so that we know the potential dangers.
Some of those dangers might be a result of space weather, but they might also be a result of the amount of debris up there. I am glad to say that the UK has some of the leading companies in developing space debris removal to make space sustainable. A chunk of a satellite inadvertently crashing into another is problematic, and a hostile state actor taking out UK satellites, or satellites on which we rely, would be equally significant. That is why I am proud that, for the last year, we have had a joint team working in High Wycombe—which I visited a couple of weeks ago with the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle)—to make sure that everything in space on which we rely here on Earth is secure.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley is right that we must not lag behind, but I would argue that we are ahead. We know there are potential hostile actors. The obvious two that have been mentioned in previous public debates are Russia and China. He is absolutely right, so we need to make sure we are at the forefront of securing our defence operations.
The previous Government published the UK’s first severe space weather preparedness strategy in 2015. The current strategy was published in 2021 and supports the aims of the national space strategy. It ensures that severe space weather is appropriately managed, enabling the UK to pursue its wider ambitions in space, and sets out a five-year road map to improve the UK’s preparedness for a severe space weather event. Anybody who can add up will have noticed that five years after 2021 is 2026. I am confident that, now DSIT and the MOD have their spending review settlements, we will publish a full space strategy and lay it before the House. Part of that will undoubtedly respond to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley today.
The hon. Gentleman asked me six questions, but he asked them so quickly that the first point in my notes is just “a plan”—I was not writing fast enough. I am absolutely certain that we will produce a plan, because we will produce a plan for the whole sector, and this issue will undoubtedly be part of it. Secondly, he asked whether we will introduce statutory requirements. We will obviously have to keep that under review to see whether it is necessary, and it is part of what we would include in a plan. If we were to do that, we would have to consult, which takes time.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about armed forces preparedness, which I assure him we take very seriously. One of our recent innovations is to gather all the Ministers with responsibility for space-related issues in different Departments—the MOD, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Transport, the Foreign Office, other parts of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—because we need to make sure that we act as a whole Government in this area. The next meeting is next Monday. I am very hopeful that we can spot areas where we can secure efficiencies because we are working as a whole Government. We can also make sure that none of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised are forgotten.
I think the hon. Gentleman’s fourth question was about broadcasting. In my mind, we have Mr Schafernaker giving us a televised weekly update on space weather. My message to the broadcasters is that it would be good if they gave people in the UK a better understanding of the significance of space and the space sector—not just that it is an industrial powerhouse, which we are good at, but of our engagement and involvement in space and how important it is to us. We also need more people in the UK to think of it as a potential career, so perhaps Mr Schafernaker should produce a regular space weather broadcast. I cannot remember whether the hon. Member asked five or six questions, but I wrote down five, the fifth of which concerned whether the Cabinet Office should require local authorities and others to have measures in place to deal with potential space weather threats.
Some of these issues are for DESNZ. We must ensure the security and resilience of our energy and telecoms, as without a functioning power grid, mobile and other telecoms operations are unlikely to function, and they are absolutely essential to public services, particularly the emergency services. We must weave all of that into our resilience measures, which is why this issue has been on the national risk register since 2012.
If I have got any of the hon. Gentleman’s questions wrong, I am happy to write to him. I thank him for the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale on having a tame astrophysicist. I am not sure whether we have any in the Department, but I am sure we can have access to her tame astrophysicist when necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Culture, Media and Sport
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
…The right hon. Gentleman is also absolutely right to refer to Terence. His report was an essential part of changing the landscape in this country and making sure that compensation was available to the individuals who were affected.
[Official Report, 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 912.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
…The right hon. Gentleman is also absolutely right to refer to Terence. His report was an essential part of changing the landscape in this country and making sure that financial recognition was available to the individuals who were affected.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Bryant Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The Secretary of State is in Singapore celebrating 60 years of diplomacy between our countries and drumming up investment, so I am afraid you have the deputies today, Mr Speaker.
Access to high-speed internet is essential and we are determined to take everyone with us into the digital age. I am glad that 98% of people now have access to superfast speeds and 88% have gigabit. Our latest type C contract with Openreach is adding connections every single day.
Josh Babarinde
Project Gigabit’s stated aim is to ensure that no one is left behind, but that is not true for the residents of Mulberry Close on my home estate in Eastbourne, who have not been connected to full fibre despite bearing the brunt of invasive works on their doorstep. Will the Minister meet me, residents of Mulberry Close and local internet providers to ensure that those residents are connected and not left behind?
Chris Bryant
Funnily enough, the statistics in the hon. Member’s constituency are better than the national average—just very slightly, by a smidgen—but I am very happy to meet him. More importantly, he could come into the Department and meet Building Digital UK so that we can explain exactly what needs to happen in his constituency to secure the aims that he is seeking.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Rural mobile coverage just is not good enough, which is why we have committed all the money needed to complete the shared rural network, with new masts coming online every month. I can also announce that Ofcom’s new coverage checker will come online tomorrow, and I urge every single Member to check their constituency then.
Caroline Voaden
I thank the Minister for his answer. I was going to say that having looked at the villages in my constituency on the mobile map, which was supposed to be updated this month, it is not up to date; it is good to hear that it will be. Many of my constituents have to rely on the 3G network, which is being shut off. We may be years away from getting high-speed broadband across the South Hams, so having access to a reliable 4G network is crucial. Can the Minister tell me exactly how he is working with mobile phone providers to ensure that everyone has access to mobile voice and data coverage?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The new checker comes online tomorrow—I know that many hon. Members will have looked at the checker in the past and thought, “That simply doesn’t bear any relationship to my lived experience.” From tomorrow, it will. The new checker is much better; Members will be able to see different numbers for all the mobile operators, which I think will encourage the operators to put up more masts and improve their coverage.
I know that the hon. Lady has talked about the village of Staverton in her constituency, which has a population of 717 people—the Sea Trout, I think, is the pub. It even has a telephone booth in it, although I am not sure whether it is still working. I have this horrible fear: I do not want to leave the hon. Lady, like Blondie, hanging on the telephone.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
In my constituency—one of the most rural parts of the UK—whole areas are without mobile phone coverage. People are forced to cope with unreliable phone lines and, most worryingly, are sometimes unable to call 999. Can the Minister assure me that after the withdrawal of the public switched telephone network, no one will be left without access to a phone simply because there is no mobile signal once their landline is switched off?
Chris Bryant
I have been very keen to ensure that the withdrawal of the PSTN—which is being done because it is necessary, as the copper system is not working any more and is more fallible—does not leave anybody unable to contact 999 or get the services that they need. I am very happy to arrange for my hon. Friend a meeting with BDUK to go through precisely how we can ensure that we have proper investment in every constituency in the land so that people have the mobile signal they need to live in the modern era.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
As soon as we have legislative proposals on AI, we will introduce them to the House and let the right hon. Member know in the usual way.
Sir John Whittingdale
Is the Minister aware of the concerns about the proposed creative content exchange, which appeared without consultation in the creative industries sector plan? Will he confirm that any AI legislation will not seek to impose a statutory licensing model, but will instead facilitate a market-led, dynamic licensing model based on robust copyright law and enforceable through meaningful transparency?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Member has become terribly Eeyore-ish of late—he has been eating too many thistles, I think. The truth of the matter is that this is a really good idea. It is only at an embryonic stage. It was consulted on in the creative industries taskforce, which is led by Baroness Shriti Vadera and Sir Peter Bazalgette. Of course we will consult with everybody else in the sector about how we can make this work, but it could be an answer to ensuring more licensing of creative content by AI companies and, importantly, remuneration for the creative industries.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
First, I echo the congratulatory comments about the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah)—they are absolutely deserved.
Donald Trump’s proposals to ban US states from regulating AI for 10 years have been condemned by Microsoft’s chief scientist, showing that we cannot trust the US to provide safe and sensible AI regulation. Does the Minister agree that now is the time for the UK to lead on AI safety, and will he join me and the head of Google DeepMind in calling for an AI safety agency modelled on the International Atomic Energy Agency and headquartered here in the UK?
Chris Bryant
Both the Under-Secretary of State and I have been remiss in not congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) on her damehood. As you know, Mr Speaker, all knights love to see a dame enter the Chamber. The Under-Secretary of State and I work closely on AI and copyright, and on making sure that we have the AI safety and security that we need. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson makes a fair point and it is one of the things that we are considering at the moment.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The Chancellor has announced that the Government’s research and development spending plans go through to 2029-30 and that our R&D budget is rising from £13.9 billion in 2025-26 to £15.2 billion in 2029-30—a real-terms increase—and will total £58.5 billion over the spending review period. I am sure that that will benefit my hon. Friend’s York constituency.
Rachael Maskell
York and North Yorkshire is a national leader in the bioeconomy. BioYorkshire will create 4,000 jobs, as well as start-ups and spin-outs. It requires £67 million to build its facilities over the next decade, but it will return £215 million back into the economy. When will the science plan recognise the economic and scientific impact of the research base? Can we have a meeting to talk about the brilliant BioYorkshire project?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right that it is a brilliant project, and it is precisely the kind of thing the UK excels at: we manage to get the private sector working with Government and local government to deliver not only jobs but real innovation. As the Secretary of State is not here today, I am sure I can offer my hon. Friend the opportunity of a meeting with him.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Over the past 10 years, many tech start-ups have left the UK and gone to silicon valley, which costs the UK a huge amount in jobs and tax revenue. What are the Government doing to ensure that start-ups currently at seed stage stay in the UK and grow here, so that we avoid the UK becoming an intellectual property farm for other countries to harvest?
Chris Bryant
One really important part of the industrial strategy we published on Monday and the sector plans within it is that we identified a problem many people in the UK face, which is that they have a really good idea but cannot take it to market because they do not have access to finance, in particular to capital, unless they are in London—and sometimes unless they are a man. We want to change all that, which is why we have said categorically that we are giving the British Business Bank much more significant power to be able to invest in these sectors. That will mean we are a powerhouse in precisely the way the hon. Member wants.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
From the development of vaccines to the discovery of the structure of DNA, British medical innovation has played a fundamental role in changing the lives of people globally and extending the UK’s global influence. Our industrial strategy and forthcoming life sciences sector plan will put the UK at the very centre of global efforts.
Emily Darlington
As the Minister will know, Gavi and the Global Fund not only provide a global vaccine programmes and programmes on saving lives from malaria and HIV, but provide us with biosecurity and jobs in the UK, not least over 500 research and development jobs and funding for the institute of tropical medicine. What assessment has he made of whether the UK is to reduce our efforts in that regard?
Chris Bryant
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance is absolutely essential, not only for other countries in the world, where we have managed to save many lives by introducing vaccines, but for UK innovation. We are fully committed to Gavi. We will be producing our life sciences sector plan soon, and we want to celebrate the sector, which represents 6,800 business and £100 billion of turnover every year.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that the life and health sciences launchpad in Northern Ireland has so far funded 32 business-led projects. That is good news, but 23 of the projects are in the Greater Belfast area. Will the Minister join me and others in our efforts to ensure that there is greater knowledge about the launchpad across the whole of Northern Ireland so that we can all benefit from this very worthwhile project?
Chris Bryant
Yes, indeed. When I was talking about the creative industries sector plan as part of the industrial strategy last week, exactly the same point was made. Belfast is obviously a great centre for innovation and the creative industries, but we need to make sure that the sector extends across the whole of Northern Ireland. It is a point that has been extremely well made.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The digital inclusion action plan is one of things I am proudest of. Only this morning I launched the “IT reuse for good” charter. One thing that is really problematic for many families who do not have access to the internet is that they simply do not have a device. I urge every Member of the House to get every business they know to sign up to the “IT reuse for good” charter so that we can get devices to the people who really need them.
Mr Alaba
Digital inclusion and exclusion vary widely between individuals, households and even communities. Often it is those in low-income, rural and coastal communities who are left behind. What steps are being taken to ensure that Labour’s action plan reaches all communities and equips everyone with the tools they need?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a strong point: we need digital inclusion for every community. If we are going to have a digital Government, we need to have a digital nation, and we cannot have some people excluded from that future. That is why we have announced £6 million in this financial year for the innovation fund, and I hope that local authorities will come forward with innovative ideas on how we can break down the barriers to digital inclusion.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The Department is determined to make the UK the best place in the world for science and technology. Last week, the spending review committed £86 billion to research and development, enabling every aspect of our tech economy to start firing on all cylinders. Building on that, we published the digital and technology sector plan as part of our modern industrial strategy on Monday, backing our innovators in fields like quantum, life sciences and engineering biology with over £1 billion.
Patrick Hurley
Across the northern part of my constituency, from Marshside over to Hesketh Bank—
Chris Bryant
I know that that is an issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency because he has tabled at least 10 questions to me on the subject over the last week, all of which we have answered in time. I am keen to ensure that we as MPs persuade the mobile companies to invest more in getting better mobile coverage across the country, both in rural areas and in urban ones.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Why are the Government ignoring the advice of the AI opportunities action plan to encourage the start-up and scaling of tech businesses in the UK and instead favouring market-dominant corporations from abroad over our own domestic businesses when awarding Government contracts?
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Chris Bryant
We are completely and utterly not complacent, and we are determined to ensure that creators are remunerated for their work. We would never surrender other people’s labour to a third party. I know that the hon. Member used to be the editor of Cruise International, and I very much hope that as a former journalist she will help us develop policies that can answer the question she asked.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Chris Bryant
One of the issues that is undoubtedly at the heart of AI and copyright is how we ensure that the policy we advocate in the UK works with other countries’ around the world. I assure my hon. Friend that we are working closely with our European allies to ensure we do precisely that.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Chris Bryant
I am afraid the shadow Chancellor came in during the question. I have known him for a very long time, and I would not cheer him quite so enthusiastically myself—[Interruption.] As charming a man as he is, it meant that I did not hear the question asked by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), so I am happy to write to her afterwards to confirm.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Stratford and Bow is a thriving hub of innovation, which is why the Prime Minister chose it for the launch of the AI opportunities action plan earlier this year. One brilliant example is Healthtech-1. Once a kitchen table start-up of doctors and tech experts, it now automates admin for 22% of GP practices, and its new patient registration system has saved the NHS a staggering 183 years of time. What are the Government doing to support home-grown innovation like that to scale up its work?
Pride Month
Chris Bryant Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Secretary of State to move the motion.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
Not Secretary of State, Mr Deputy Speaker—well, I don’t think so.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I should say, I do not know anything that the hon. Gentleman does not know.
Chris Bryant
And the things you do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker—anyway.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Pride Month.
I should start by declaring an interest in this Pride debate. The Daily Mail once referred to me as an “ex-gay vicar”. I am an ex-vicar, but the other stuff is coming along quite nicely. In fact, I am a practising homosexual—one day I will be quite good at it.
People ask me, “Why on earth do you need a Pride Month? Do you really need LGBT History Month? What’s the point of Pride marches and Pride flags? Hasn’t the world changed? Haven’t you already got same-sex marriage and adoption, gays in the police and the military, and laws that protect people from discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation or gender reassignment? What more do you want?” That is what I hear all the time, even from really well-meaning, liberal souls.
But we have always needed Pride. We needed it when people lazily assumed that a short haircut meant that you were a lesbian or a lisp meant that you were gay. We needed it when people laughed at Larry Grayson and John Inman but forced them to hide their sexuality. We needed it when people said that we should be harassed, arrested and locked up for loving who we wanted. We needed it when the police wore rubber gloves to arrest us, just in case we gave them AIDS. We needed it when we were called queer, faggot and arse bandit at school. We needed it when we were sneered at, spat at, punched, kicked and beaten up.
And we need Pride now—when kids are still bullied because they are camp or butch; when families still throw their LGBT children out of the home; when many are so worn down by abuse that they take their own lives; when so many are so terrified of coming out that they live lives of terrible, crushing loneliness; when people are abused for wanting to transition; when our cousins in Hungary are denied the right to demonstrate; when the state police in many countries deliberately entrap homosexuals; when trans people are treated as less than human; and when homosexuality is still illegal in 63 countries, including 38 that apply those rules to women, and including more than half the Commonwealth. Yes, we still need Pride.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt such a magnificent speech. The first Pride march in London was in 1972, and I have met many people who were on that first Pride march who thought that they would never need to march again, but they still need to march now. Does my hon. Friend feel sorry that Pride organisations have now said that no political parties are allowed to march because of how the LGBTQI+ community has been treated? I will still be marching, because I march with other groups, but does my hon. Friend agree that this is a sad state of affairs?
Chris Bryant
I think we should be proud of the fact that politics has changed the law in this country, and political parties were absolutely essential to that. I pay tribute to everybody in my political party who for many generations fought for equality—but that is true for the Conservative party as well, where people in many cases had to be even braver than they did in the Labour movement, and of course in many other parties as well. I do agree with my hon. Friend; I think it is an entirely retrograde step to ban people from political parties from taking part in Pride marches.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
In contrast to the Minister, I fully support the decision that has been made by the major Pride organisations to tell us that as political parties we are not welcome this year on parades or marches. Is the Minister not as sad as I am at the absolute state of political policy and discourse around trans rights that has directly led to this action?
Chris Bryant
I will come on in a moment to some of the problems that I think we have, but when I was first elected as a Member of Parliament, there were still many laws in this country that drastically affected the rights of LGBTQ people in this country, and it is because of political parties that we changed the law. We should not discard the democratic process; it is absolutely essential to being able to secure our rights.
We need to remember that in this country we used to hang men for having sex together and imprison them just for meeting or sending each other a love note. This is a serious business, but we also need to celebrate. I remember that on one of the Pride marches I went on, we shouted all the way, “We’re here, we’re queer and we’ve not gone shopping!” We chanted it all the way down Oxford Street, which is ironic in itself.
We have to celebrate, because not every LGBT story is a tragedy, and I wish the film and television industry would learn this. We are extraordinarily normal. That is a terrible word, really, but we are phenomenally normal. We bleed when we are cut and we laugh when we are tickled, and we can defy every stereotype going. I hate to break it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but not all gay men like musicals—I don’t understand that, but I have met a few—and apparently not all lesbians enjoy tennis or smoke cigars. [Interruption.] I do not know what is going on behind me.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I would like to put on record that I have never enjoyed a cigar, although I would dispute the fact that most lesbians do not enjoy tennis.
Chris Bryant
I am not sure whether it is tennis or tennis players—a bit like rugby and rugby players.
We can laugh at ourselves—of course we can—and it is a really important part of this that we are able to do so. A Member of the House of Lords told a colleague the other day that I was too macho. [Laughter.] That was not meant to be funny, actually. I replied, “What? As in the song that goes ‘Macho, macho man’?”—perhaps the campest song ever written.
People also still ask me why we need to come out. They say, “Can’t you just keep it to yourselves?” Let me explain. The rest of the world will always assume that most of us are straight—heterosexual—so it is a complex process when we learn that we are not like others. Unless you are very famous, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have to come out time and again, every time that somebody presumes that you are heterosexual.
We need to need to celebrate what LGBT people have given us. That includes Alan Turing, Ivor Novello, George Michael, John Gielgud, Alec Guinness, Wilfred Owen, Oscar Wilde, Edward Carpenter, Anne Lister, Maureen Colquhoun, Radclyffe Hall, Virginia Woolf, Clare Balding, Jess Glynne, Alex Scott, Jane Hill, Skin, Nicola Adams and Sandi Toksvig—and, from the Rhondda, I would add Daniel Evans, H from Steps and Callum Scott Howells, who go to prove that I am not the only gay in the village.
Coming out, Mr Deputy Speaker—I do not know why I keep on addressing this to you, as if you should suddenly leap forward—matters.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I think the Minister has been here long enough to understand that, actually, matters have to be directed through the Chair; he is entirely correct.
Chris Bryant
Yes, I thought there was a reason.
Coming out matters for our personal pride and our collective pride, so that every boy and girl growing up does not internalise hatred, scorn and shame as used to be the case but learns cheerful happiness and opportunity, and so that every family can take pride in their LGBT child, sister, cousin or aunt. From the first bricks thrown at Stonewall to this month’s marches, Pride is a movement rooted in resistance and the refusal to be silenced, sidelined or shamed. It is about visibility in the face of erasure—and, talking of Erasure, it is about a little respect.
There is one final reason that we need to celebrate Pride. The safest place in the 20th century for gay men was Germany in 1930, where men danced together and loved one another with impunity. But, within a decade, the Nazis were carting them off to Dachau and demanding they inform on others. When the war was over—perhaps equally shockingly—nobody wanted to memorialise them; we were erased, and erased from history. Our hard-won freedoms are never won in perpetuity; we need to secure them again and again in every generation. Progress is never inevitable; it must be defended, deepened and delivered to every generation.
Today, we speak against a backdrop of heightened tension. In the last decade, we have seen the consensus around LGBT+ rights begin to fray, we have seen public debate grow increasingly toxic and we have seen trans people in particular subjected to fear, misinformation and ridicule. Pastors in the United States today are calling for the death penalty for homosexuals. Jonathan Shelley in Arlington said that
“we should hate Pride, not celebrate it”.
On the shooting of LGBT people in the Pulse nightclub in 2016, Donnie Romero, who is also a pastor in Arlington, said that those who were killed were
“all perverts…they’re the scum of the Earth and the Earth is a better place now”.
That is what we are still facing today.
That is why the Government will not tolerate about a rolling back of rights, nor a politics of division that pits one group against another. That is why we are delivering a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. Those so-called therapies are nothing less than abuse. They do not work, they cause deep, lasting harm, and their continued existence is a stain on any society that claims to be inclusive. Draft legislation will be published in this Session, informed by wide-ranging engagement and guided by the need to protect, not punish—to prevent harm, not criminalise care.
We are also working with the Home Office to equalise all hate crime strands. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who raised the matter last week. No one should face abuse, violence or discrimination because of who they are or who they love, yet across the country LGBT people—especially trans people—are being targeted with growing intensity. In too many cases, the law does not yet offer equal protection. That is not justice; the Government will act.
We are also improving access to fertility services for lesbian and bisexual women. As of November, same-sex couples are no longer subject to unnecessary additional screening costs for IVF, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently reviewing its fertility guidelines, which will help to ensure more equitable access to NHS-funded treatment, regardless of sexuality or relationship status. This Government recognise that building a family is a human aspiration, not anyone’s privilege.
We are also strengthening healthcare services for trans people. We are launching a review of gender identity services to ensure they meet modern standards of equality, safety and accessibility. That includes reducing waiting times, expanding service capacity and improving mental health support throughout the transition journey.
We are investing in housing solutions for young LGBT+ people at risk of homelessness, too. Far too many are pushed out of their homes or fall through the cracks in mainstream services. We will soon establish an inter-ministerial taskforce on this, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, to co-ordinate efforts across all Departments.
Our commitment to dignity and equality does not end at our borders. Right now, 63 countries criminalise same-sex activity, and in 13 of those countries the death penalty can be applied. At least 49 countries actively target trans and gender-diverse people with discriminatory laws. In many of those countries, shamefully, that is a direct legacy of British colonial rule: legislation that we imposed continues to harm people. We cannot undo the past, but we must take responsibility for the future, which is why the UK is a proud member of the Equal Rights Coalition, why we have invested over £40 million to support global LGBT rights, and why our diplomatic missions work every day behind the scenes to support local advocates, challenge repressive laws and offer hope to those facing persecution. If there were any Reform Members in the Chamber, I would point out that that sometimes means putting up a Pride flag.
We are seeing a backlash, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) said, but we are also seeing breakthroughs. This year, Thailand became the first south-east Asian country to legalise same-sex marriage—hurrah! In Namibia and Dominica, consensual same-sex acts were decriminalised. In India, the Supreme Court is reviewing discriminatory blood donation policies. There is light in this tunnel.
I want to address the recent Supreme Court ruling, because I know it matters to a large number of people. It was, of course, a significant legal judgment, and one that has understandably prompted discussion and—in some cases—fear. Let me be absolutely clear: the rights and protections for trans people under the Equality Act 2010 remain firmly in place. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment still applies. Discrimination, harassment or victimisation of trans people is unlawful and will remain so under this Government.
The ruling has offered important clarity for service providers—particularly those offering single-sex spaces—and we respect the Court’s decision. We reject any attempts to weaponise the ruling to roll back the hard-won dignity and inclusion of trans people. This is not and must never become a zero-sum debate. We can protect single-sex spaces based on clear, lawful criteria while also protecting the fundamental rights and dignity of trans people who—let us not forget—are among the most marginalised and misunderstood in our society.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I welcome the tone with which the Minister has approached this really important point. Will he touch on the proposed guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which he will know is out for consultation? One section that really concerns trans constituents is about disclosures and requiring trans people to disclose their identity. I have to be honest: that seems to be nothing short of outing trans people. Will he provide reassurance that we will not see a situation in this country where trans people end up being compelled to out themselves?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a good point; that is very important. Indeed, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 lays down clearly the privacy responsibilities of other Government Departments. In fact, one of my anxieties when we were considering the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 was that we seemed to be getting to a place where people would have to present their passport or a document to prove whether they could access a single-sex space. I honestly think that the rights of both these groups can be respected fully. We surely must be the kind of society that can achieve that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister is rightly pointing out where progress has been made nationally and internationally, but when he was cantering through those points of light nationally, he missed out one group: the men and women serving in our armed forces. I am particularly mindful of that because Saturday is Armed Forces Day and, sadly, one of the chief advocates for LGBT people in the armed forces, Lord Etherton, died in May. Will the Minister pay tribute to Terence Etherton and comment on his 2023 report into the shameful way in which gay people were treated in the armed forces between 1967 and 2000?
Chris Bryant
I am really grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point, and it is good that it is a point of agreement across the whole House. There was a time when large numbers of people in this House would have thought that having gay men, lesbians or trans people in the armed forces was anathema, and I am so glad that we have changed. The shields on the wall up there are dedicated to Members of Parliament who were killed in the second world war, and at least five, if not six, of them were gay men who gave their lives in defence of this country. Bravery is available to people regardless of their sexuality or their identity. The right hon. Gentleman is also absolutely right to refer to Terence. His report was an essential part of changing the landscape in this country and making sure that compensation was available to the individuals who were affected.
We should acknowledge the fundamental truth that trans people have always been at the forefront of our movement. From Marsha P. Johnson in New York to Mark Ashton here in the UK, trans people and gender non-conforming people have led protests, shaped policy and built community, often with little recognition or safety in return. At Stonewall, at section 28 protests, in the founding of support services and HIV charities, and at the heart of every movement that pushed us forward, trans people were there and they led. We owe them a debt of gratitude, so to treat them now as a threat to the very movement they helped build is wrong. We will not forget their role, and we will not leave them behind. Trans people deserve safety, dignity and the same freedom to live their lives as anyone else, and under this Government they will have it.
On 29 August 1924, Edward Carpenter had his 80th birthday. He had famously campaigned for our rights and lived with his lover, George Merrill. Indeed, he was probably the model for E. M. Forster’s novel “Maurice”, which I think was published only after E. M. Forster’s death. Carpenter was a brave campaigner at a time when it was impossible to be brave. Men were still being imprisoned with hard labour for homosexuality in 1924, when he came to his 80th birthday, so it was a phenomenal act of bravery when every single member of the Labour Cabinet—there was a Labour Government in 1924—signed a letter to Carpenter wishing him a happy birthday.
That kind of magnanimity should be the hallmark of our politics today. We are not yet the country that we could be, but in all we do in our hospitals and our schools, in our laws and our language, in our foreign policy and our public services, this Government will uphold one principle: a little respect for all. Let that be the legacy of this House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I am sure the hon. Lady will have the opportunity to intervene later on.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow the Minister and to speak in this important debate. I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone in the House, across my Daventry constituency and across the country a very happy Pride Month.
The Minister is absolutely right to say that Pride is still needed. I have certainly seen significant changes over my lifetime, including things that I never thought would be possible when I was growing up as a young gay man in Anglesey, but he is right to say that these are important issues that we should continue to discuss. On the whole, I have been privileged to have a life in which I have been accepted pretty much everywhere I have lived, but I have had those difficult occasions that I have spoken about before, not least being badly beaten up and my father coming to my rescue and being beaten up too, trying to protect his son. Those are the things that we need to remember.
We also need to remember people like the young man that I heard about in Manchester a few years ago who had been kicked out of his home because his parents could not accept his sexuality. His life took a nosedive and, sadly, he ended up selling himself for sex to survive. He was eventually murdered by someone who he was supposedly trying to get some money off. These are the disgusting consequences that may happen if we do not remind ourselves of the journey that we have been on as a country.
I have to say that things are pretty good for me. Most of the time, most people do not care that I am a gay man—
Stuart Andrew
Yeah—but I am butch like you! [Laughter.]
As I was saying, most people do not really comment on the fact that I live with a man. They are more interested in the fact that he works for Marks & Spencer and gets 20% off. But it is important that we have these conversations because there are still people around the world, and in communities in this country, who cannot come out. There are people in communities in our country who live a different life from the one that they want to live, and there are people around the world, as the Minister rightly says, who will be put to death if they love the person they really want to love.
That is why Pride Month is important, and its theme of activism and social change emphasises a reflection on the contributions of LGBT individuals and communities in creating a better world for us all. We are lucky in this country that we have a host of people in our history who have been at the forefront of fighting for equality. Yes, there are the famous people—Dame Kelly Holmes, Tom Daley and Sir Ian McKellen, to name but a few—but there are so many inspiring LGBT people from right across the decades, as the Minister mentioned.
I would like to mention Sophia Jex-Blake, Scotland’s first female doctor, who fought for so many women to be allowed to train as doctors and founded medical schools up in Scotland, where she eventually met her life partner, whom she lived with until her death in 1912. I also want to mention Patrick Trevor-Roper, who was one of only three witnesses who could be convinced to appear before the Wolfenden committee. His evidence helped to start the journey to decriminalisation. Those people, in my view, are incredibly brave.
Given that we have commemorated the 80th anniversary of VE Day this year, I think we should also remember one of my personal heroes, Dr Alan Turing, a man whose brilliance cracked the Nazis’ Enigma code. This was an incredible feat, given that Enigma had 159 million million million settings. He played a crucial role in cracking the intercepted messages that enabled the allies to defeat the enemy in the Atlantic and in other engagements. We owe him so much, but his treatment later, when he was prosecuted for being gay, is a shame that I know we all find abhorrent. The Government rightly apologised and he was later posthumously pardoned. In my view, he is a true hero of our nation.
Of course, we have had champions in this place, too—people like Chris Smith, who bravely became the first openly gay MP; Edwina Currie, who led a debate on changing the age of consent; and too many other hon. and right hon. Members to name. I do want to name one or two from the Conservative side because I know everyone will do their own pitches. There are people like our former colleague Eric Ollerenshaw, who was on that first Gay Pride march in 1972. He recalled to me that he was actually spat at by the police—that is how bad it was. There are people like Mike Freer, who campaigned hard on issues like PrEP, and our former colleague Elliot Colburn.
I would like to take this opportunity to say happy birthday to LGBT+ Conservatives, which celebrates its 50th birthday this year, making it one of the oldest LGBT-affiliated groups for a political party in the world—a title it shares with LGBT+ Labour. I wish LGBT+ Labour a happy birthday as well. In 1975, the LGBT Conservatives were established by Professor Peter Walter Campbell. I am that old that I have seen LGBT Conservatives go through several guises over the 30 years since I first joined. Back then, it was known as TORCHE—Tory Campaign for Homosexual Equality. I pay tribute to the work it has done over those 50 years.
Little did those founders and that first generation of our LGBT Conservatives and Labour know it, but they were merely years away from a global HIV/AIDS epidemic. Around the world, hundreds of thousands of people would lose their lives, including people here in the UK. Gay and bisexual men lived in fear, and many felt powerless and hopeless. If we fast forward to 2025, we find ourselves in a truly different world, and I want to thank all those who have made that change possible. I recognise that those contributions have come from parties across this Chamber, and I thank them all for it.
I am proud of our record as a party over the last 14 years for the lives of LGBT people, not least the rolling out of highly active antiretroviral therapy treatment for HIV in England and funding the first ever HIV testing week. In 2013, we introduced same-sex couples’ marriage in England and Wales, which was one of the most memorable debates in my time in the House and one of my proudest moments here. We introduced the legalisation of self-testing kits for HIV, as well as a host of other things that we are proud to have done.
I also want to remark on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is no longer here, about people in the armed forces and to pay tribute to Lord Etherton. When I was the Equalities Minister, I had the privilege of meeting him several times as he went through that report. He did not just get evidence from thousands of people; he personally read every single testament because he wanted to know those stories inside out, and thank goodness he did that. I pay tribute to him for the work he has done.
Thinking about all these achievements and those of former MPs and other inspirational figures, I find it appalling and deeply disappointing that some Prides across the country have banned our political parties from this year’s parades. LGBT Conservatives, LGBT Labour, LGBT Lib Dems and all others are not allowed to attend. Like the Minister, I also remind the organisers that it was these groups and so many MPs in this House that brought about the changes we enjoy today. As Jo Cox said, there is more that unites us than divides us. Them causing this divide is a retrograde step, and I pay tribute to the likes of Owen Meredith and others who have taken up this fight. I call on the organisers to think again, especially as two parties celebrate their 50th birthday in terms of LGBT issues.
I am aware that many colleagues want to contribute, but I have a couple of questions for the answering Minister. I would like an update on the HIV programme. It touched me that people across the House want to embark on that ambition of having no new HIV infections in this country by 2030; of course, we have only one Parliament left to get that done. Could the Minister set out where the Government are up to on that and what plans they have to ensure that we meet that ambitious target? Will the Government ensure that they are working with our devolved regions to ensure a UK approach to eradicating new HIV cases—not just England, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, too? We can end new HIV cases without a vaccine or cure, and wouldn’t it be great for the UK to be the first place to do so? We want the Government to succeed on this issue, building on a lot of the work that we did in office and working with great organisations like the Terrence Higgins Trust. Let us make that an ambition for all of us. Let us remember why we have Pride in the first place, and make this Pride count.
Ben Maguire
I warmly welcome the hon. Lady’s offer of being an ally, and I agree that it is so important to the LGBTQ+ community to have that alliance.
As well as politicians, public figures desperate for attention and relevance such as J. K. Rowling have poisoned the public discourse with attacks on our trans community, all under the false dichotomy that it is not possible to be a true feminist and protect women’s rights without attacking and abusing the trans community, a phoney culture war which has left trans people fearful just to be themselves. The tone of this debate has been so un-British. It is much more like the US, where everything is dealt with in extreme absolutes: black and white; right and wrong; no compromise; no respect or compassion for one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. It is horrible to see how hate has been weaponised for political gain.
I know how it feels to think of yourself as broken, to feel like society will never accept you, and to feel ashamed to admit to friends and family who you really are, and that things might be better if you just did not exist at all. Surely in 2025 we can do so much better and make sure that trans people are seen and valued for who they truly are.
To conclude, I urge the Minister to provide this House with an update on what steps he is taking to reassure the trans community that it will continue to receive protections and safe spaces following the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance, which has left many trans people confused and anxious. When will this Government ban conversion therapy in full? We have heard it from the Minister again, but no specific timetable has been given for both sexuality and gender.
Ben Maguire
I invite the Minister to give way if he can tell us the timetable for that.
Chris Bryant
I think the hon. Gentleman is giving way to me, but, yes, I said that it would be in this Session of Parliament, which is a pretty clear timeline.
Ben Maguire
I thank the Minister for the intervention, but that is rather vague considering that we have many years left of this Parliament.
Ben Maguire
Moving on then, as that has answered my question—[Interruption.] Yes, it was an excellent answer.
What steps are the Government taking to reduce the time that LGBTQ+ veterans are having to wait for their financial redress applications? I look forward to hearing an update on that later on. Finally, what action are the Government taking to address disproportionate rates of mental ill health and homelessness among the LGBTQ+ community? The Minister referred to a review, which I believe is to be chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, but we really do need urgent action now.
Let’s celebrate Pride Month while remembering that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights is far from over. The Liberal Democrats will continue to lead it, and we will not stop until everyone is free to live as their true selves, without fear and without apology.
Tom Gordon
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I completely agree with him. I am amazed that in this day and age, there are still places in which we dispute whether or not we should fly flags or have Pride celebrations. In my view, that is not British.
I want to briefly mention that in the days following the Supreme Court ruling, I had a trans constituent come into my office. She impressed upon me that her situation had fundamentally changed: she was worried about her rights, about being challenged in toilets, and that the Supreme Court’s decision ushered in a new era of uncertainty for trans people. I put on the record my support for the trans community, as Members from across this House who are present in the Chamber today have already done. However, we are in uncertain times, and it is incumbent on us all to make sure we stand up for the entire LGBT community. While I, too, was disappointed that political parties were banned from attending Pride in many cities this year, I understand why organisers have come to that conclusion. It is incumbent on all political parties to do better, and if we are honest, all parties have issues when it comes to LGBT rights. We should all try to make sure that we do much better.
As the Minister said, coming out is not a one-off event. I was fortunate enough that when I was at school, I never got bullied—my friend James might have punched anyone if they had taken issue with it.
Tom Gordon
We are not in favour of it, no, but it does help to have the rugby boys on your side. One comment was made after I actually did come out in the last year of high school. I can remember someone chuntering from the back of the classroom, going, “Oh, Tom’s gay!” I turned around and went, “Yes, and?” That was the end of it, so even in an ex-mining town such as the one I am originally from, people are much more tolerant than you would perhaps expect.
A disproportionate number of people who are LGBT are still impacted by hate crime, which is something that worries me in light of the hostility and, in particular, the rhetoric online. The most online abuse I have received has been when I have spoken up for trans constituents, which I am sure is an experience that many people across this House share. That is a damning reflection of how people seek to whip up hate and divide people, when we should be looking to come together.
The final thing I wanted to do was to plug the charity of the constituent who came to me to speak about being a trans woman. I had not heard of it before, but it is called Nutshell, and it offers talking therapies and counselling—not for trans people themselves, but for the families of trans people, who can often feel particular frustrations with finding out that one of their loved ones is trans. It is a holistic approach, and I endorse what that charity does.
I think I came out in this place in my maiden speech when I mentioned Eurovision. I will continue our campaign to make sure we get Eurovision back in Harrogate, and I hope the Minister will join me in that campaign.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
As a straight man, I cannot speak from personal experience about the prejudice that LGBTQIA+ people have been the victim of, nor have I been a coalminer and experienced the feeling of having the source of my livelihood snatched away. However, in this Pride Month debate, I wish to share with the House a collaboration that emphasises the importance of allyship and—something this House does not hear nearly enough about—class solidarity.
This collaboration was between the London-based activist group Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners and the mining community of the Dulais valley in south Wales during the miners’ strike of 1984 to 1985. Co-founders of the LGSM, Mark Ashton and Mike Jackson, were inspired to combine gay rights activism with the labour movement after attending a talk by a striking miner. This duo brought collection buckets to the London Lesbian and Gay Pride march in June 1984 to support the miners and their families who were affected by the financial hardship caused by the strike.
The LGSM was subsequently set up to officially declare that members of the gay rights movement supported the striking miners, because the LGSM strongly believed that solidarity between the working classes was essential, as all of them would be suppressed if the Thatcher Government succeeded in weakening the National Union of Mineworkers and the wider trade union movement. Indeed, the miners and the LGSM shared very similar experiences and common ground, as both were targeted and vilified by a right-wing media, police brutality and the Government of the day. Attitudes towards the gay community soon began to change in the mining community. The LGSM visited south Wales, with the mining communities reciprocating the solidarity and friendship shown to them by the LGSM.
Chris Bryant
I just want to correct one thing in the film “Pride”, which is the plot my hon. Friend is referring to. The south Wales valley mining community—I represent the Rhondda and Ogmore—is portrayed as openly hostile to the lesbians and gays and, in fact, bisexuals who came down to support their cause. That was far from true; there was almost unanimous support for them.
Brian Leishman
I very much thank the Minister for that correction—I appreciate the intervention—and for subtly dropping in my mispronunciation of south Wales.
By the end of the strike, the LGSM had raised over £20,000. As the Welsh mining communities had made the Londoners feel so welcome, the LGSM organised a return visit, with a fundraiser called “Pits and Perverts” held at the Electric Ballroom in Camden. Despite the defeat of the mining industry, south Wales miners and their families marched alongside the LGSM at a Pride march in London the following year. At the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, this allyship was much needed. On 11 February 1987, LGSM founder Mark Ashton died of an AIDS-related illness, and his funeral was attended by many of the miners whom he had supported through the LGSM.
In a wider context, the NUM acknowledged the support shown by the gay community during the strike when the union called for gay equality at the 1985 Labour party conference and Trades Union Congress. In addition, the NUM backed the campaign against the hateful and harmful section 28, which was passed in 1988 by the Conservative Government. Altogether, the collaboration of those in the gay rights movement and the labour movement highlights the shared struggle and solidarity across communities bounded by oppressions and class interests.
Our labour movement must therefore show unwavering support to those in the LGBTQIA+ community, many of whom will march this summer to demand equality and protest against the rise in homophobia and transphobia. As the gays and lesbians and the miners showed in the 1980s, when two very different communities come under attack from prejudice and form an unlikely alliance to fight for what is right in the face of persecution, then understanding, kindness, respect and solidarity happen, and those emotions always win.
Kirsty Blackman
I congratulate the hon. Member on taking this opportunity to say what she has said. It is not easy to say something like that in a Chamber like this. Having done something similar not that long ago, I absolutely respect her, and I join her in celebrating Pride month.
Samantha Niblett
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention—and for giving me an extra minute, in which I would like to talk about my community.
I have one main hope about saying what I have just said and being openly bisexual. My daughter is so straight—it is so disappointing—[Laughter.] But if there are girls and women in South Derbyshire and across the country who think, “Oh God, it is okay to love a woman, to kiss a woman, to be intimate with a woman—and she’s said it, so it’s okay that I do,” then good. I say to them: take that comfort, and if you want to talk to me about it, please feel free to reach out.
Now I am going to talk about my constituency. It is an honour to speak in this important debate on Pride, not just as the Member of Parliament for South Derbyshire but as someone who has seen at first hand the power of community when it chooses inclusion over exclusion and love over fear. This past Saturday, I had the privilege of attending a truly fantastic Pride event at the Collective Hub in Swadlincote. The Collective Hub is a brilliant community space that fosters creativity, belonging and support for people of all ages. The Pride celebration it hosted was testament to everything that makes our community proud: diversity, resilience and joy. I want to pay particular tribute to Mikey, who leads the hub with passion, care and unwavering dedication. His work does not go unnoticed. He and all those who supported the event created a safe and welcoming space.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
Chris Bryant ExcerptsTuesday 10th June 2025
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 View all Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 10 June 2025 - (10 Jun 2025)
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?
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 ExcerptsTuesday 3rd June 2025
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 View all Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 3 June 2025 - (3 Jun 2025)
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
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
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?
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.
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—
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
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
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.
Public Switched Telephone Network Migration: Communications Campaign
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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?
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?
Emily Darlington
And fashion. In fact, AI is a poor copy of what my hon. Friend represents and bring.
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(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
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)
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
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.
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)
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.
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)
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
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?
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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.