Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council Report: Government Response

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Written Statements

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

The security and resilience of the UK’s digital infrastructure is of central importance to the Government’s strategic objectives. This statement provides an update on the Government’s response to the Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council’s report and recommendations. It outlines the Government’s approach to addressing the risks to supply chains that support advanced connectivity technologies.

I am grateful to the Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council for its report and recommendations, setting out the risks we still carry and what the Government, working with industry, should do to address them.

Ensuring that individuals and businesses have access to high-quality connectivity serves as the foundation of our modern, digital economy. Given our current and future reliance on this connectivity, it is essential that these technologies are secure and resilient. This includes ensuring that we have a healthy, competitive telecoms supply chain, both to drive innovation and to avoid the risks that may arise from acute market concentration. In the broader digital sector, last year’s Crowdstrike incident, which led to IT outages worldwide, showed just how disruptive it can be when something goes wrong with a supplier to which we have high exposure.

I accept the Council’s recommendations. The previous Government took steps to begin addressing these risks, but Government and industry still have more to do. In the Government’s response, we reaffirm our commitment to secure and resilient digital infrastructure. We outline the steps we will take to manage risks in the short term, transition to a healthier supply chain in the medium term, and prevent similar risks from emerging in the long term.

By addressing these issues, we can drive growth and build sovereign capability by increasing the share of technologies developed within the UK. With a strong research base and a range of suppliers of advanced connectivity solutions based here, we aim to expand the UK’s role in the global supply chain and influence the next generation of technologies to meet our connectivity needs.

To seize this opportunity, the Government have committed to advanced connectivity technologies as a key growth market in the forthcoming industrial strategy, utilising our available levers to maximise our potential. We will work in partnership with the mobile network operators to deliver the measures set out in this response. To ensure all our efforts are well-targeted and informed by those both developing and deploying these technologies, we will also establish a new Advanced Connectivity Technologies Council.

The security and resilience risks to our digital infrastructure are significant, but the economic potential that will be unlocked by cutting-edge connectivity is vast. Guided by the Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council’s recommendations, the Government will work to advance secure, resilient and innovative digital infrastructure and the technologies that enable this, now and in the future.

The Government response will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

I look forward to continuing work to strengthen, secure and expand our digital infrastructure, working with stakeholders across the economy and international partners.

[HCWS552]

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Ofcom’s reporting of mobile coverage.

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

I am sure that every Member of the House would agree that Ofcom’s reporting of mobile coverage is rather over-optimistic and does not reflect people’s lived experience. I am absolutely determined to change that, and Ofcom is helping me to do so.

[Claire Hughes]

My constituent Lesley suffers from multiple health conditions, including epilepsy, and lives with the constant risk of seizures. Her family rely on broadband to use the landline, but recently the broadband went down for several days, which meant she was completely unable to make calls because of the ongoing problems with mobile coverage in Llandudno. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss how we can safeguard vulnerable customers such as Lesley and address the issues in Llandudno?

[Chris Bryant]

I think my hon. Friend also has a problem at one of her universities, which we are going to try to deal with as well. She has written to me, and I will write back as soon as possible, but perhaps we could short-cut that with a meeting. I am conscious that, for medical conditions, the resilience of someone’s connectivity is just as important as the day-to-day coverage.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his candour and honesty. He is one of the most effective, experienced and able Ministers in the Government. Having paid those compliments, can I encourage him to visit Shropshire, where there are still too many notspots? Perhaps one of the reasons is that this country has only four mobile network operators. Is it not time that we had more competition? Finally, is the shared rural network agreement likely to hit its targets by the end of this year?

[Chris Bryant]

The shared rural network will reach its targets. The right hon. Member makes a very good point, which is that, frankly, the connectivity that people think they are getting from Ofcom is simply not what they are actually getting. Their phone looks as though it has lots of bars and is saying 4G, but they cannot even download an app to park their car. We have to transform that across the whole of the UK. In the end, most of that is down to the industry, and I want to make sure that we remove some of the barriers to further investment in the industry to improve mobile connectivity for every single Member of the House.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that smaller platforms are adequately regulated to protect children from online harms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

6. What recent progress his Department has made on improving digital inclusion in Sherwood Forest constituency.

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

If we are to be a successful digital nation, we have to take the whole nation with us. We were proud recently to publish our first digital inclusion action plan, the first for 10 years, because of precisely that: we want to take everybody with us.

[Michelle Welsh]

Too often, in ex-mining communities such as Ollerton and Edwinstowe, in rural communities such as Farnsfield and even in Hucknall West, people struggle to get a phone signal and access to the internet. Constituents feel that they are left behind and miss out on the new and upcoming technologies that we know improve access to online jobs, education and business opportunities. Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure such communities are at the heart of the Government’s digital inclusion ambitions, so no one is left behind, especially those in deprived communities?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and her constituency exemplifies one of the issues we face, which is that we might have relatively affluent areas cheek by jowl with much poorer areas. That is why, in our digital inclusion action plan, we have tried to ensure that we address all the different forms of digital exclusion, whether it is by virtue of age, ethnicity, educational background or physical geography.

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

Lack of access to digital services prevents people from applying for jobs, studying and accessing healthcare, but community interest companies such as Donate IT, based in Wincanton, are helping to bridge the gap by diverting IT equipment that was otherwise heading to landfill. By refurbishing that tech and distributing it to the people, schools and groups who need it, Donate IT is helping to address digital poverty. How does the Minister plan to support such organisations to prevent electrical waste from going to landfill and to tackle digital exclusion?

[Chris Bryant]

I am really pleased that that is happening in the hon. Lady’s constituency. We were pleased as a Government to be able to say not only that many Government Departments will make sure that we do precisely the same thing, but that many major employers will also do the same. It is crazy to chuck old kit into landfill when, frankly, it could be used much better to provide people with digital opportunities for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

T3. Beckenham and Penge is where local lad David Bowie launched his music career, and today it is home to a vibrant, talented community of creatives whose work is increasingly sought after by AI companies. Our creatives deserve a just deal to provide fair pay for my constituents and the legal certainty required to encourage Ai investment. What steps is the Minister taking to deliver that?

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

This country is a creative content superpower, and we will do absolutely nothing to undermine that. We want to make sure that people are properly remunerated for their work and that AI companies have access to the high-quality data that they need to be able to deploy effectively in this country.

[Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

The Minister can see that the whole House has filled up out of concern at the atrocious mobile phone signal in Godalming and Cranleigh high streets and in Bramley, Shamley Green and Peaslake. Now that spring is in the air, will he visit Cranleigh to see for himself just what a problem this is?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, I was in Pizza Express in Godalming only a couple of weeks ago, and the mobile signal was absolutely shocking. I could not find my way to Busbridge village hall. I am not sure whether it is the MP or the Telecoms Minister who is rubbish—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”].

[Mr Speaker]

In which case, we will move on to Prime Minister’s questions.

Science, Innovation and Technology

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the Third Delegated Legislation Committee on the Draft Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025 on 19 March 2025.

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

…First, there are presently no rules enabling the Secretary of State to decide what “turnover” means in relation to potential non-compliance with a designated vendor direction, such as that on the use of Huawei services. The order corrects that so that it is established and laid down in statute what those provisions are.

Secondly, the order changes the term “provider” to the term “person” because the 2003 and 2021 Acts are not consistent one with another.

[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 March 2025; c. 3.]

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

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

…First, there are presently no unambiguously applicable rules enabling the Secretary of State to decide what “turnover” means in relation to potential non-compliance with a designated vendor direction, such as that on the use of Huawei services. The order corrects that so that it is established and laid down in statute what those provisions are.

Secondly, the order changes the terms “notified provider” and “provider” to the term “person” because the Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Penalties) (Rules for Calculation of Turnover) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/2712) and the 2021 Act are not consistent with one another.

Broadband Industry Commitments: Telegraph Poles

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Written Statements

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

Today, the Independent Networks Co-operative Association (INCA) and the Internet Services Providers’ Association (ISPA), the trade bodies representing the fixed-line broadband industry, have published new best-practice recommendations for the deployment of telegraph poles.

The Government understand the concerns of people across the country about the use of telegraph poles to support the deployment of new gigabit-capable broadband networks, especially where this duplicates other infrastructure or seems unnecessary.

I have heard from people who were not aware of new infrastructure coming to their street until telegraph poles were erected, and from people whose access to their driveway was blocked by a new unannounced pole. I certainly do not want to impede or slow down the roll-out of essential connectivity. I support the commercial and competitive roll-out, but I do want to ensure that this is done sensitively and proportionately.

Telegraph poles can play an important role in delivering connectivity. This is particularly important in areas that do not yet benefit from gigabit-capable connections, but even in areas that already benefit from gigabit-capable broadband, competition between different operators using poles and ducts can bring greater choice and lower prices to consumers.

Sharing existing infrastructure is obviously better for everyone, but it will not always be possible, for instance in areas where the existing broadband infrastructure was directly buried in the ground, without ducts. Ducts may also be full, or damaged. In some cases, developers have discovered that underground cabling is buried rather than ducted. In such areas, it is generally not possible to use existing infrastructure. Building new underground ducts can be up to 10 times more expensive than installing poles, and comes with its own challenges such as traffic disruption. Higher costs to operators will ultimately raise costs for consumers or result in infrastructure not being built at all.

The Government considered a range of options to ensure that we can effect change without negatively impacting roll-out. I have met with telecommunications providers on multiple occasions. I have sought targeted action where I was made aware of specific issues, and also voiced my strong concerns about the deployment of new infrastructure where alternatives, such as sharing existing infrastructure, would be viable.

In response to my concerns, INCA and ISPA undertook to work with their members and the wider fixed-line broadband industry to produce new guidelines for the deployment of telegraph poles. These guidelines set out conditions that must be followed when deploying telegraph poles, and set out what operators are expected to do when installing new infrastructure.

But more importantly, the new guidelines include a commitment by its signatories to always consider the needs of communities during the design and construction of new fibre networks.

I am grateful for the efforts of the industry, and trust that this new commitment, underpinned by strong expectations towards operators, will mean that communities can be confident that their needs are put first as the roll-out of gigabit-capable connectivity continues.

A copy of the “Telecommunications Poles Working Group Best Practice Recommendations” will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS548]

Tourism Industry

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson]

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

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

He might.

[Blake Stephenson]

He might.

[Chris Bryant]

Or he might not.

[Blake Stephenson]

He also might not. Let us see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

Are you inviting me?

[David Mundell]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Paul Davies]

I certainly cannot answer that.

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

Terrible!

[Anna Gelderd]

It was terrible, but it had to be done.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, you have?

[Sarah Olney]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[David Mundell]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Community Theatre

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

[Alison Bennett]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

[Gareth Snell]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2025

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Gifting of Navy Commissioners’ Barge

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS508]

Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

essentially, the dose-response effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Josh MacAlister]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Kit Malthouse]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

Division!

[Mr Quigley]

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

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

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

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

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

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

You’re not old enough.

[Caroline Voaden]

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Asato]

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

That is exactly what the Government will do.

[Jess Asato]

I am grateful to the Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

[Melanie Ward]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

[Kit Malthouse]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

[Kit Malthouse]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Chris Bryant]

I bet this is not a point of order.

[Kit Malthouse]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.