Future of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme
Chris Bryant Excerpts(5 days, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
The Government are extending the listed places of worship grant scheme until 31 March 2026, the end of this spending review period. This will continue to enable religious organisations to claim grants covering eligible VAT costs paid towards repairs and renovations.
Nearly £350 million has been awarded under the scheme since 2010, supporting listed churches, synagogues, mosques and temples across the UK. The scheme receives around 7,000 applications a year, of which more than 70% are for £5,000 or less.
Against a tough financial background and bearing in mind a wide range of competing priorities for expenditure within DCMS, we have made the difficult decision to implement an annual limit of £25,000 on the amount individual places of worship can claim in the coming year, and to limit the fund to £23 million. We believe that this will continue the widest distribution of the scheme’s benefits within the available means. Based on previous scheme data we expect 94% of claims to be unaffected by this change.
Places of worship are a key part of our built heritage, central to local communities’ wellbeing, pride in place and identity. In addition to the benefits to their congregations, listed places of worship often also provide facilities for the wider community including foodbanks, community halls and music venues and rehearsal spaces. I am pleased that despite the challenging fiscal context we are able to continue the scheme for a further year.
[HCWS382]
Listed Places of Worship Scheme
Chris Bryant Excerpts(5 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I start by praising my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this vital debate. As we can see, it is incredibly important to many hon. Members, and I want to acknowledge contributions from a number of them, but given the time, I cannot acknowledge everybody. I thought my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Members for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) all made wonderful contributions, as did the other Members I have not been able to mention. They have all made their faith communities incredibly proud. I take your steer, Mr Western, and will try and give the Minister as much time as possible to satisfy the Members in this House, because this is an important debate.
Britian is defined by its history: up and down the country, people are fiercely proud of their heritage. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, it is therefore right that we hold the Government to account as we try and stand up for our history and protect our heritage. In Opposition, we have campaigned on this issue very vehemently and I know there is a written ministerial statement on the way. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said this might be the shortest campaign ever.
Saqib Bhatti
It might the shortest WMS, which I hope tells us how the Minister is extending the scheme. I want to thank all the people from across the country who have written to us on this issue—their voice matters. I thank all the volunteers who protect our most beautiful heritage sites.
The Conservatives are very clear that Britian’s rich history, deep sense of tradition and incredible national story is something we should always protect, and there is no doubt that our churches, and other places of worship that have been announced, are fundamental to that. These cherished buildings play key roles in their local communities, serving both as a window into our past and as active centres of support and sanctuary for people of all faiths and none.
The people who look after them, as custodians of our future generations, are volunteers who give their time and energy generously with very little external help, but many of them are reliant on the vital lifeline that is the listed places of worship grant scheme. Introduced in 2001, the scheme provides essential grants covering the VAT charge and repairs to listed buildings used as places of worship. I am proud that the Conservative Government had a very strong record of supporting that important scheme. Under the previous Government, the listed places of worship grant scheme was extended, providing funding to cover VAT on essential repairs, which meant thousands of churches were protected for generations to come.
However—this may change—Labour is yet to announce whether it will fund the scheme past its expiry in March this year. The Budget came and went without an answer. This uncertainty is making the task of those who look after these precious buildings more precarious and stressful. Many are understandably delaying their plans until the Government make up their mind, meaning more leaky roofs, more draughty windows and more cold churches during the vital Christmas period. With the WMS on the way, I am hopeful that the Minister will announce something meaningful that goes beyond one year. I share the ambition of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove for the permanency of this grant, so I hope the Minister will address that point.
According to Historic England, 969 places of worship are under threat, including churches in the Prime Minister’s constituency. When questioned about the scheme at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister quoted a hymn, but the custodians of our historic churches need more than a hymn and a prayer. They deserve clarity and support from the Government, which I hope the Minister can give us today. That is important because Historic England’s informative heritage at risk register paints a harrowing picture for England’s historic sites. For places of worship in particular, the possibility of roofs collapsing or a lack of maintenance on stonework would be catastrophic.
Numerous constituents in my constituency of Meriden and Solihull East have written to me about their concerns for some of our most beloved local churches. They told me that discontinuing the scheme would
“be a disaster for listed places of worship”,
and that the ability to reclaim VAT
“makes an enormous difference, particularly at a time when the cost of building work has increased substantially.”
There is great frustration about the Government’s failure to confirm the extension of this vital scheme. It is not just felt by constituents; it has an impact on all our communities and on the rest of society.
The chair of the National Churches Trust, Sir Philip Rutnam, has called on the Government to renew the listed places of worship fund. Sir Philip states that the crisis affecting church heritage could get worse in the coming months if this vital “financial lifeline” is scrapped. The Bishop of Dudley, Bishop Martin Gorrick, also paints a bleak picture, saying,
“It is not just heritage that is at risk if the Scheme lapses. Churches and other places of worship are home to so much social enterprise and action: Church of England churches support over 35,000 social action projects such as foodbanks, community larders and debt, drug, alcohol advice and rehabilitation groups.”
The director of the Friends of Friendless Churches, Rachel Morley, wrote to the Secretary of State saying,
“The impact of this cut at a parish level would be devastating”
and that,
“We place the burden of caring for thousands of the nation’s most important buildings—undoubtedly the nation’s greatest free heritage resources—on a tiny proportion of the public who are, for the most part, volunteers.”
That view was eloquently shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox).
I hope the Government will confirm the continuation of the scheme as soon as possible or, better still, an expanded scheme that helps the custodians of listed places of worship to carry out vital repair works in the first place. One challenge I would put to the Minister is that the funding has been a rebate for many years. Let us make it into a grant and let us make it permanent. Will he also consider the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), which raises quite a vital point? I hope he addresses that.
I cannot speak about this issue without addressing the broader economic picture. If the Government were to neglect these cherished buildings, it would be an act of vandalism, but it would come as no surprise to many of our constituents if the Labour Government did turn a blind eye to this threat to our heritage, given where we are economically. We have seen the calamitous impact of the Chancellor’s callous Budget on our great houses already, including on our historic houses, and I have already written and made comments about the impact. Independent analysis has shown that the dramatic increase in inheritance tax could spell an end for many of our historic heritage sites and estates across the country. This would cost jobs and mean that some of the UK’s most popular stately homes would be closed.
I have very little confidence in the long-term faith that the Government would put in our heritage. Of course, the dire economic circumstances make a big difference. I have already raised the matter on the Floor of the House, because it is becoming ever clearer that the Chancellor will have to cut budgets. Although many of our voters, including many of my constituents, do not believe that they can afford a Labour Government, what they certainly cannot afford is the Minister abandoning our most vital sector, so I encourage him to stand up to the Chancellor and try to protect those vital budgets. As the cost of debt goes up and the economic situation becomes more dire, the Chancellor will have even less headroom to spend on schemes such as the listed places of worship grant.
Mr Western, in deference to your timing request, I will conclude. I share the concerns of many beyond this House that the Government are yet to protect our heritage. As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, hundreds of churches have been left with a deep sense of uncertainty for months. The Government’s failure to commit to that funding risks imperilling centuries of British history and heritage, all while leaving gaping holes in our local communities and depriving our constituents of spaces to accommodate celebration, grief, art, music, sculpture, political hustings—of course—wellbeing groups, childcare, addiction support sessions and so much more. The listed places of worship grant scheme is essential, and I urge the Minister to make the strongest possible case for its renewal to the Treasury; otherwise, many of our constituents will ask, “Is nothing sacred any more?”
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
I feel as if I have been beaten up for the last hour and a quarter in the most genteel way, with a maniple rather than a boxing glove. [Interruption.] I see that most people do not know what a maniple is; perhaps I am the only former priest in the room.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), excoriates me for citing a hymn. It was:
“nearer and nearer draws the time, the time that shall surely be,
when the earth shall be filled with the glory of God,”
and the Department will announce its decisions. The hon. Gentleman says that the Church cannot rely on a hymn and a prayer. Actually, if I might gently correct his theology, that is literally what the Church does rely on. He needs to go back to the 39 articles; I am quite happy to provide tutorials.
We have had Bede—not in Latin, I note. We have had Jethro Tull; I think that that was Jethro Tull the band, rather than the 18th-century agronomist. We have had Matthew Arnold, to whom I will return a little later, and of course Betjeman. We have also had Proverbs; I think 11:14 was quoted, very sensibly, but if we go up to 11:13, in the King James version, which is always my preferred one—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I thought that that might carry at least half the House. It reads:
“A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter”,
or in a more modern translation,
“A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy person keeps a secret.”
That is what we have been doing in the Department for a while now.
I warmly commend the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), who put his case extremely well. I think that I agreed with nearly everything he said, as I will come to in a moment. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox)—one of my favourite Conservative Members—quoted Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach”, and he knew that I would know it:
“The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full…
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar”.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. Part of the problem is dwindling congregations, which are sometimes fewer than a dozen. I know that the Bible says
“where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I”,
but when we are down to two or three, it is difficult to raise the funds for a beautiful, ancient building that is very expensive to maintain or even keep warm. Those are significant challenges, on which I want to work with all hon. Members.
We have focused mostly on Anglican churches—there are obviously not many medieval Catholic churches around—but of course this issue relates to all listed places of worship in the country and to many different congregations, denominations and religions. There is a specific issue for many of our very historic churches, which are beautiful and need our help as a nation.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove is right that churches are community hubs as much as anything else. They host youth groups, such as the one I used to run at All Saints, High Wycombe; I think I was a bit of a trendy vicar back then—that is all gone now. He referred to food banks, which are also run in many churches. In fact, the old Conservative Association in one of my valleys closed and became a food bank, which is run by a new church that has been set up there. That has managed to save an old historic building, which is great.
Choirs and orchestras often perform in churches, and churches are often warm spaces for people in winter. Although my memory of most churches is that they are rarely warm, the fund has been able to help to make segments of churches into warm places. Churches are also refuges for lots of people. The bit that we have not mentioned very much is that they are a place of worship, which is an important part of the spiritual life of this nation. Births, deaths, baptisms, funerals and weddings are a very important part of community life and a commitment to God.
Churches are also of phenomenal artistic and architectural importance. Some of the most beautiful buildings in this country are historic churches. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned Salisbury cathedral. There is the famous painting, of course; it is a very beautiful cathedral. I cannot now think of it without remembering the horrific, horrible Russians who claimed that they had come to Salisbury to visit the tourist site there when we know that they came with murderous intent.
Many of those places are a vital part of our country’s tourism. They are also often a living archive. Whether it is the memorials on the wall or on the floor, the brass rubbings that people look at, or the churchyards themselves, genealogy is still a very big business around the world, including for thousands of Americans. I think Walt Disney at one point came to Northamptonshire or somewhere where there is a d’Isney who may or may not be related. Many Americans come to British churches to see where their forebears came from.
Sir Roger Gale
Will the Minister accept that the volume of tourists that he has just referred to is essential to many listed buildings, particularly places such as Canterbury cathedral? That volume of tourism also, of course, adds to the cost of maintenance.
Chris Bryant
Yes, it does. For many cathedrals, deciding whether to charge is a difficult balancing act. It is a complicated decision, but the passage of millions of people through a building does wear it down. Toilets have to be renewed, places have to be kept warm, and the electrics have to be repaired and kept safe; we have heard a couple of references to fires in churches over the years.
I fully accept that volume of tourists is a massive challenge for us. We have a different settlement in this country compared with other countries. In the Church of England, when I was in the diocese of Oxford, we had what we used to refer to as “dead men’s money”, which is the Church’s historic endowment, but it is often stretched very thin.
Hon. Members have talked about funding. The churches themselves do a lot of fundraising, and I put on record my tribute to the widow’s mite and to those who have contributed significant sums over the years to keep churches open. I think Andrew Lloyd Webber has played a significant role in that, as have many others who have given tens of thousands of pounds or have left money to their local church. When I was a curate in High Wycombe we had to raise thousands of pounds for the spire. I think I sat for 24 hours outside the church reading poems, including Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach”, to help to raise money, and then they threw me out of an aeroplane as well—with a parachute.
The single biggest chunk of money that goes to churches, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove knows, comes from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Between 2017 and 2023, the amount of money given to smaller churches came to £165,188,049. That far eclipses the amount of money that comes through the scheme that we are talking about today. Even Bromsgrove has received £1.2 million from that fund since 1994, including for St Laurence, Alvechurch, which got £189,000 for repairs to its tower last year.
In addition, there is the Churches Conservation Trust, which is governed by the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969. We will be laying a statutory instrument fairly soon to enable that to continue with something in the region of £3 million, and it is responsible for a specific number of churches. The Church of England has also set aside £11 million for its Buildings for Mission fund. All that funding is excellent.
I have to say that, as a Minister of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the financial situation in our Department is very tough. Many hon. Members who have spoken could equally have come along and asked about the museums or libraries in their constituency, which have struggled because of local authority funding cuts over the last 14 years; or they might have said to me, “What about the local theatre or the local arts venue, which are struggling for finances? Or the music venues that have been closing, two a week, for the last few years?”; or they might point to other forms of heritage at risk. I note that the shadow Minister made several spending commitments for the next general election campaign, including significant extra funding for a whole series of different heritage bodies. There are a significant number of churches on the heritage at risk register. It is good that 23 places of worship have been removed from that since 2023, but obviously we want to go further if we can.
I tried to come to the House as soon as I could after we came to a decision. Going through the process in the Department has been difficult because the funding is so tight and we have a lot of competing demands. In addition, we have a series of arm’s length bodies, such as the national galleries and museums that are Government-owned and under Government responsibility, which we cannot leave out of the equation. I note the Father of the House’s comments earlier—I am sure he is not accusing me of using some kind of hidden tactic—but I wanted to come as soon as I could to respond to the debate, which we knew was going to be today. I have officials and everybody lined up so that I can make the proper announcements to the House as fast as we possibly can, because I think Parliament should hear them first.
Members will be aware from the Order Paper that an announcement on the future of the listed places of worship grant scheme is due today. The written ministerial statement will not say much more than I am about to say now, so hon. Members should not get too excited. I am pleased to be able to give certainty and announce that the scheme will continue in 2025-26 with a budget of £23 million. We have made this difficult decision against a tough financial background and bearing in mind a wide range of compelling priorities for expenditure within the Department.
In order to meet the budget, we have introduced a cap on the total amount that a listed place of worship can claim per year. We have set that at £25,000, which can still be spread across multiple claims from the same church. In all the years so far, 94% of applications have been under the £25,000 cap, and the vast majority of claims—over 70%—have been for less than £5,000. A written ministerial statement will be made shortly in both Houses to confirm and provide further details of this announcement, but, to be honest, there is not much more detail there.
Chris Bryant
I will, but I need to give enough time for the hon. Member for Bromsgrove.
Gideon Amos
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He said £25 million. Is it correct that there was £42 million of funding in the past? Is this a cut of £20-odd million?
Chris Bryant
No, that is not correct. The maximum amount that was spent last year was £29 million—I will be straight with the hon. Member that it is a smaller amount of money this year. An allocation had been made for £42 million but that amount was never spent because there were not sufficient applications.
By tradition, a cathedral is not symmetrical because only God is perfect. I am sure this funding is not perfection in terms of what everybody would want, but I hope it is at least acceptable.
Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices
Chris Bryant Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about ticketing in the live events sector.
In the words of the musical “Hamilton”, there is nothing quite like being
“in the room where it happens”.
I would hazard a guess that every single one of us here can remember the first time we went to a live event. My first rugby international was Wales versus Scotland at Murrayfield aged 12—the food was terrible. My first live gig was U2’s “The Joshua Tree” at Wembley arena. These moments of shared passion are part of what makes us the people we are. As Gloria Gaynor said,
“There’s nothing to compare to live music, there just isn’t anything.”
No wonder live events are so highly prized.
But for far too long, ticket touts have leached off fans’ passion. In the past, it was spivs in long raincoats at the gates. Nowadays it is a trade made all the more pernicious by the internet, which enables modern-day touts, hiding behind multiple false identities, to hoover up tickets and sell them at vastly inflated prices. It is indefensible. It trades off other people’s hopes and does not return a single penny to the artists, the performers, the venue, the industry or the sport. We said we would tackle this, and that is precisely what we are doing.
On Friday, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a consultation on the resale of live event tickets and a separate call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector. It is not a consultation on whether to act; it is a consultation on precisely how we should act. The UK has a world-leading live events sector. Our artists, festivals and venues bring joy to audiences across the country. Last year, the sector employed over 200,000 people, contributing to local economies up and down the country, from stage technicians and sound engineers to venue staff and promoters. Every event—whether a major stadium event or an intimate gig at a grassroots venue—injects life into local communities and economies, supporting small businesses and generating significant revenue for our towns and cities. It is musicians, performers and athletes who make the events what they are and who create the value that sits behind them, not the ticket touts.
Live events are a catalyst for creativity, too, where artists have a platform to hone their craft and relate directly to audiences, as well as to earn a living. Live performances create unforgettable shared experiences that transcend cultural and social boundaries, uniting communities up and down the country and shaping our national identity. However, too many fans are missing out on opportunities to experience those live events. Put simply, the ticketing market is not working for fans.
The Government recognise that a well-functioning ticket resale market can play an important role—for instance, allowing those who cannot attend an event to give someone else the opportunity to go in their place. But far too often tickets are listed on the resale market at extortionate prices, many multiples of the face value. Just one example: standing tickets for Charli XCX’s current UK tour were originally priced at £54, but they have been listed on ticket resale sites for as much as £400. That is enough, as she herself would put it, to
“Shock you like defibrillators”.
So-called scalping is the work of organised touts, who systematically buy up tickets in bulk on the primary market then resell them to fans at hugely inflated prices. The Government are committed to putting fans back at the heart of live events and clamping down on unfair exploitative practices. In doing so, we want fairness for fans and an economically successful live events sector. We made a manifesto commitment to act on this issue, and that is precisely what we will do.
That is why we have launched a consultation as the first major step towards delivering on this ambition. We want to act in an effective and responsible way, ensuring that any new protections work for fans and the live events sector. The consultation outlines a range of potential options to address ongoing problems. We are revisiting the recommendations from the Competition and Market Authority’s 2021 report on secondary ticketing that were not taken forward by the previous Government. They include a licensing regime for resale platforms, new limits on the number of tickets that individual resellers can list, and new requirements for platforms to ensure the accuracy of information about tickets listed for sale on their websites.
We are also keen to tackle scalping—that is to say for-profit resales of tickets above face value. That is why we are considering a statutory price cap on ticket resales, as seen in many other countries. Its purpose would be to break the business model of organised touts by prohibiting resale at vastly inflated prices. In the consultation, we ask how a price cap should be designed and implemented, so as to deliver a genuine sea change in the ticketing landscape to the benefit of fans and the live events sector, and whether it should be face value only, or plus 10%, 20% or 30%.
There is one other aspect—we might call it “the Oasis moment”—on which we are seeking evidence. The live events sector has adopted new approaches to selling tickets in recent years, including the use of new pricing strategies, and technologies such as dynamic pricing. I want to be absolutely clear: not all dynamic pricing is harmful. Fans often take advantage of early-bird tickets and last-minute price reductions—that is absolutely fine and we have no intention of stopping it. The key thing is that fans are treated fairly and openly, with timely, transparent and accurate information presented ahead of sales.
To better understand these changes and the challenges faced by fans, we are publishing a call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector. The consultation and call for evidence will be open for 12 weeks. We strongly encourage all interested stakeholders—fans, artists and performers, ticketing platforms and the wider live events sector—to respond. Once the consultation is complete, we will decide on next steps, but the House should be no doubt that we intend to act.
We have a world-class live events sector in the UK, but we do not have a secondary ticket market to match. In the words of T. Rex:
“It’s a rip-off
Such a rip-off”.
To the fans, the performers and the touts, let me be crystal clear: we will clamp down on unfair practices in the secondary market. The question is not whether but how we improve protections for fans. I commend this statement to the House.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement. As he said, dynamic pricing is a strategy used across many industries outside the creative sectors, including by hotels, taxis and airlines. It can offer significant benefits for consumers when prices are low—for example through early-bird tickets or late ticketing.
The Government are right to emphasise the importance of transparency. Oasis fans know—I am one of them—that we did not have the necessary information up front, and I understand that the Competition and Markets Authority is rightly investigating that episode. However, it is my view that new regulations should be considered only when they are necessary and proportionate and do not duplicate existing rules. Current legislation already states that although dynamic pricing is legal, it must be implemented transparently. I can assure the Minister that we will carefully consider any proposals that could strengthen, improve or simplify the market for fans, but I warn him that we will oppose regulation introduced for the sake of introducing new regulation.
The secondary ticket resale market plays an important role for artists, fans and venues. It can provide a safer way to transfer unwanted tickets, ensuring that seats in venues are not left empty. The Minister claims that his reforms will better protect fans, improve access to live events and support the creative sectors. He claims that the proposals will give power back to fans and prevent them from being fleeced by ticket touts. We know that that is not true, however. We know that Labour’s plans will harm fans and venues, and make live events even harder to attend. [Interruption.] The Minister wants to know so I will tell him.
Let us first discuss price caps on resale tickets. The Government’s consultation proposes capping ticket resale prices to somewhere between the original price and a 30% uplift. That may seem on the surface like a reasonable measure, but we know that it will lead to an upsurge in black market activity and to more money flowing into the pockets of ticket touts. In fact, price controls would lead to a surge in unregulated and illegal transactions, leaving fans with little to no consumer protections. The Minister might not believe me, a free-marketeer, but in response to Government’s consultation, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, warned that
“Draconian regulation, targeting only the secondary market, will only mean more tickets changing hands in informal settings without the same protections that exist in proper marketplaces.”
I regret to say that the Government’s proposed measures to increase the regulation of resale websites and apps, and to raise fines for rule violations, will not prevent fans from turning to underground markets. We have already seen that in Victoria, Australia, where a 10% profit cap failed to prevent significant mark-ups on ticket prices, and even led a spike in the number of ticket scams. We know that scams are already a serious issue in the secondary ticketing market. For example, and as the Minister will be aware, Lloyds Bank estimates that Taylor Swift fans lost £1 million in ticket scams ahead of her tour. If his policy had been in place, how much more would fans have lost to scammers?
We know that a ticket resale cap will lead to empty seats and the prevent spontaneous ticket purchases. We saw that at the Paris Olympics, where restrictions on the resale of tickets left empty seats at many venues. Empty seats are bad not just for artists, but for the economy. Events at stadiums and venues provide a boost for local businesses, including restaurants, bars and other hospitality venues. Let us be clear: the hospitality industry is already under a lot of strain, not least because of the Budget of broken promises. Labour’s national insurance jobs tax, and its slashing of reliefs, have led the Music Venue Trust to warn that many businesses are at
“immediate risk of closure, representing the potential loss of more than 12,000 jobs, over £250 million in economic activity and the loss of over 75,000 live music events.”
Let us be clear: the reason we are here today is that the spin doctors in No. 10 are trying to move the news cycle away from a beleaguered Prime Minister, a Chancellor already drowning in the debt markets, and an anti-corruption Minister being accused of corruption. All the while, the Government and the Department are throwing creative industries and hospitality businesses under the bus.
Chris Bryant
Lordy, lordy, lordy! The hon. Gentleman says that he is an Oasis fan, but to be honest given how he talks about the last Tory Government, I think he must be a Nirvana fan—because everything was absolutely perfect when he was a Minister, wasn’t it?
Let me first put something right. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that our call for evidence on dynamic pricing is about all sorts of different industries, but it is only about the live events sector. We are not talking about the tourism industry, hotels, taxis or anything like that; we are talking solely about the live events sector. We recognise that that was not part of our manifesto commitments, so we want to hear people’s evidence and whether we need to take further measures.
One thing that I can say confidently is that it seems horribly unfair for someone logged into the system to see the ticket price going up—£120, £125, £130, £135—because that creates a sense of panic that they must buy one. It is perfectly legitimate to consider whether that is a good way of selling tickets and whether it is fair to consumers. That is a legitimate question to ask. I cannot comment on the Oasis situation; the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Competition and Markets Authority is investigating that.
Let me correct the hon. Gentleman’s other point. He kept saying, “We know that” this, that or the other will happen. Well, we do not know, for a start, but more importantly, let me explain to him what we are really trying to tackle. It is the thing where, say, Becky, who lives in flat 23, No. 75 High Street, is desperate to get two tickets to see her mum’s favourite band on her mum’s birthday later that year. She is absolutely desperate, so she tries and tries again to log on at 9 o’clock. She cannot manage to get into the system, but can see the tickets selling. At 20 past 9, all the tickets are gone but then—lo and behold—at 21 minutes past 9, they are available on the secondary ticketing market for vastly inflated prices. That is what we are trying to tackle. It is a very simple problem.
The hon. Gentleman referred to just one country, but loads of places around the world—France, Italy, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Norway, Japan, Belgium, most of Canada, most of Australia, Israel, and several states in the United States—have simple measures in place. We want to ensure that we tackle that very simple problem. In the end, the value is created by the artists themselves and by the passion of the fans. It should not go into pockets that are not, in the main, based in this country and certainly have not contributed anything to the creation of that value in the first place.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Having campaigned on this issue for over 15 years, I have reached three main conclusions. First, the cap on resale should be set as low as possible—for example, face value plus 5% or 10%—to take the incentive out of scalping, or else we should simply follow the Irish model and prohibit resale for profit altogether.
Secondly, many touts and resale sites are based overseas, so legislation must be supranational. Finally, any crackdown on the black market must be fully enforced, unlike in the current situation where prosecutions are few and far between: there have been a handful—six at most. Does the Minister agree?
Chris Bryant
I agree that my hon. Friend has campaigned on the subject for 15 years, because I have heard nearly every speech she has made on it, and she has been absolutely magnificent over the years. I pay tribute to her. Many artists in this country will be grateful for her work because so often they are caught in a completely invidious situation as they see tickets going for preposterous prices. I looked earlier at StubHub, which is selling Dua Lipa tickets for Wembley on 20 June with a face value of £81.45 for £2,417. For Jimmy Carr at Milton Keynes in two days’ time, Viagogo has tickets with a face value of £60 for £202. That is the problem that we must deal with.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about supranational issues; this problem does not just apply in the UK. It is difficult for us to prevent these people from selling tickets for Olivia Rodrigo concerts in Mexico, but we can ensure that measures do apply for Olivia Rodrigo concerts in the UK. She is also absolutely right about enforcement. That is why we are looking at whether there should be a licensing regime and, if so, precisely how that should work. She has made this point in many speeches—I will reiterate it for her: we have hardly seen any prosecutions whatever under the complex set of rules that there are at the moment, and that is one of the things that we have to fix.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I add my thanks to the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It is good to have the Government’s next steps to try to support fans, performers and others working in the live events industry laid out in the announcement. We know the huge value of live events in this country, which make a great contribution to our economic as well as our cultural wellbeing, and it is right that the Government are taking action. Too many fans across the country have fallen prey to sharp practices and touts ripping them off, and the Liberal Democrats are supportive of taking action.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for the implementation of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations to crack down on ticket resale. Those recommendations should be leading the Government forward on this issue. Measures such as capping ticket resales are important. Can the Minister provide greater clarity on the Government’s intentions in that regard? Will he suggest what cap on ticket resales the Government would favour at the moment and what new powers of enforcement they will give to trading standards and the CMA? Beyond those measures, will the Government consider being more ambitious by, for example, giving consumers more control by requiring ticket companies to provide accurate information on price increases or answering Liberal Democrat calls to review the use of transaction fees?
I want to be clear that we welcome the Government’s looking at the queuing systems used by ticket sellers in both the primary and resale markets and considering measures that could address the current situation, which, as the Minister described, too often feels unfair and arbitrary to those fans on the end of it. Hearing the voices of fans in this discussion is undoubtedly important, so we really welcome the consultation, but fans also want to know that the Government will get on and act to solve these problems. To conclude, may I ask the Minister to inform the House about when fans will start to see some changes being implemented?
Chris Bryant
I welcome the hon. Member to his post and welcome the Lib Dems’ support for what we are proposing. There are just a couple of things. He referred to accurate information, which it could certainly be argued is already legislated for but not well enforced. Indeed, when I looked at some of these sites earlier today, it was interesting to see that sometimes the face value was findable, but not at the same time as the price to be paid. We would think it should be mandatory for somebody to be able to see both at the same time, to see whether they are going to be ripped off. I personally do not subscribe to the line that if somebody is prepared to pay £2,417 for a Dua Lipa ticket, so be it. It seems to me that that is effectively the line from Eurythmics:
“Some of them want to be abused”;
I do not think that we should adopt that policy at all.
On the point that the hon. Member made about transaction fees, I think that I am right in saying that section 230 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 would already apply to what he is arguing for. If I have got that wrong, I will send him a note.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I note that at one point—it may have been at a particular event—you said that your favourite song was “Girls Just Want to Have Fun” by Cyndi Lauper. She performed at the Royal Albert Hall last year, and I am not sure whether you were there.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The statement is hugely welcomed by me, after the disappointment of my private Member’s Bill on this subject falling off, and by my constituent Alison Martin, the mum of Coldplay’s Chris, who fed into my Bill. Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that he will resist the argument about over-regulation of our lives and market forces that we hear “Time After Time” from Conservative Members? We just heard it again. When I was trying to get sign-ups for my Bill, many Conservative Members did not want to know. This is a consumer protection measure—a cap for all our constituents—to stop those bots from hoovering up tickets and hiking up prices. Will the Minister also reiterate that we are not against all dynamic pricing? The price of tickets can go down as well as up, and we do not mind that.
Chris Bryant
I commend my hon. Friend on her private Member’s Bill. I told her that we were going to be acting fairly soon so her Bill might not be necessary. She did not believe me, and she ploughed on, but we are intent on acting.
My hon. Friend is quite right about dynamic pricing. I have been involved in a small arts festival in Treorchy in my constituency where we offer early-bird tickets. That is a form of dynamic pricing that I think works for everybody, and we certainly do not want to prohibit that.
My hon. Friend is quite right: much as I like my opposite number, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), I find it quite easy to resist him. When I think of the previous Government, I keep thinking of this line from Pink:
“What about all the plans that ended in disaster?”
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s putting music fans at the forefront of these consultations, although the Minister will know that I would like him to go further and have a full fan-led review of music. Meanwhile, looking at the details of these consultations, it is telling that while Ticketmaster welcomed the resale consultations, it is silent on the dynamic pricing issue. The Minister will recall that Oasis told their fans that dynamic pricing was a
“tool to combat ticket touting”.
Does he agree that if the Government act decisively to stop large-scale touting from inflating ticket prices, there will be less need for promoters such as Live Nation to have to use dynamic pricing?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member makes a good point, and it is a delight to be able to agree with her on something in this area at the moment. We might yet have a little bit of a disagreement over copyright and artificial intelligence, but I think that is only because she has misunderstood what we are trying to do. I hope to be able to sit down with her and talk it all through.
We want to ensure that we get the legislation right, and that is why we are doing a consultation rather than just storming ahead with a piece of legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) said, there is no point in carrying out any of these measures unless we have a proper system of enforcement.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for the doughty way in which she has fought this corner for many years. I remember how even back when I was the shadow sports Minister and this was my area, she was campaigning hard on it. This is very much legislation in favour of the fans. We have to remember that, in many cases, the artists realise that their own fans are being priced out of being able to go to their concerts by the practices of these online ticket touts, so legislation is well overdue if we want to make tickets affordable so that true fans can see their favourite bands and artists. I urge my hon. Friend to move ahead swiftly to bring it in.
Chris Bryant
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I commend him too, because he has been working on this issue for quite a long time—when he was shadow sports Minister, it was one of the things that he was keen for us to progress. I am joined by the sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and of course one of the ironies is that in some sports, we already implement something remarkably similar, if not tougher. It is perfectly legitimate for us to be moving in a direction that puts those sectors on an equal footing.
I take my hon. Friend’s point about speed. I recognise that I did not respond to the question from the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) about when we will get action. I very much hope that if we get a clear answer from the consultation, we will be able to come forward with plans as a matter of urgency. There must be a King’s Speech coming along some time soon.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Continuing the Cyndi Lauper theme, I am sure the Minister agrees that we have to see these touts in their true colours. The fact is that they will try to find ways around these eminently praiseworthy proposals. Let us imagine that the Minister gets his cap in place; what is to stop an undercover operation going ahead with a large number of individuals trying to make a small number of sales each on a website such as eBay? How would the Minister be able to enforce the cap in a situation like that?
Chris Bryant
It is not just about the cap—we are consulting on several elements, one of which is how many tickets an individual seller should be able to purchase. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East, could have argued that some of this is already dealt with in the legislation, but I would argue that the legislation is not clear enough, which is one of the things we need to tackle. If we look at all the different bits of legislation we have accumulated over the years, every time there has been a Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South has been able to table an amendment to, with support from some magnificent people in the House of Lords, it has been possible to get things through. That is why we may need to do quite a bit of rationalisation of the legislation in this field, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a good point: we will always have to keep ahead of the game.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted by the Minister’s statement today. This consultation will be welcomed by the entire co-operative movement, which has been campaigning to keep fans at the heart of music. Access to culture is such an important part of our country, and our movement stands as the party of the consumer. Does the Minister agree that actions such as taking this consultation forward are the best way to extend access to culture for real fans?
Chris Bryant
Yes, I do. Incidentally, there is another point on which we want to make real progress. We must have not only the massive gigs that everybody loves going to—where you can celebrate with thousands—but very intimate gigs. One of the most special moments is seeing a band perform first in a tiny venue of just 100 or 150 people, and then seeing them in a massive venue, performing at Glastonbury or whatever it might be. We need to look at the whole of the music system in the UK. That means a creative education for every single child—wouldn’t it be good if every child had the opportunity to go to live music at least once a year, as well as the opportunity to learn a musical instrument or learn how to sing? Those are all parts of the whole-of-music approach that we need in this country.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I warmly congratulate the Government on bringing forward these measures, which I wholeheartedly support. I was very surprised by the response from the Conservative Front Bench; I think they have got caught up in some garbled, ill-informed nonsense, but I really hope that in time, they come on board with these proposals, because they are important. For too long, music fans have been ripped off and abused by the touts and scalpers, who have been nothing other than parasites on our live music sector, so I wholeheartedly welcome these proposals.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), as well as the FanFair Alliance—which has been campaigning on this issue for such a long time—and campaigning newspapers such as the Daily Record that regularly feature large articles on it. While we have this in place, I would like to hear more about the proposals on dynamic pricing, which I think is the issue that perplexed music fans more than anything else over the summer. We now have some sort of routeway towards resolving ticket touting, but we need to hear more about exactly what the Minister will do about dynamic pricing, because that is something that needs fixed.
Chris Bryant
It is always a delight to be able to please the hon. Gentleman—as I think he would confess, that is not an event that happens very often on the Government Benches. I am not sure whether any tickets are available for his music gigs, or whether they are selling at multiple prices, but he has been a doughty campaigner for the creative industries over the years, and I welcome that.
We were very clear in the general election about what we were going to do in relation to the primary issue. We did not make any commitments around dynamic pricing, which is why we are offering a much more tentative approach to that issue. We also know that there are forms of dynamic pricing that work extremely well; when a person buys a last-minute theatre ticket, that is a form of dynamic pricing, because you want to get the theatre full at the end of the day. We want to tread a bit more carefully in that area, which is why we are launching a call for evidence, rather than presenting our proposals at this stage. If the hon. Gentleman has got good ideas about what we should do, my door is open—do come and talk to us.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I am made up at today’s statement, especially as someone with a music industry background and as a big fan. Dynamic pricing made headlines last summer when Oasis’s fans were hit by prices that were two, three, or even four times the face value of the tickets after they had queued for hours and hours. When they got to the payment stage, they had a matter of minutes to decide whether they wanted those tickets. John Robb, the music writer, said that dynamic pricing is
“exploiting people’s excitement in the worst possible way”
after Ticketmaster behaved no better than the touts they claim to protect fans from. I welcome the call for evidence about this practice, but can the Minister assure me that it will lead to real action so that fans are no longer ripped off by surge pricing?
Chris Bryant
Just about the first thing my hon. Friend said to me when she collared me in the Lobby after we had won the general election was, “You are going to do something about ticket touts, aren’t you?”, so I am glad I am able to please her this afternoon. One of the worst things that can happen—I am sure every member of Oasis would say this—is for everybody who has gone through the process of buying tickets to be saying, “Don’t look back in anger.” [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Sorry, I had to work really hard to fit that in, but it is a true point. We want the process of buying a ticket to be fair, open and transparent, and for the person buying the ticket to feel that they have got a sane and sensible deal, rather than that they have been ripped off. The problem with the present situation is that all too often, people feel that they have just been ripped off, which undermines the joy and passion of the event.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Every time the Government propose something that is in the interests of the consumer and the public, I am so excited, so I welcome the Minister’s statement. As well as dynamic ticket pricing, where the price of the ticket itself fluctuates —always in the wrong direction—there are high and disproportionate service fees, which can also become higher during peak times. Does the Minister agree that there is a clear need for transparent pricing for consumers, so that they can see a breakdown before they press “buy”?
Chris Bryant
I agree 100% with the hon. Gentleman about the fees issue. There is an argument that it is already dealt with by section 230 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, but that is why we are consulting on that specific issue. To the ticket touts who have complained about this, I say that in the words of the musical “Chicago”, they had it coming—they only had themselves to blame.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his very positive statement, and I believe everybody in the Chamber will be encouraged by what he has announced. He is surely familiar with the Oasis lyrics, which I promise not to sing:
“And so Sally can wait, she knows it’s too late as we’re walking on by.”
Unfortunately for many fans, waiting was not an option, and they were left with the painful reality that dynamic pricing made their wallets melt away. Given reports that fans were subjected to inflated prices through in-demand dynamic pricing, with tickets jumping from less than £150 to over £350 in moments, how will the Minister ensure that ticket sellers—and event organisers in particular—comply with the proposed consumer protection laws, especially those requiring transparency in pricing?
Chris Bryant
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s comments, and for his musical rendition. He did not put it into song, for which I should probably be grateful as well, but—I do not know—maybe he has a beautiful high tenor voice.
One of my anxieties about this whole situation is that there have not been very many prosecutions, which is perhaps because the law has been too complicated. However, it may also be because trading standards departments have really struggled in recent years, because they are subject to local authority budget cuts. That is why this, for me, is part of the whole of what the Government are trying to do, which is to put our public services back on a much more solid and secure footing and to bring in legislation that stands up for consumers. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member, and if he has any particular ideas on how we could specifically ensure that there is proper enforcement, not least in Northern Ireland, I would be really grateful to hear from him.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Bryant Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
We are absolutely determined to make sure that copyright and intellectual property are protected, as they always have been in this country. Our consultation is designed to do two specific things: to make sure there is legal certainty for AI developers and creative industries alike, and to make sure there is more licensing of copyright material by AI developers.
Ms Billington
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, visual artists earn far below the minimum wage, and rely on copyright royalties to finance their work and continue to contribute to our world-leading creative industries—in Thanet and across the country. What reassurances can the Minister give that the plans for a copyright exception for AI learning will not further contribute to that financial instability and weaken the lifeblood of our creative economy?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She could big up her own constituency a little more, because Margate is probably one of the greatest centres of artists in this country. It is where Turner was trained and went to school, and where we have Turner Contemporary. It is also where Tracey Emin is doing so much work and many other artists as well. It is a brilliant hub.
We want to make sure—as we did in the last Labour Government, when we introduced the artist’s resale right—that artists can earn a living from their art. That is what we are determined to do. Just as last year New Zealand and Australia entered into the same agreement for an artist’s resale right, we want to make sure that there is a future revenue stream for every single artist in this country.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that transparency is crucial if creators are to understand where their works are being used by AI developers? Can he therefore assure me that the Government will legislate on transparency whatever the outcome of the consultation on copyright reform?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about transparency, which is a key element of our consultation. We have presented a package because we want to ensure there is a win-win here. We want AI developers to have the legal certainty that they need to develop their products in the UK as UK producers, and for creative industries to know when their works are being used, so that if they want to say no they can say no, and if they want to say yes they will be properly remunerated for it.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Only this week, we announced a £289 million contract that will deliver gigabit-capable broadband to 131,000 difficult-to-reach premises across England and Wales. We are determined to make sure that in every part of the country, including in the hon. Member’s constituency, we reach all those places.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. In some villages in my constituency such as Cannington and Nether Stowey, fewer than 10% of households have access to gigabit broadband, and download speeds are among the slowest in the country. Will he advise how his Department will ensure that, under the new contract, Openreach fulfils its obligations and my constituents get that faster broadband?
Chris Bryant
First, I commend the hon. Member, because this is the fourth time that he has asked a question of me broadly in this territory. In the words of Browning,
“Hark, the dominant’s persistence till it must be answered to!”
He is quite right: there are villages in his constituency where there is no proper gigabit-capable internet available. I am determined to deal with that, and I am happy to meet him because, in the words of the musical “Oklahoma!”, I am
“a girl who cain’t say no”.
I am very happy to meet him—
Copyright and Artificial Intelligence
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
And now for something completely different! With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement regarding our launch of a public consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence.
The United Kingdom has a proud tradition of creativity and technical innovation. From our film and television sectors to video games, publishing, music, design and fashion, our creative industries are a cornerstone of our economy and our creative identity. They bring £125 billion to the economy and employ over 2.3 million people. James Bond, the Beatles, Vivienne Westwood, Adele, “Vera”, Bridget Riley, “Tomb Raider”, the Sugababes, “Football Manager”, Paddington and Paul Smith are all part of an immensely valuable British industry.
The creative industries are central to our economic future, and we are determined to help them flourish. The same is true of artificial intelligence—both as an enabler of other industries, including the creative industries, and as a sector in its own right. The Government are determined to capitalise on the UK’s position of strength in the global AI sector and will soon publish the AI opportunities action plan, which will set out an ambitious road map to unlock AI’s transformative potential across our economy and public services.
Both the creative industries and AI sectors are at the heart of our industrial strategy, and they are also increasingly interlinked. AI is already being used across the creative industries, from music and film production to publishing, architecture and design; it has transformed post-production, for instance. As of September 2024, more than 38% of creative industries businesses said that they have used AI technologies, with nearly 50% using AI to improve their business operations.
Strong copyright laws have been the bedrock of the creative industries, but as things stand, the application of UK copyright law to the training of AI models is fiercely disputed. Rights holders, including musicians, record labels, artists and news publishers, are finding it difficult to control the use of their works to train AI models, and they want and need a greater ability to manage such activity and to be paid for it. Likewise, AI developers, including UK-based start-ups, are finding it difficult to navigate copyright law and complain that the legal uncertainty means that they are unable to train leading models in the UK.
The status quo cannot continue. It risks limiting investment, innovation and growth in the creative industries, the AI sector and the wider economy. Neither side can afford to wait for expensive litigation—either here or in the US—to clarify the law, not least because courts in different jurisdictions may come to different conclusions and individual cases may not provide clarity across the sector. Nor can we simply rely on voluntary co-operation. That is why we think the Government must take proactive and thoughtful action that works for all parties.
The consultation published yesterday sets out clearly that the Government’s objectives on this issue are threefold: to enhance rights holders’ control of their material and their ability to be paid for its use, to support wide access to high-quality material to drive the development of leading AI models in the UK, and to secure greater transparency from AI developers in order to build trust with creators, creative industries and consumers. In short, we want to provide legal certainty for all and to secure enhanced licensing of content.
There are three key aspects to our consultation. The first is increased transparency from AI developers. That includes the content that they have used in training their large language models, how they acquire it, and any content generated by their models. In other words, consumers should know whether a book or song has been generated by a person or by artificial intelligence, and whose content helped generate it in the first place. The second aspect is a new system of rights reservation, whereby rights holders can withhold their content from being used unless and until it has been licensed. The third is an exception to copyright law for text and data mining where rights holders have licensed their content or otherwise chosen not to reserve their rights. That would improve access to content by AI developers, while allowing rights holders to control how their content is used for AI training.
Those measures are contingent upon each other. Progressed together, we believe this package of measures could enhance the ability of rights holders to protect their material and seek payment for its use through increased licensing, while also enabling AI developers to train leading models in the UK in full compliance with UK law. It will, however, only work if there is a proper system of rights reservation in place. I urge everyone to read and respond to the consultation document and to examine the safeguards we are proposing for rights holders. I would especially urge both AI developers and rights holders to work with us to identify a simple, practical, proportionate and effective technical system of rights reservation, without which the whole package will not work.
We are conscious that the UK does not operate in a hermetically sealed bubble, and this provides its own challenges. If we were to adopt a too tight regime based on proactive explicit permission, the danger is that international developers would continue to train their models using UK content accessed overseas but may not be able to deploy them in the UK. As AI becomes increasingly powerful and widely adopted globally, this could significantly disadvantage sectors across our economy, including the creative industries, and sweep the rug from underneath British AI developers. That is why, as well taking this approach in the UK, we are committed to international engagement and recognise the importance of international alignment.
This consultation is a joint effort between the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Intellectual Property Office, and between the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), who has responsibility for AI, and me, with responsibility for the creative industries.
This is not an academic exercise. The consultation is absolutely clear that we will not implement these changes unless and until we are confident that we have a practical, practicable and effective plan that meets our objectives of enhancing rights holder control, providing legal certainty around AI firms’ access to content, and providing transparency for rights holders and AI developers of all sizes. My fellow Minister and I will be engaging directly with a wide range of people in an attempt to find practical and technical solutions to this question.
Many people have called this an existential question for our creative industries. They are right. We therefore see this consultation as a pivotal opportunity to ensure that sustained growth and innovation for the UK’s AI sector continues to benefit creators, businesses and consumers alike while preserving the values and principles that make our creative industries so unique. We believe that there is a potential win-win solution, and that the UK, with its strong traditions of copyright and technological innovation, is in a unique place to deliver it. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Minister, Dr Ben Spencer.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call our very own James Bond, Minister Chris Bryant.
Chris Bryant
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Fortunately, I asked ChatGPT what the shadow Minister would ask me and it was pretty much right—although some of the questions from ChatGPT were rather more to the point. I will deal with the serious points he made.
First, the shadow Minister raised the point about mimicking artists. That is one of the things we are consulting on. There is a legitimate question about whether we should take further action in this country. Tennessee has acted: it has got its ELVIS Act—the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act. California and a couple of other states in the United States of America have acted on this already, and whether we should move in that direction is a perfectly legitimate question.
Likewise, the shadow Minister referred to computer-generated works. He will probably know that under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 there is provision that seems to guarantee the right for computer-generated art to be copyright-protected. That is not the case in most other countries, and it could be argued that developments in recent copyright law on the nature of originality would suggest that, unless a human being is directly involved in the creation of the work, there should not be copyright protection. We have suggested a direction of travel to get rid of section 9(3) of the Act.
The shadow Minister said that we have delayed bringing this forward, but I merely point out that for quite a long time the previous Government said that they would bring forward a voluntary system, bringing the two sides together. Nothing whatsoever came from that, so I am afraid that feels a bit of a cheat.
What I want to contest is the idea that we have sided with one or the other. There is a legitimate problem, which is that AI companies and the creative industries are at loggerheads in the courts in several different jurisdictions on several different points which are moot at the moment. We do not think that simply standing by the present situation will suffice because the danger is that in two or three years’ time all UK content will have been scraped by one or other AI developing company somewhere else in the world if there is no legal clarity in the UK. I would like to be able to bring all that home so that AI operators can work in this country with security under the law, using UK copyright that has been licensed and paid for, because that is another potential revenue stream for creators in this country.
The shadow Minister asks about extending the consultation. I am not going to extend the consultation. We want to crack on with this piece of work. Only two minutes earlier in his speech he said that we were delaying bringing it forward and then he said we should delay further. It is time that we seize hold of this. I certainly will meet with a large number of people. My fellow Minister my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North and I have met many different organisations and we will be providing a list because it will be in our transparency returns published soon, and the number must run to dozens if not hundreds. Of course, there are differing views, but I make it absolutely clear that the three measures we are talking about—the transparency on inputs and outputs that AI developers will have to provide, the provisions for creators to reserve their rights, and the exemption for data mining for commercial purposes—are contingent upon each other. We will not move forward with such a package unless there is a technical solution to the question of how people can reserve their rights.
At the weekend, I looked online to see what it would be like to try to reserve rights, by pretending to be various musicians and artists. At present, it is phenomenally difficult and complicated—other Members may have questions about this—and that must change. There must be a proper rights reservation system that is easy to use, practicable and enables creators, either individually or collectively, to assert and maintain control of their rights.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The UK is in a unique position—second in the world in the creative industries, and in the top three for AI innovation—so getting the right solution to protect and support our intellectual property, while supporting and incentivising AI innovation, is uniquely important to our cultural and economic life.
I am a former regulator and chartered engineer, so I welcome the Minister’s decision to go with regulatory technology as the solution, and to challenge the tech sector to come up with technology to ensure we can have both the reservation of rights and the transparency of inputs to large language models, both of which are critical.
The tech sector too often spends less time protecting people and property than maximising profit, but the language of the consultation is a bit vague. The Minister talked about arriving at a plan rather than a solution, so will he make it absolutely clear that any text and data mining exemption is contingent on the technology being deliverable, implementable and workable, and that if the technology fails, the exemption fails?
Chris Bryant
I welcome the Chair of the Select Committee to her place. She is 100% right that we cannot have the text and data mining exemption for commercial purposes unless there is a proper rights reservation system in place. I do not know whether she has looked at rights reservation, but it is terribly complicated. People can use the robots exclusion protocol, but it is rather out of date and is avoided by many players in the market. It is very complicated and applies only to a person’s own website, whereas their creative input might not be on their personal website—it might be on somebody else’s.
I tried to create a Bridget Riley using an AI bot over the weekend. The bot had obviously trained itself on some Bridget Riley works, but it was a shockingly bad Bridget Riley—it was nowhere near. I wanted to ask whether it had used Bridget Riley’s work to learn how to make a Bridget Riley-like picture and, if so, whether Bridget Riley received any compensation. Bridget Riley could use another website, haveibeentrained.com, if she wanted, but it is phenomenally complicated. That is precisely what must change. The AI companies must come up with a technical solution, whether they produce music, text or whatever. Without that, we will not be able to progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is always easier if the Minister looks at the Chair, so we can ensure that we are sticking to time limits.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The UK can and should be a global leader in AI innovation, and I welcome this consultation. Investment and support for technological innovation will be a crucial pillar of growing our economy and solving the problems of today and tomorrow. Likewise, our world-leading creative industries must remain a growth priority.
In my constituency, I see the invaluable contribution that the film industry makes to the local and national economy, driving growth while producing top-quality content. We might not have James Bond, but we have had “Robin Hood” and “Deadpool”, and “Wicked” was recently filmed just over the border.
The creative industries have been clear that failure to apply existing copyright laws to AI model training presents an existential threat. They are being asked to allow their output to be used to train models that could be in direct competition with them. We must get this balance right.
There is no uncertainty in existing law. UK law is totally clear that commercial organisations must license the data they use to train their large language models. The announcement that the Government favour a text and data mining exemption will be deeply concerning to the creative industries. The issue was thought to be settled under the previous Government, so what assessment have the Government made of the likely impact of their favoured option on the creative industries? The expectation seems to be that small businesses in the creative industry should welcome an opt-out system in exchange for vague commitments to transparency, so will the Minister lay out what successful, workable examples of an opt-out system he has looked at? Can he give us examples of where this approach has successfully protected creatives? Why has the option of an opt-in not been included in the consultation?
As has been said previously, the creative industry adds £125 billion a year in gross value to the economy and goes hand in hand with our digital economy. It is essential that the Government support AI innovation, but that cannot come at the cost of our world-leading creative industry.
Chris Bryant
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will look at you to make sure that I do not go over time, but I would point out that “Wicked” is far too long a movie.
I make it clear that I do not think there is a complete separation between AI and the creative industries. AI is a creative industry in many regards. There is an important collaboration between the two, and even Sir Paul McCartney has said that he has used AI to help him write some of his most recent work.
The hon. Lady says this was all settled under the previous Government, but nothing in this territory was settled under the previous Government. It was simply left hanging in the air, which is why we are trying to take action. She asks whether there are any successful examples of opt-outs. No, there are not. Precisely the point I am trying to make is that, at the moment, it is remarkably difficult for individuals and organisations—whether a record label, an individual artist or photographer, or whoever—to protect their rights. That is what needs to change.
There has been some licensing. Some newspapers have licensed content with OpenAI. Sony Music has written to all the different AI operators to say that all the work that it protects is copyrighted and not to be used. But I am not sure that such piecemeal processes are enough to build the control we want for rights holders, while enabling AI to develop fruitfully in the UK.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I welcome this consultation and my hon. Friend’s recognition that neither we nor this stuff exists in a bubble. What does he make of the NO FAKES—Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe—Bill, currently in the US House of Representatives, which protects personality and likeness of human writers and artists against misappropriation?
The Minister says he is in meetings mode. Does he know what is happening with the consultation on live event ticketing? It would be great to meet him to discuss my private Member’s Bill—the anti-Oasis-style scam, rip-off ticketing Bill—which is being squashed by Friday filibustering.
Chris Bryant
I think my hon. Friend, who is on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, took advantage of the change in the Chair to get away with asking a question that has absolutely nothing to do with this consultation. On live ticketing, I am absolutely certain that the Government will have something to say soon—the word “soon” means precisely what I choose it to mean.
On publicity rights, my hon. Friend is quite right that that is a significant question that we will ask during the consultation. There is an argument for bringing in legislation in the UK. California, as I said, has a digital replicas law and Tennessee has the ELVIS Act, which stands for eliminating limits on the voice’s intrinsic sovereignty. I think that was an attempt to cram that into the word “Elvis”. She is right that the US Copyright Office is arguing for a federal digital replica law, and we might want to go down that route as well. I urge my hon. Friend and, perhaps, the Select Committee to consider that matter. They might like to provide some advice in response to the consultation as well.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am tempted to invite the Minister to consult the magnificent Taylor Swift who, apart from all her many other talents, has shown herself pretty shrewd when it comes to preserving the copyright of her material. He puts his finger on the key weakness in all this: no matter what sort of regime we set up, and no matter how many countries we try to get involved in this, surely it will only take one rogue jurisdiction to allow a machine to scrape from everybody else’s material? Then, the internet’s ability for everyone to access it will undermine the regime and, in that way, we face the danger that “Shake It Off” becomes “Rip It Off”.
Chris Bryant
I disagree. I saw the right hon. Gentleman nodding earlier when I was talking about not wanting to pull the rug from under the feet of UK AI adopters. The UK is in a very specific position. We have probably the best copyright laws of any country because of the specific way in which they developed. It is partly thanks to Hogarth, Dickens and many others over the years that we have ended up with strong copyright legislation. We also have a strong body of intellectual property in this country, which is enormously valuable, potentially, to AI operators. We stand in a very specific position. There is an argument that AI can be trained elsewhere, in another jurisdiction, but the moment it is brought into the UK, it still falls under UK legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right about this. I did not consult Taylor Swift, but I did ask an AI company to come up with a song in the manner of Adele.
“Oh, I still feel you deep in my soul,
Even though you left me out here on my own.
The love we had it’s slipping through my hands,
But I can’t forget, I still don’t understand.
You’re gone, but your memory’s all I see,
And in the silence, it’s you haunting me”—
Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] It is sort of Adele, but it is not Adele. Does Adele know that her material has been used? Does her record label know that her lyrics have been used to create that? It is sort of in the territory, but it is not right. I think we can get this right in the UK and provide leadership to the world. That is what we should strive for.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will just make the point that I can see that this is very technical and complicated. It might require long answers, but I am not sure it required that level of input from not-Adele.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Can the Minister clarify the difference between his term “rights reservation” and previous reports of the Government’s preference for an opt-out system? Those systems have already been called out and considered unjust by our creators. There are AI leaders who recognise the need for fair licensing. What assurances can the Government provide to support both human and AI innovation? Does the Minister, with his creative industries hat on, agree that respecting copyright would see the introduction of an opt-in system as essential?
Chris Bryant
Again, this is another false dichotomy being presented to us between opt in and opt out. That is why we have landed on the term “rights reservation”. A lot of the material out there is not copyright. That is either because it is long out of copyright—the law for most works lasts for 70 years after the death of the author or the first publication of the work—or because some artists have categorically decided not to retain their copyright. Tom Lehrer, the author of many satirical songs from the 1980s and 1990s, such as “The Vatican Rag” and “The Masochism Tango”, has deliberately surrendered his copyright.
This is a world where we want to make sure that the vast majority of rights holders, whether they be the record label, the individual photographer, the artist or whatever, have the right of control over their copyright—over whether it is used and how it is used—and if it is going to be used, they should be remunerated. I urge my hon. Friend, who I know has a great interest in this subject in his role on the Select Committee, to make sure that that false dichotomy between opt in and opt out is abandoned. We talk about rights reservation, because then, opt out might look remarkably like opt in.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
In July of this year, it was revealed that 173,000 YouTube videos, including material created by globally recognised British musicians, news channels and artists, had been scraped into a dataset used to train AI models. Content from over 40,000 creatives has been found in this dataset, yet I do not believe that consent was sought from a single impacted creator to use their copyrighted works. It is clear that AI offers a fantastic opportunity for our economy, but it must supplement and grow industries rather than replace them wholesale. Creatives deserve to be compensated for their work. AI companies will happily pay the electricity bill for their data centres and wages for their staff, so why should they not also pay to access the creative content on which their models depend?
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Of course those companies should pay for the content that they are using. I think she is referring to LAION-5B, which is the dataset that was produced in Germany. Interestingly, a court in Hamburg has decided that this is already covered by the exemption for data and text mining for non-commercial purposes for research. Subsequently, though, this has been used not just for research, but for other purposes, which is precisely the kind of area where there is a legal dispute. That is why we are trying to provide legal certainty in the UK as to what can and cannot be used, when it can be used, and how we can make sure that people’s creative rights are protected.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
This is an important issue everywhere in the world, but it is particularly important here in the UK because our economy has, as the Minister has said, incredible strengths both in the creative industries and, more recently, in AI development. It is important to note that a lot of the technology that powers these models was pioneered by DeepMind here in London. Does the Minister agree that getting the balance right on this is critical to the Government’s mission of delivering economic growth?
Chris Bryant
Both sectors are part of our industrial strategy, and we must make sure that both are able to flourish. I fully understand that there will be people in the creative industries who will be worried about what we are saying, but I want them to understand that this package comes as a whole. Ed Newton-Rex, who was formerly of Stability AI, wrote in his Substack today that he was concerned that this Government would proceed without actually checking whether a system of rights reservation worked. We will not. We will proceed only if there is a proper system of rights reservation. But there are an awful lot of very clever people who work in AI in this country. I would like somebody to set a bunch of them on working out a simple, practicable, technical solution to the question of rights reservation. Then, I think, everybody has a chance of prospering in the UK.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
As a former journalist, I am intimately familiar with the gold standard copyright laws that we have in this country. Does the Minister agree with the News Media Association, which is very concerned about the current situation faced by its members, where things are already being scraped and taken into these AI machines? To quote the fabulous Sugababes, those members would like the Minister to “Push the Button” on the existing laws and protect their copyright now. Can we have action now, rather than this rather vague and woolly consultation?
Chris Bryant
Well, no. This is a genuinely thorny question that needs a technical solution. The Government are not going to write the technical solution. That has to come from the two sides working out together how we can get to a situation that benefits everybody. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the newspapers. Some newspapers have already licensed material, including Associated Newspapers, The Washington Post and several others. It would be interesting to see whether the income that those companies are receiving is flowing through to the journalists who produce the copyright material in the first place, but perhaps that is part of the rights reservation system that we need to look at as well.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
The commitment of the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensuring that creators can control how their content is used and be paid for it is very welcome, but some creators are concerned that the rights reservation framework proposed by the Government will not allow them to assert control. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that a new framework takes account of those concerns?
Chris Bryant
I have been trying—perhaps I have not yet succeeded—to make it absolutely clear that I, the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), who is sitting next to me, would not bring forward for legislation something that undermined the copyright rights of rights holders in the creative industries. We simply would not do so.
What we are trying to do is push both sides to a place where we can create a new system—it will probably be new to the United Kingdom, and might be one of our gifts to the world—of rights reservation that is simple, practical and practicable. This is not a Second Reading debate; it is simply a statement on a consultation. I urge all who have concerns to voice them in that consultation.
Mike Martin
I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I will recommend to Anne that she contributes to the consultation. However, the Minister hits on the nub of the problem, which is the international element. For me, the key example is China, a country that has a history of stealing IP and is a key player in the international AI competition. I wish the Minister well in this work, but how can we thread the needle so that, if the consultation leads to a Bill that gets implemented, we avoid not only the copyright of our creatives being stolen by Chinese AI firms but handing the AI advantage to China?
Chris Bryant
I think that China is the problem in lots of different cases; I am not sure that it is in this case. It is more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for me to get a practicable solution, but that is what we are determined to achieve. When the hon. Gentleman referred to Anne, I thought for one moment that she was his AI assistant. The truth is that we will all have AI assistants very soon. Most of the time, when we google anything these days, the first result comes up because of AI. It is part of our lives, and we cannot pretend that away. What I would like is for UK companies and start-ups to develop AI in a way that accepts that the content that many of them are desperate to use needs to be paid for.
Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)
May I convey to the Minister my disappointment that his ChatGPT prompt yielded the Sugababes and “Football Manager” but not the enduring institution of “Gavin and Stacey” from the Vale of Glamorgan? I know that that is an omission that ChatGPT will correct. This is a critical debate, because the path to prosperity for nations has to be a path through technology. In that context, the primary question on my mind is whether the Minister can set out plans for how data accuracy and completeness in the creative sector can underpin the Government’s wider AI action plan, and ultimately drive national growth.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about “Gavin and Stacey”, and I look forward to the Christmas special. I would merely point out that, since H from Steps is from the Rhondda, Steps has a lot more to offer.
Chris Bryant
Well, some people have greatness thrust upon them.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about data, which will become an increasing part of our economic resilience and strength in this country. That is another part of my responsibility, if I have my DSIT hat on. I very much look forward to the Data (Use and Access) Bill coming to the Commons in the new year, once it has finished in the other place, because it is an opportunity for us to create smart data, which will release a great deal more economic potential and productivity in the UK.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
UK Music describes copyright as the foundation of the music industry, providing a means for creators to monetise their work, an incentive for investment in talent, and an opportunity for us, the public, to enjoy the fruits of creativity. It is important that we get this right, so will the Minister set out how the Government will work with both developers and rights holders to make the most of this groundbreaking technology while still protecting artists’ work?
Chris Bryant
No. 1: I will have endless meetings with an awful lot of people from the creative industries to ensure that all their concerns are recognised. I pay tribute to UK Music, which has already been in touch several times in the past 24 hours to express its views on the subject. Quite interestingly, copyright works differently in different media—in music, publishing, newspapers and so on—and that is one of the things we need to take clear hold of when we take anything further forward.
I also had a successful meeting this afternoon with people talking about introducing a voluntary levy on tickets and arena gigs to ensure that we have money to support grassroots music in this country, and I very much hope that we will be able to make a significant announcement on that in the new year.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the statement. The Minister refers to Ed Newton-Rex, who recently gave evidence to our Select Committee on this very subject. It is clear that creatives are deeply worried about any suggestion of an opt-out when it comes to the solution. That is why I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment at the Dispatch Box to make any progress contingent on a technological solution on rights reservation because, ultimately, is that not the way to square the circle that this Government are always trying to square, which is of economic growth and innovation, while protecting workers’ rights?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is 100% right. Squaring the circle is what we are in the business of doing, and sometimes that is not an easy thing for Government, because not all the levers lie with Government and with legislation. To be absolutely clear, though, we know we need to provide legal certainty in this space. That almost certainly means that we will want to introduce legislation. We will not introduce legislation until such time as all the different aspects that I have already referred to—namely, transparency on inputs and outputs, control of rights reservation for rights holders, and the text and data mining exemption for commercial work—in that sphere hang together, as all of them are contingent on one another.
I think that was the last question, Madam Deputy Speaker, so have yourself a very merry Christmas.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
You are supposed to sing it!
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The Minister would be well advised not to sing at the Dispatch Box, but I thank him for his comprehensive responses this afternoon.
AI and Copyright Consultation
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
The fast-paced development of artificial intelligence (AI), and in particular the need for large volumes of data during training of large language models (LLMs), has led to increased scrutiny of the way that copyright law applies to such activity.
It has become clear that rights holders are finding it difficult to control the use of their works in the training of AI models and seek greater ability to control their use and/or be remunerated for it. AI developers are similarly finding it difficult to navigate copyright law in the UK, which affects investment in and adoption of AI technology.
AI technology has enormous potential to drive economic growth, through productivity improvements and technological innovation, and to stimulate more effective public service design and delivery. These are opportunities that the United Kingdom cannot afford to miss and that is why AI, alongside other technologies, will support the delivery of our five national missions.
The UK is also home to world-leading creative industries, which has been identified as a growth-driving sector in the Government’s industrial strategy. Supporting their continued success is vital to our national mission to grow our economy, as well as safeguarding our culture and identity.
At present, the application of UK copyright law to the training of AI models is disputed. This uncertainty is holding back innovation and undermining growth in our AI sector and creative industries.
We believe that action is needed now. That is why we are today publishing a consultation on how we can deliver a viable solution that achieves our key objectives for the AI and creative industry sectors. These are:
To support rights holders to continue to exercise control over use of their content and ability to seek remuneration for its use,
To promote greater trust and transparency between the sectors, and
To support the development of world-leading AI models in the UK by ensuring wide and lawful access to high-quality data.
The consultation published today jointly by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, sets out a package of interventions that we believe could address the needs of both sectors.
The proposals include a mechanism for rights holders to reserve their rights, enabling them to license and be paid for the use of their work in AI training. Alongside this, we propose an exception to support use at scale of a wide range of material by AI developers where rights have not been reserved. We are conscious that this combination will only work if a workable technical system of rights reservation can be brought in.
The consultation also includes proposals to support greater transparency from AI developers about what material they are using and how they acquire it, and measures to ensure that rights can be reserved easily, and right holders’ decisions can be enforced. It also considers several issues relating to the outputs of generative AI. These include questions about labelling of AI-created outputs and the extent to which they should be protected by copyright, as well as questions about digital replicas where AI is used to generate material that mimics the voice or appearance of existing performers.
Our aim is to find a balance that supports growth in both the AI and creative industries sector, by providing a clear and simple legal basis for access to large volumes of data for training purposes, while enabling rights holders to exert control and secure payment. Our hope is that the eventual solution will provide clear routes to licensing of intellectual property and legal certainty for all.
We very much welcome responses to the consultation from creators, copyright owners, AI developers and technology users. We look forward to receiving feedback through the consultation on whether the proposals achieve this balance.
[HCWS324]
Telegraph Poles: Birmingham
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
It is a great delight to sit under your chairpersonship, Ms Vaz. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) on securing this debate. I think she knows that she is one of my favourite MPs; we have canvassed together often in variety of places, so it is a great delight to hear from her.
My hon. Friend speaks of being an active constituency MP, and that is precisely what she has evidenced. She is not alone on this issue. The list of MPs who want to talk to me about ducts and poles is quite long, because a lot of people are concerned. They fully understand, as she has laid out, that we want to roll out better infrastructure. If we are going to have the digital economy that we want for the future and if we are to compete with other countries around the world, we certainly have to get digital infrastructure rolled out. Obviously, the Government are not going to pay for all of that—that would be a very big ticket item—so we want as much of this as possible to happen on a commercial basis, and I will refer in a moment to the comments of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) about the business model that people may be adopting.
We also do not want to have a single operator delivering for the whole country, which is why it is important to have a degree of competition. When I was in opposition, I was very opposed to the idea of monopoly in provision through Openreach or, for that matter, any other player simply because monopoly does not tend to be good for consumers. It tends also to make an incumbent lazy, and it can lead to anti-competitive practices.
For all those reasons, we have ended up with the system that we have, and we want to roll out gigabit-capable broadband to as much of the country as possible. The Government will intervene in the areas where that will not happen commercially, but I say to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston that we have to be a bit careful about saying, “It’s disgraceful that these people are making money”, because if they did not make money, they would not be rolling it out on a commercial basis and then we might have to intervene a great deal more in the market. But there is a countervailing argument: if operators behave in a way that lacks compassion or sensitivity to the local situation, it is extremely unlikely that anybody in that local community is going to buy their products, so it could destroy their commercial agendas and business strategies if they are so high-handed in their approaches to local communities when it comes to the siting of poles and so on.
Mark Garnier
I thank the Minister for his letter, which was incredibly helpful; I am grateful to him for engaging on this. The point I was making was not that the business model is about a cash flow revenue coming from the delivery of broadband, but that some of these businesses are cynically creating a capital asset that they then want to sell off. It is the infrastructure asset, not the cash flow, that they are after. That is where we get this competition of people building out the poles to create a capital value asset, not a cash flow value asset.
Chris Bryant
I do not know whether that is right or not, so I will reserve judgment, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. It is certainly true that there may be some consolidation in the market in the next 18 months to two years. Some people have been expecting that before now. Whether that would apply to Brsk or not, I have not the faintest idea, but the point remains that, if these organisations are to have a successful business model, in the end they do need to be able to sell take-up.
One thing that is missing from this whole conversation is an explanation to the public of why on earth anybody might need fibre. Notwithstanding the areas in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston where they do not even have 10 megabits per second, which I hope we might be able to do something about in the near future, lots of people say, “Well, I’ve already got 100 megabits per second, so why on earth would I need a gigabit per second? Incidentally, I don’t know what a megabit per second is anyway.” In that world, we have to do a great deal more education about what the future is going to look like. It is certainly true that all the apps and the IT that the country and the Government are increasingly relying on are increasingly hungry for bandwidth; there is no way of avoiding that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that we need to develop this infrastructure.
This Government have been very clear, and the previous Government were relatively clear, that we wanted this infrastructure to progress in a way that was sensitive to local communities. That meant that we had to have proper consultation and to be careful about the siting of poles. We wanted to encourage co-operation and collaboration between different players in the market, so that roads were not dug up two years in a row or three months after the last company dug it up, for example. All that was laid out in the original guidance in 2016. Incidentally, that guidance was provided not by the Government but by the industry. This is an important point: the industry is currently looking at revising that code. It is very close to a revised version. I do not think that that is quite ready yet, but I anticipate that it might come in the new year.
The simple point that I have made repeatedly to all the operators in this field is that if they want people to take up their service and buy their product, they have to take people with them. At our meeting with Brsk last week, Brsk made it clear that if all the members of a community, especially one cut off from everywhere else and not on the way to another place, said, “Look, we don’t want this,” it would work out that there was no point putting in poles, digging up the road or whatever, because there would not be any take-up of its services from that community in future. It would simply say, “All right, fine. We’re not going there.”
As I say, the difficulty lies where one road leads—as is often the case—to another, and the people on the next bit of road still want the roll-out even if the people on the first bit do not.
Tahir Ali
I thank the Minister for his intervention with Brsk and for getting the officers in for a chat with MPs last week, and I welcome what has happened since in my constituency. Does he agree that where existing underground infrastructure is already available, companies should be forced to use that rather than erecting poles that no one really wants or likes?
Chris Bryant
Let me be 100% clear: where there is existing infrastructure—ducts under the road or whatever —that can be used. In fact, it should be used and different companies should collaborate to make that happen. I am 100% clear that existing infrastructure should and must be used.
There are a few caveats, as the companies themselves would advance. Sometimes people think there is a duct when there is only a cable that has been laid straight into the mud underneath. Alternatively, the pavement might now be so full of different things, including gas connections, water connections, electricity connections and so on, that there is no space for anything else to be ducted through, or the duct sleeve is so full that nothing else can be put in and another sleeve cannot be put in either. I know that is quite a long set of caveats, but those are the realities of the situation.
The commercial reality is that inserting a new duct—that is, digging up the road and putting everything underground —might be very attractive to everybody in the community, but it is nine or 10 times more expensive than putting things on poles. If we want commercial operators to roll things out, there are certain situations where there are going to be poles. I cannot hide that from anybody; it is a simple reality.
As I was saying earlier, the cabinet siting and pole siting code of practice was issued in November 2016. It sets out guidance on best practice relating to deployment, encouraging operators to site apparatus responsibly and to engage proactively with local authorities and the local community. However, some of the things that I have seen being put in—including by Brsk; not often by many other operators—are clearly in the middle of a pathway or driveway, or in other places that are completely inappropriate.
As I understood it in our meeting last week, and indeed in the exchange of letters after that meeting, Brsk committed to change its policy in such situations. At that meeting, Brsk also undertook to engage in far more proper consultation with people. It will not just put up a sign saying, “We are about to put a pole here,” and then put a pole up the next day; it will engage in proper consultation, which means going door to door and explaining things to people. In many areas, Brsk will bring the local community together for a public meeting.
One Member who came to that meeting with Brsk last week said that there had been such a public meeting in their constituency. It had been very effective and people understood the quid pro quo, which was that if there was no means of doing something by ducting, there would have to be poles; if people did not want poles, they would not get the roll-out of fibre; and other operators were not operating in that field. People said, “Okay, well in that set of circumstances, we still want this roll-out to happen, so we will live with poles.” I think most people can live with that model, but even when that is agreed, we still have to make sure that we do not put poles in the middle of someone’s driveway or where they will obstruct people and not meet the requirements of the disability measures in the Equality Act 2010.
As I said earlier, I know the industry has been working together closely. It is not easy or simple to get commercial operators that have their own investors and shareholders in competition with one another to sit down to agree a new guide and a new code of practice, so I pay tribute to everybody at the Independent Networks Co-operative Association for engaging in that way. The vast majority of the altnet companies engaged in that activity are absolutely determined. They want to take the community with them because they want to be able to sell their product, and because they are responsible players in the market. I pay tribute to them where they have managed to do that.
As Brsk knows, we will hold its feet to the fire on all the commitments that it has made in private meetings with me, in the meetings with MPs that we held last week, and in writing. Before it starts rolling out in a particular area, it needs to explore far more thoroughly what ducting might be available, which might be through BT Openreach or Virgin. It will consult properly in a local area where people lobby and argue that the siting of a pole is particularly inappropriate. It will look at moving it in so far as it possibly can.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that the siting of poles is particularly important when we consider national landscapes? It needs to take into account the broader context. Does he also agree that, where local communities are willing to engage with operators and local authorities to fund undergrounding, that would be a good approach?
Chris Bryant
That is the first time that anybody has come to me and said that a local community would fund the ducting, which is an expensive business. All sorts of competition issues might then arise. I am hesitant to advance a yes or a no to that, because one would have to explore whether that was in effect a state subsidy, how that would be provided and what kind of contract there would be for maintenance of the duct—I can foresee all sorts of problems. I am not trying to be a part of the blob, but simply to be as clear as I can about what is possible and what is not.
The hon. Member makes an important point about the desirability of poles in areas of natural beauty and whether we can or cannot have poles. I have seen many different instances—I have tried to go through as many of them as possible as a Minister—such as where people thought the issue was about a duct that somebody was refusing to use, and it turns out it is not a duct at all but a cable laid in sand, so I am quite hesitant about holding forth on where we can or absolutely cannot have a pole.
In case anybody thinks I am being nimbyish, I have poles in my street, and I am about to have another set of poles in my street. I am relatively chilled about that, but I fully understand the issue where someone has never had a pole in their street. Part of the area’s beauty is that it looks remarkably like it did in the 18th or 19th century, and people want to preserve it that way. The downside is that commercially they will probably not get gigabit-capable and fibre-based broadband, which might be more of a problem for the community than having the poles.
I think I have exhausted the subject, unless anybody else wants to have a go at me. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston. I am sure that we will return to the issue as many times as necessary if Brsk refuses to fulfil its promises. I believe that when we sat down with the senior management, they were sincere and honest in the commitment that they were making, and that they did not have as full an understanding of people’s feelings in some communities as they needed to have. As I promised my favourite MP—I cannot say that too often—I will hold the company’s feet to the fire throughout.
Question put and agreed to.
Online Advertising: Taskforce Progress Report
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
The online advertising taskforce is publishing today its progress report 2023-24, summarising work carried out since the publication of its action plan last year.
The online advertising taskforce brings Government and industry together to help tackle harms associated with paid-for online advertising and improve transparency, accountability and trust in the online advertising supply chain. Its primary focus has been on tackling illegal advertising and minimising children being served advertising for products and services illegal to sell to them.
The taskforce action plan brought together and built on work that was in progress to strengthen evidence, minimise harm and protect consumers and businesses, including promoting and extending industry initiatives which address in-scope harms associated with paid-for online advertising.
In response to the action plan, six working groups were formed, each with a specific focus on an area identified within the plan. Some focused on pre-existing industry initiatives that could be enhanced, while others focused on particular issues affecting transparency and accountability in online advertising, and the development of responsive strategies. These groups have been key drivers of action, enabling closer collaboration and development of more detailed insight, and there is further work that these groups can take forward to build on the achievements so far.
Alongside this report I am also publishing an online advertising experiences survey commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and carried out by Ipsos. This report covers perceived exposure to illegal and misleading advertising online, including parental perception of child exposure. It provides insight into the type and scale of exposure, impacts, and any follow-up actions taken. It was commissioned to provide a baseline understanding of how people understood the risks online, particularly those associated with online advertising. While this report provides useful evidence and takes us a step further in understanding online advertising behaviours, the research working group, under the taskforce, will assess how we can build on this evidence.
I chaired a further meeting of the taskforce on 4 November, at which we agreed updated terms of reference and a renewed focus for the next year. The continued work of the taskforce and its working groups will be very important to help us understand and address the issues facing the online advertising sector, particularly those around trust and transparency. This will allow for further work in this area, with the work already completed enabling a sharper focus moving forward.
The progress report and research are published on gov.uk today and copies will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS272]
Project Gigabit
Chris Bryant Excerpts(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. As was clear from his speech and his diligent, razor-sharp focus on targeting the delivery of gigabit broadband in different parts of his constituency, he is a true community champion. His constituents are lucky to have him.
That is a theme of the debate. All Members have spoken about individual parts of their constituency where broadband is a challenge. That goes to show how important our digital backbone is in the United Kingdom. I will resist the temptation to mention parts of my constituency, such as Queen’s Road or Ellesmere Road in Weybridge, where we have done work to deliver gigabit broadband. The debate demonstrates how important the issue is. It is one that inevitably and invariably gets the attention of Members of Parliament, so that they advocate for their constituents and try to deliver it.
Project Gigabit demonstrates simply that where there is a will, there is a way. Back in 2019, 7% of properties had what is defined as “gigabit access” or 1 gigabit per second. In April 2024—the last official stats we have—that had reached 81%. In fact, it is believed that the 85% target, due to be reached in ’25, has already been reached. That is a huge roll-out of gigabit broadband to households over the past five years of a Conservative Government.
There are of course people who do not have gigabit broadband, and it is critical that we work to ensure that they can have that vital accessibility. That is absolutely not just about being able to watch this debate in HD—to listen to my dulcet tones and to see the spots on my face; it is about industry and connectivity, and the events of covid showed just how important that is. Look at the £5 billion investment allocated to the project; some data shows that that is probably a £60 billion contribution to the UK economy.
How do we go about rolling out the delivery of gigabit broadband across the country? We as Conservatives know that the way to do it is to get industry involved and work with it. That is why 80% of the gigabit broadband target is linked to industry bringing it through, although we recognised that to get to the further 20% of roll-out, we needed to bring in subsidy and break down barriers. That is where we move from the initial phase of Project Gigabit, which was to do with industry delivering, to now, with the public subsidy we have seen over the past few years.
A great concern, however, is future inequalities, in particular in delivery to rural areas versus urban areas. The great concern is that over the next six months to a year, there will be a reallocation of priority away from rural areas to urban areas.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got that from.
Dr Spencer
The Minister chunters from his seat, but in his speech, please can he assuage that concern? The way to do so is to provide transparent data on the prioritisation of funding and the roll-out.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Lord, I had not expected that so quickly—nor did you earlier, Mr Dowd. It is great to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing the debate.
I will say first that our ambition is no different from that of the previous Government, which is to get to precisely the same numbers by 2030 as was stated previously. I am pretty confident that we will be able to get there. There are significant challenges, which I will try to explain in a moment.
As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) rightly said, the whole idea of BDUK and Project Gigabit was to enable gigabit-capable broadband to be brought to nearly every property in the UK, primarily through commercial operators advancing on the basis of commercial viability. We knew that that would be impossible in some areas, which was why there would have to be a subsidy from the Government—or the previous Government knew it, and we subscribed to that, too. The difficulty is that that precise decision by the commercial operators as to where is commercially viable changes all the time. It is a moving target; county by county, they constantly revise decisions on the properties they will cover on a commercial basis. Therefore, the decision by BDUK about how many properties to include in the subsidised roll-out also vary.
That is happening at a time when the market is considering long-term investments. Openreach has decided to increase significantly the number of places it expects to roll out to on a commercial basis. Other operators are worried. In the south-west, operators have already been unable to fulfil their commitments, and other contracts have had to be entered into. That makes reaching secure outcomes in each constituency a difficult process.
I have made this offer before. Some of the dramatis personae of this debate are similar to those I have met in other quarters at other times. I am happy for any individual MP who has concerns in their patch to meet my officials and those from BDUK to go through this issue village by village and do a precise piece of work. I know these are very real issues. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said in his opening remarks, this is not a luxury that is nice to have; it is essential to people’s livelihoods, economy and sometimes their lives, whether we are talking about mobile connectivity or broadband. Many aspects of that have to be delivered over the next few years.
I issue one word of caution. A number of hon. Members referred to hard-to-reach properties. That is a very broad definition. There are properties that are very hard to reach where, frankly, a roll-out cannot be achieved by a commercial operator or the taxpayer. That is where, as several hon. Members have said, we must be imaginative over the next few years about alternative means of delivery. That might be a wi-fi operation or reliance on satellite. Some people have already taken up the satellite option at £75 a month, as has been mentioned, although I am not particularly advertising that. It is problematic that there is only one operator in that space. I hope there will be more in future because competition is good in this market. I would praise the previous Government for that. There is not just one operator; we have allowed competition to operate in the roll-out of broadband.
Members, including some on the Government Benches, have had conversations about ducts and poles. There have been rows about the inconsiderate roll-out from some operators that have brought in street furniture that is otiose, redundant or duplicates what is already there, or where they have chosen not to use ducts because they do not want to talk to the commercial operators. I have been trying hard to ensure that all operators work as collaboratively as possible, within the bounds of competition law, to deliver broadband without obstructions.
I feel as though I have had all the villages of the UK brought to mind, and I am not sure that I have managed to write them down correctly—I apologise if I get things wrong. I welcome the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon to the House; I believe a family member was also here for a while. I have good news for him, although he might already know it, so he may not think it is as good as I do. He has been worrying about connectivity at the Beaver industrial estate, and I think AllPoints Fibre is coming early in 2025 to sort that out.
I looked at the figures for superfast, ultrafast, full-fibre and gigabit in the hon. Member’s constituency. While his constituency is actually ahead of the rest of the UK on superfast—it gets more than 30 megabits per second —that is not going to be sufficient for most people in the next few years, so we want to get much higher than that. On all the other measures, his constituency is some way behind the rest of the UK. I accept that there is a challenge there, and I am thoroughly determined to meet it.
The hon. Member referred to digital exclusion, in terms of physical access to gigabit-capable, ultrafast or full-fibre broadband. There are many different factors that might lead to digital exclusion. If I had a criticism of the previous Government—well, I have quite a few criticisms, but one that even they would accept as fair—it would be that we did not have a digital inclusion strategy for 10 years. In that time, in many areas of the country, whether because of poor skills, poverty, disability or the physical exclusion that the hon. Member referred to—I know it well in the south Wales valleys—there has been a level of digital exclusion that makes it impossible for people to take part in today’s economy or society. We need to address all that. It is my hope that, before we get to the end of the year, we will be able to point to the next steps in digital inclusion that we as a Government need to take.
The hon. Member seemed to say that the previous Government were absolutely wonderful but left the country in a terrible state in relation to broadband, especially in his constituency. If I might gently say, Conservative Members, including the shadow Minister, have to decide which way they are going to go on that: were they a great Government or were they not really up to it? I know what the country decided.
There is no rural/urban divide on this issue. I fully accept that there are specific challenges in many rural areas—my own constituency is semi-rural—but in many urban areas, while superfast broadband or gigabit-capable fibre is theoretically going down the street, it is not going into every building because of a whole series of other issues that we also have to address. That does not mean that we are redirecting Project Gigabit money away from rural to urban areas; more than 90% of the money has been spent in rural areas and will continue to be spent in rural areas.
The fundamental misconception in the letter that the hon. Member signed, and which quite a lot of other Conservative Members signed, which was brought forward by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), was that Project Gigabit was always designed to take gigabit-capable broadband to wherever it was needed. There was not a specific definition of rural or urban, and I am not changing that. It is need that determines where the money is spent—nothing other than that—and I fully accept that the vast majority of that is going to be in rural areas.
I welcome the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) to the House; I have campaigned a lot in her seat—not very successfully. She makes a good point that many villages in rural Wales are some of the most disadvantaged in this area and in mobile connectivity, which is why I am pleased that we recently rolled out seven new enhanced masts for mobile connectivity in Wales, including, I think, in her constituency. That does not answer the broadband issue, but we hope to address that through Building Digital UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) referred to t’internet. On the defence site in his constituency, my understanding is that that is a Ministry of Defence responsibility, but we will chase that up and write to him on that issue. He is absolutely right—Defence families should not be at a worse disadvantage than those across the road who are not in Defence properties. I know that the Secretary of State for Defence is keen to address those issues, because I have spoken to him about it.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to Starlink, and he is absolutely right. He rightly gave a list of villages, which were Warcop, Hilton, Murton—with a “u”, not an “e”—and Ormside, about which BDUK is presently in the process of negotiating. I do not want to descope at this point, because I very much hope that we will get to a resolution in the next month, but he makes a strong point. If it proves necessary to abandon ship, as it were, he can come back at me on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) —we must stop meeting like this—was sitting in the same place in the Chamber last week when we had a debate about tourism in his constituency. He is right that the tourist industry cannot survive without proper broadband. To rectify some of the issues that he was talking about last week, including with some of the beautiful villages in his constituency, we need to be able to roll out broadband.
I need to be careful about this point, but there will be properties that are not commercially viable or viable for the taxpayer to fund, because they are simply too difficult to reach. I think everybody accepts that, but it will be a tiny proportion—probably 1% or fewer. As several Members have said, however, we at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology definitely need to accelerate the process of thinking about the alternative mechanisms we can provide. Some people are already relying on Starlink, but we may need to come up with other solutions.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), is absolutely right that we need to look for technical solutions. That is why, through UK Research and Innovation and the research and development side of DSIT, we are keen to look at those areas.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about villages where broadband stopped 100 metres short, which is absolutely infuriating for everybody. Obviously, that is the kind of thing that we want to address. I know that he has already had conversations, and we have another meeting with several of his colleagues coming up, so we will be able to address those issues then.
I know bits of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) well, as he knows, and I have visited where some of my family are from. We need to look for very creative solutions in his constituency, because he is right that if someone is making Harris tweed, they want to be able to sell it, but they cannot create a business unless they have proper high-speed broadband. I note that we have superfast on Iona. I do not think there are many monks left there, but there is a community. In fact, it has a couple of hotels that I have stayed in, which also want and need connectivity.
I will give the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon a couple of minutes to wind up, but I will quickly refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), who is right that we need to do something about flexi permits. We have already written to the Department for Transport about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) has similar issues in his patch.
Finally, I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, to his post, as I failed to do when we had DSIT questions last week. He has to decide whether the last Government were absolutely brilliant or whether they completely failed in this area.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Bryant Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The Government and industry are working together to accelerate the shared rural network and deliver substantial improvements to outdoor 4G mobile coverage across the UK. In the past few months, the Government have activated 13 publicly funded masts across the UK, and there are now 27 Government-funded extended area service mast upgrades delivering 4G.
Greg Smith
In my constituency, only 40, 50 and 60 miles away from this House, villages such as Cuddington are still complete mobile notspots. Will the Minister explain how quickly the Government intend to move on activating the shared rural network, to ensure no rural community is left without a reliable mobile signal?
Chris Bryant
I know about Cuddington, because the hon. Gentleman told me about it yesterday. Cuddington is such a typical English village that it has featured in “Midsomer Murders”, which is fictional—a bit like the previous Government’s financial affairs. I know we have said that the desire to please is not part of what Ministers are meant to do, but I do have a desire to please him and his constituents. The Government will work as fast as we can with industry to try to develop 4G in his constituency. I am happy to arrange for a meeting between him and my officials to ensure he has street-by-street analysis of how we can do that.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
We welcome the recent update on the expansion of 4G to rural areas under the shared rural network project, particularly for businesses and farmers who are under such pressure at the moment, with the recent Treasury announcements. Which Secretary of State should we thank for the planning approval and funding of this vital infrastructure project?
Chris Bryant
We support developing all the plans set out under the shared rural network and Project Gigabit—those plans were regularly announced by the previous Government, but they never actually put any money into the budget. There was never a line in a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology budget that said, “This money is guaranteed for the future.” We are putting our money where our mouth is and we are determined to ensure everybody has proper connectivity. Frankly, that is essential for people’s businesses, whether they are farmers or running any other kind of business, up and down the land. We will deliver that.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
We are improving digital connectivity in rural areas by rolling out 30 Project Gigabit contracts, filling in gaps that are not being met commercially, predominantly in rural areas, and delivering better 4G mobile coverage and eliminating partial notspots through the shared rural network.
Connor Naismith
A number of my constituents in the village of Haslington have been in touch with me about poor mobile signal and digital connectivity in the village. One constituent was unable to contact emergency services in the event of a medical emergency. Does the Minister agree that the lack of progress on connectivity in our rural areas under 14 years of Conservative Government is unacceptable? Will he meet me to discuss how we can improve matters for my constituents?
Chris Bryant
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend, not necessarily at the same time as I am meeting the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), but Haslington is a bit like Cuddington: they have exactly the same set of problems. I am sure many hon. Members from across the House have similar issues in their constituencies that they have a burning desire to raise with me. I am happy to make arrangements for hon. Members to meet officials and go through issues case by case. In relation to the 999 emergency my hon. Friend referred to, I would be grateful if he could provide me with specific details. All 999 calls from mobile phones should automatically roam on to another available network if there is no signal from their own provider, so I want to get to the bottom of the issue in that case.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Can I add to the Minister’s list of beautiful villages to visit the wonderful villages of Cranleigh, Shamley Green, Peaslake, Gomshall and Bramley? They are all having big problems with 4G and 5G mobile phone reception, not least because apps need to be used to pay for parking there. Can he meet me to discuss what more can be done to help those beautiful, but also economically important, places?
Chris Bryant
I am very happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman as well. I am not the Pope, but it feels like I will be having a series of audiences over the next few weeks. The right hon. Gentleman has villages, I have villages. If only he knew someone who had been the Chancellor in recent years, who would have been able to deliver the financial support that we really needed to secure the investment.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My constituents in the village of Crowthorne will welcome the Government’s action to tackle this massive issue and support connectivity for phones and 4G in rural and semi-rural constituencies. Will the Minister have a meeting with me to discuss the issues affecting Crowthorne?
Chris Bryant
I am getting more popular day by day, which is unusual in my life. I am, of course, very happy to discuss the issues in Crowthorne.
One thing that really concerns me is that quite often, the published version of what connectivity is available in everybody’s constituency will say that there is 92%, 93% or 95% of connectivity from all four operators, but actually, if we stand there with a mobile phone, there will not be any connectivity whatsoever. I have written to Ofcom and it has written back saying, for instance, that in that precise location the coverage may be above or below the predicted level, leading some consumers to not get the service they expected. There is a phrase for that.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Organisations such as TechResort in my constituency support people who are digitally excluded to become digitally included. The Minister has a long list of meetings to go to, so instead, can the Secretary of State come along the coast to the sunniest town in the UK to visit TechResort and hear more about the funding it needs to power its work?
Chris Bryant
I am pleased to say that the Secretary of State says he will indeed visit when he possibly can.
There is a really important point here: poor digital connectivity excludes so many communities up and down this country. We have no chance of creating the economic growth that we want in this country unless we take the whole of the country with us. That is why it is so disgraceful that we have not had a proper digital inclusion strategy for 10 years. That is something we will remedy.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Chris Bryant
Project Gigabit has always been designed to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to premises that will not be met by the market, regardless of whether they are in urban or rural areas. Most premises deemed uncommercial by the market are in rural areas, but consistent evidence suggests that we will also need to intervene in some urban areas to achieve full national gigabit coverage. Funding will continue to be provided where it is needed.
Jerome Mayhew
There are 11,500 houses that will be connected to fibre as a result of the Conservative Project Gigabit policy. There is real concern that some of those will miss out if money is redirected from rural to urban communities. After the family farm tax, can we please give rural communities a break?
Chris Bryant
The vast majority—more than 90%—of the spending in Project Gigabit has gone to rural areas because those are the areas most in need. There is absolutely no change in our policy to that. However, some urban areas have significant problems as well and we need to rectify those. The hon. Gentleman points out some of the issues in his own constituency. I am happy to provide him too with a meeting, if he wants. I see he has nodded.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Unfortunately, the UK’s roll-out of 5G has been far too slow. According to Opensignal, the UK ranks 22nd out of 25 European countries for 5G download speeds and availability after 14 years of Conservative rule. We are determined to change that, aiming to have higher-quality stand-alone 5G in all populated areas by 2030.
Alex Baker
Access to 5G data is a real issue in Aldershot. According to Ofcom, a third of our households cannot connect to 5G—nearly three times the national average. What are the Government doing to give residents in Aldershot and Farnborough the same data access as the rest of the country, and will the Minister make that work a priority?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right: that work has to be a priority for businesses, families and everybody engaged in her constituency, and for the public sector. We want the Ministry of Defence in her constituency, for instance, to have the highest-quality data access possible, so that we can deliver more effective and productive government across the whole United Kingdom. The work will indeed be a priority for us.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
There have been great improvements in connectivity across Ceredigion Preseli, but there remain total mobile notspots such as Porthgain, and a growing body of evidence collected locally that the connectivity reported by Ofcom does not quite stack up against the lived experience of those on the ground. Will the Minister meet me so that I can present some of the evidence collected by local authorities in Ceredigion Preseli and he can address the problem?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman has just said what I said a few minutes ago. It is great that Plaid Cymru is signing up to the Labour party’s agenda these days, but it is upsetting that he forgot to mention the seven high-quality masts extending better coverage of 4G in Wales that have been installed in the last couple of months alone. Of course I will happily meet him, and place in the Library a copy of the letter that I received from Ofcom that makes the precise point that we need to do much better in recognising the real experience of people’s mobile connectivity rather than a theoretical, ethereal version of it.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
More than 30 Project Gigabit contracts are currently in place, with a total value of almost £2 billion, and more are in the pipeline. In the past few months, the first premises have been connected as part of Project Gigabit contracts in areas including Norfolk, West Yorkshire and south Wiltshire, and the build has now started in earnest in other parts of the country.
Shaun Davies
I welcome the progress that the Government are making on the roll-out of Project Gigabit to all corners of the country, but in Telford the inequality remains stark, with some wards having complete gigabit coverage and areas such as the world heritage site in Ironbridge having almost none. Will the Government confirm that their agenda to break down barriers to opportunity includes residents, businesses and world heritage sites that cannot get online?
Chris Bryant
The world heritage aspects relate to my Department for Culture, Media and Sport responsibilities, but my hon. Friend is right about Ironbridge. I hope that we will be able to announce something shortly in relation to extending gigabit coverage in his constituency through a procurement via Openreach.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Minister will be aware that there is a strong link between communications technology and the roll-out of smart meter technology in areas in the north of Scotland that are suffering from cold weather. Particularly at the moment, connectivity is really important for such alternative technologies to work. What discussions has he had with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on that issue?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is right: there is a series of issues about the security and safety of connectivity in areas that suffer from particular weather conditions. We had a successful summit on Monday morning to discuss the closing down of the public services network to ensure that everybody will be secure, but I assure him that we will work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that the roll-out in all such areas works in the interests of businesses, whatever the weather conditions.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)