Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

And now for something completely different! With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Kanishka Narayan]

He lives in the Vale of Glamorgan.

[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!

[Chris Bryant]

I don’t think I am allowed to sing at the Dispatch Box.

[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

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Written Statements

[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

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[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

Monday 2nd December 2024 Written Statements

[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

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

1. Whether he is taking steps to accelerate the roll-out of the shared rural network.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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)]

2. What steps he is taking to improve digital connectivity in rural areas.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

Save it for another day.

[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)]

4. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of using Project Gigabit funding in urban areas on download speeds in rural areas.

[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)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to help increase levels of innovation in the Black Country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

7. What comparative assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the roll-out of 5G in (a) the UK and (b) other countries.

[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)]

8. What progress his Department has made on the roll-out of Project Gigabit.

[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)]

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

Tourism: Northumberland

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I again welcome you to the Chair, Sir Roger, and it is good to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). He is actually named in my documents from the Department as “Joe Hexham”; that is probably how he will be presenting himself at the next general election as well, I should think—unless boundaries change in some bizarre, unhelpful way. It is good to see so many new MPs wanting to talk about tourism and the visitor economy, because it is so important to so many parts of the country. As part of the creative industries, it is important that the Government are saying that it is also part of our industrial future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham said in passing that this is about not just the legacy of the past—he listed some of the things in Northumberland from our historical past that are important—but what we do today. One of the things we need to change about our whole tourism strategy as a country is that there is a danger that international visitors think, “The United Kingdom never changes. It’s always got that Parliament building, castles, the monarchy—things like that. You can go next year or the year after.” Actually, we want people to think that now is the time to come to the United Kingdom: “We’re not going to put it off. We’re going to come now.” If they come now, they might come again next year because they want to see a different part of the United Kingdom.

I have a word of caution. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham said, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea if, when we as the UK are selling our tourism abroad, we specifically mention Northumberland?” I get it. I am a Welsh MP, and I have often said that it would be good if we started mentioning Wales a bit more in our tourism marketing around the world. The question is whether it works.

I have an anecdotal story, but it is true none the less: Charlotte Church, a young Welsh singer—at the time much younger—was asked to go and sing, for George Bush I think, in the White House. She sang very beautifully, and afterwards George Bush was introduced to her and asked where she was from. She said, “Wales.”. He said, “What state is that in?” To which she said, “Terrible.”. There was a complete meeting of minds.

That story makes an important point about our tourism strategy. I completely agree that it is embarrassing that so many international visitors conceive of coming to the UK as being only about visiting London—or, as I said in the other debate, perhaps Bath or Oxford and Cambridge as a day visit and then maybe Edinburgh. There is far more to see in the United Kingdom. The question is how we best effect that change.

We may be able to do several things. There is no point in my rehearsing the numbers of people who go to the north-east in compared with London, and the difference in spend; my hon. Friend did that perfectly. I want to change that, but that will require a five or 10-year strategy, which I hope we will be able to publish over the coming months. I would be interested to talk to people from different parts of the country about making sure that we put a strategy in place that will genuinely work.

My hon. Friend also talked about the difficulty of ensuring that local people are not shunted out by the tourist influx. One of the things I am keen to work on more is the question of short-term lets. If, as often happens on the coastline, large numbers of short-term lets are all full for two or three months and completely empty for the rest of the year, that does not seem like a win for the local community. That is why, building on what the previous Government did with their legislation on short-term lets, we hope to launch a consultation fairly soon on how we can develop a register of such lets, so that at least we know what is out there, and on how we could use that register to better effect to try to get the benefits of tourism, including visitors not just coming during the day, but staying overnight, without the downsides that sometimes come with that.

Several Members mentioned particular places in Northumberland. I think “Vera” got a look-in several times, which is inevitable—I do not know what Northumberland is going to do if “Vera” ever stops. Brenda is a wonderful actress, but I do not know whether she has another 50 years in her.

My favourite place, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), is Lindisfarne. We have a little painting of Lindisfarne in our downstairs toilet at home in Wales: it is a place of phenomenal beauty and extraordinary history. It is extremely well run and has thousands of visitors every year. I have swum in the sea at Cullercoats—in winter, too, which is quite an ambitious thing.

Both Bamburgh castle and Alnwick castle have been referred to. In fact, I think I am right in saying that Northumberland has more castles than any other county in England. Wales might beat everywhere else on the castle front, but that is Edward I for you. I think Alnwick castle is the second largest in England; it certainly has the second largest number of rooms. It is still the home of the Northumberlands and an extraordinary place to visit.

Tourism for music was not mentioned, but the north-east has a phenomenal music tradition. Sam Fender was on in Newcastle when Pink was on in Gateshead: I know that because I went to Pink. It was a phenomenal concert—the whole region was alive, with every single hotel room in the whole area taken—but people may wonder whether it is a good idea to have two massive concerts at the same time, how that can be managed to best effect and whether it is good for the local economy or whether it would be better to spread them out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) referred to having the best fish and chips. I have been in many debates in my years in Parliament, and I must have heard nearly every MP say that the best fish and chips come from such and such a place in their constituency. I warn her against that, because you end up eating an awful lot of fish and chips in the process. I am sure her frame can take it, but I would just say that what makes a good fish and chip shop is actually its range—and the best fish and chip shop equipment is provided by Preston and Thomas. It is no longer functioning in Cardiff, but it had the best range none the less. I know that because my father’s best man was either Preston or Thomas. I can’t remember which.

I turn to the destination development partnership pilots. Up in the north-east, as I saw when I visited not long ago, there is a real determination to seize the opportunity, not just in individual constituencies or local authority areas but across the whole region. I really praise Kim McGuinness: she is absolutely determined that the numbers are going to change. A key part of it is about trying to bring in a new centre—let us hope that it may become a national centre of excellence for hospitality and tourism—based in Newcastle, but working across the whole of the region. It would be good to get additional investment in that.

One thing that has often worried me—this relates to a point that the shadow Minister made—is that in many other countries around the world, people are so proud of tourism that they think of a job in the hospitality industry not as something you do if you really have to, because you have to pay for a course at university or are on a gap year or whatever, but as something people do for the whole of their life, because they are proud of the community they live in and want people to enjoy it. It is a proper career for a whole life.

To enable that here, we need to do several things. We need proper determination across the country that that is what we are going to do. We have to change the whole ethos around serving people in the hospitality industry. We have to enable the industry to work with the Government to develop more career pathways. Tourism must be a key part of the industrial strategy. All the different bits of it, from the moment somebody lands in this country to the moment they leave, need to be singing in the same way. We also have to reform the apprenticeship levy so that it works for small businesses and the creative industries in general. We have to bind together all of the creative industries: we have already talked about music, but lots of people travel for sport as well. It all needs to work together if we are really going to change the prosperity of this country as it derives from tourism.

That is why what is happening in the north-east is so important. I visited not long ago, and I expect to visit in the next fortnight as well. I am very keen to work with those on the ground who want to ensure that tourism becomes an even more significant part of the economy in the north-east.

I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). I have written down, “Welcome him and be nice.” To be fair, I am quite fond of him: we were on the Foreign Affairs Committee together. Where it is possible for us all to drive the economy forward together, there is no partisan advantage. I am very happy to work with him. I know he has my number and I have his, in more ways than one. I very much hope that we can work together.

The hon. Gentleman asked about a sector-wide plan. As I said, in the next few weeks I will make a speech about tourism in which I hope to lay out some of our ambitions. It may be that we want to do a much more substantial piece of work on our long-term and medium-term ambitions in tourism for the whole of the United Kingdom. We will be thinking about that over the next few weeks.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the issue of seasonal staffing. That is a legitimate point that relates to issues that other parts of the economy have had with seasonal workers coming in from other parts of the country. I was really struck, when I was talking to the French Tourism Minister a couple of weeks ago, by the fact that we have a seasonal workers deal with France so that British people can work in ski resorts there. It affects the best part of 100,000 people, who go over and work there every year. It may be that there are perfectly sensible arrangements that we can come to in that regard.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the additional support that we will provide. That sounds like the Conservative party asking for additional spending, but the problem with additional spending is that it normally requires additional taxation—this is one of the problems of opposition. My party has been in opposition in Parliament for more of my years than it has been in government. If I may make a suggestion to him, it is that you cannot ask for one without willing the other. If the Leader of the Opposition made a fatal flaw last week in her questions to the Prime Minister, it was not recognising that if you are going to ask for more money to be spent, you also have to will the ends and the means.

I fully understand the problems that the visitor and hospitality sector faces. It is tough running a pub or a restaurant, and it has been for many years. The margins are extremely narrow. The hon. Member for Cheltenham said that we had slashed business rate relief, or cut it—I don’t know that he used the word “slashed”—from 75% to 40%. He could have said that we took it from 0% to 40%, because it was not guaranteed beyond the end of the year. We have made it permanent, which is a good thing.

I fully understand the problems that the sector faces, but some of them relate to long-term stability and sustainability and trying to ensure that businesses have the staff they need. I hope that the north-east will be essential in developing that for the whole of the United Kingdom, perhaps in association with other countries around the world. We also need an NHS that functions, buses that turn up on time, a railway system that works, local authorities that mend the roads and a planning system that works and is properly resourced. The whole public sector needs to function in order for the private sector to function. That is why I am proud of the Budget: in the medium and long term, it will help us to secure our economic future.

As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham and all Members in this Chamber will agree, tourism is an essential part of our economic future. It is the fourth largest industry in the world. We have lost share in that over recent years, but even if we were to continue losing share, we could still grow it within the United Kingdom. I am absolutely determined to do that, but it cannot be based just on bringing more and more people to London. I would like more people to come to London, but it cannot just be about that. It has to be based on understanding the full panoply of what we have to offer across the whole of the United Kingdom. Sometimes that will be based on art forms, like being able to see where films or TV series were made or where musicians are from. I note that Framlingham castle is now apparently more famous for Ed Sheeran’s song “Castle on the Hill” than it is for Queen Mary discovering that she was about to be Queen, which was historically what it sold itself on.

I go right back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made at the very beginning. It is not just the legacy of the past that we need to celebrate in our tourism; it is what Britain is today. That is the best way to secure a long-term, secure economic future for our tourism industry in Northumberland and across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

As the Chairman I am not allowed to participate in the debate, but as the Minister comes from the land of song he might like to know that Brenda lives in Thanet and is the chairman of the Thanet male voice choir.

[Joe Morris]

I thank the Minister and everyone who has contributed to this very good and enlightening debate. To pick up on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) made, I should point out that I did grow up in Hexham and am very proud to have grown up in Hexham, although I do support Sunderland. As I said to many of my constituents during the general election campaign, if I can grow up in the north-east and support Sunderland during the 15 and 19-point seasons, I think I can go down to Parliament and advocate for us quite strongly.

[Chris Bryant]

Try being Welsh and liking rugby at the moment.

[Joe Morris]

It certainly teaches resilience. That is one thing that supporting an underwhelming sports team does.

The Minister mentioned music. I should mention Larry O’Donnell, one of my constituency members, who is a bassoonist in the north-east and has often spoken to me about the good work that he and his orchestra do in promoting access to music. I celebrate that.

I have a few points to make as I wind up and thank everyone for their contributions. We need to make sure that tourism is sustainable—that is absolutely right. We need to make sure that the roads are intact, that buses and trains are turning up on time and that we bring local communities with us.

I turn briefly to the landscapes of my constituency. I have been privileged in the past weeks, months and year since being selected as a candidate to engage with the farming community and the work that they have done to diversify, such as by bringing holiday cottages on to their sites. I pay tribute to them as the custodians of Northumberland’s landscape. They are fundamental to a lot of what we offer in Northumberland. It would not be right to talk about tourism without talking about the great work being done by the farming community.

I thank English Heritage for welcoming me to Belsay Hall a few weeks ago. It remains my grandmother’s favourite day out. It was her birthday on Friday; I have got her the mention in Hansard that I promised.

I thank everyone again for taking part in the debate. As the Minister says, we need to grow tourism, but we need to make sure that we grow it outside London and ensure that when people are coming from Chicago, New York, Los Angeles or Tokyo, they consider coming to Hexham spook night, perhaps when they are attending a Newcastle United home game—or a Sunderland home game, in fact. I look forward to welcoming the Minister to one of the many festivals and events in my constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered increasing tourism in Northumberland.

Tourism: Bedfordshire

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree. Commuter towns, particularly those just outside London, become areas that people travel through and do not stop off in, and we can do more as a country to promote them as destinations. I will come on to some ideas on that in a moment, particularly for my constituency.

If people want to spend more time in beautiful countryside, they could visit the beautiful Sundon Hills Country Park, the new community forest in Marston Vale or the Barton hills national nature reserve. While in Barton-le-Clay, they can do some shopping in the charming Olde Watermill shopping village. Across our villages, people can experience the historic and characterful traditional English village pub, whether that is The Chequers in Westoning, The Greyhound in Haynes or The Star in Chalton. Our pubs have been at the centre of village life in Bedfordshire for centuries and continue to be vibrant places to grab a drink and a bite to eat.

Families can come and visit the Woburn forest Center Parcs just south of Millbrook or Go Ape in Woburn, or perhaps spend a day at one of our fantastic safari parks in Woburn or Whipsnade—the latter in the constituency of the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins). Also in her constituency is the historic estate of Luton Hoo, which I hope will be able to welcome the Ryder cup in the coming decade. Golf fans need not limit themselves to Luton Hoo, as we have fantastic golf courses right across Bedfordshire, including the Millbrook, Aspley Guise & Woburn Sands and South Bedfordshire clubs in my constituency.

We do not just have great golf. Rugby fans can enjoy Rugby Football Union championship rugby at Ampthill, and football fans will soon be able to visit a state-of-the-art new stadium at Power Court to watch Luton Town, or they can get an authentic non-league football experience at Ampthill Town, Totternhoe or Barton Rovers. I met Barton Rovers recently and I hope that the Minister will work with me and the club to explore how we can secure funding for a new 3G pitch that will help us to take the club to the next level.

I trust that colleagues will forgive me for my whistle-stop tour of the attractions of Bedfordshire, and in particular some of the fabulous ways to spend time in my beautiful Mid Bedfordshire constituency. But I feel that it is important to do all we can to promote the varied reasons to spend time in our county because, as I noted, Bedfordshire should be a prime location for a thriving tourism industry. It is 30 minutes from London, centrally located between Oxford and Cambridge, home to an international airport and served by a major motorway. But too often, we are a county that people pass through; they do not stop to spend time and money in our local communities. My vision for Bedfordshire is a place that is more than a blur through the train window—a place where domestic and international visitors will get off a plane or train and be excited to stay a while.

Since my election in July, I have met VisitEngland, UKHospitality, Experience Bedfordshire, local businesses and other local stakeholders to understand what we need to do to grow our local tourism, hospitality and leisure economy. Bedfordshire is one of the last counties in England without a local visitor economy partnership. Although there are differing views on exactly what the right solution to promote our local tourism industry looks like, the consensus has been clear that we need to do more to promote it.

The imminent delivery of East West Rail will help to deepen our county’s connections to Oxford, Cambridge and nearby Milton Keynes and provide new markets for our local tourism industry. The potential of a major expansion to Luton airport, which would bring millions more passengers to Bedfordshire, and which is currently sat on Ministers’ desks, offers another major opportunity to put Bedfordshire on the radar of more potential visitors.

But we must ensure that Bedfordshire is in the right position to attract those new visitors from across Britain and overseas and make them see our county as a place to stay, not just a place to travel through. That means getting the right support for local tourism and ensuring that Experience Bedfordshire and our local councils have the resources they need to promote our county. It means fully embracing the opportunities provided by the busy Bedford line and the new East West Rail services on the Marston Vale line to put our county’s best face forward at local stations to entice holidaymakers to get off the train and stay a while locally.

Attracting new visitors to Bedfordshire also means promoting our county and its destinations more abroad, taking advantage of the UK’s international campaigns to promote UK tourism in order to promote tourism in Bedfordshire. We can offer international visitors an authentic experience of a traditional British county and all the best that Britain has to offer, all within an easy commute of London, Oxford and Cambridge. We need to ensure that we promote that. It means doing more to ensure that the people coming off planes at Luton airport are encouraged to stay in Bedfordshire. It also means protecting the things that make our county such a fascinating place to visit. We must do more to ensure that the small, independent and often family-run businesses at the heart of our tourism, hospitality and leisure economy have the support that they need from Government. They need to be supported to employ more local people, not taxed more through an employers’ national insurance hike that will make it nearly three times more expensive in taxes alone to employ a full-time worker on minimum wage.

We must also ensure that the Government’s efforts to deliver thousands of new homes in Bedfordshire do not come at the cost of the things that make it a great place to live, work and spend time. Natural England highlights the vital importance of the whole Greensand ridge national character area in protecting our distinctive estate villages from inappropriate development. We need to protect and enhance the historic character of our villages with sympathetic, small-scale development while restoring nature and conserving the beautiful landscapes of the Chilterns and the Greensand ridge. We must ensure that development, where it does happen, comes with the right infrastructure, so that we build great places with strong local character where people want to spend time, not just characterless, gridlocked suburbia that they could find anywhere.

I do not want the Minister to misunderstand me. I know that we cannot grow our tourism economy in Bedfordshire by just stopping, standing still and looking back at the past. From my conversations with Experience Bedfordshire and others, I know that one of the biggest barriers holding back tourism in our county is a lack of accommodation providers. If we are to seize the opportunities to grow our local tourism, hospitality and leisure sectors, we must attract new hotels and wider accommodation settings.

We have some fantastic opportunities to grow our tourism industry in Bedfordshire. They include the Bedford to Milton Keynes waterway park, which would run through the Marston Vale, near the villages Brogborough, Marston Moretaine and Wootton in my constituency, connecting the Grand Union canal and the River Great Ouse. This project will attract 750,000 visitors, create nearly 1,000 jobs and bring in an extra £26 million to our local economy.

We need to ensure that this project is delivered to a high standard, as quickly as possible, to seize the benefits it will bring to our economy. Government support would help us to deliver this project faster and I hope the Minister will ask his officials to look at how the Government could assist in delivering this project of regional significance.

However, the waterway park is not the biggest potential boost to our local tourism economy. The site that used to be the world’s largest brickworks, at Stewartby in my constituency, which once fired the bricks that built our nation, now has the potential to power our local economy again, as the home as the Universal UK theme park project.

Backed by 92% of local people and local leaders from all parties, this would be a £50 billion boost for our local economy, bringing around 20,000 jobs for local people, but would also, crucially, offer us an opportunity to turbocharge our local tourism, hospitality and leisure sectors with potentially 12 million more visitors in our area every year. It is a game changer—bringing millions more visitors to Bedfordshire to stay in our communities and see all that we have to offer.

Universal could be the key to unlock the Government’s growth mission in Bedfordshire, bringing in billions in investment that will have both direct and indirect benefits for our communities. We have already seen what the Jurassic coast has done for tourism in England. I come here today to ask the Minister to work with us to unleash the benefits of “Jurassic Park” on tourism in Bedfordshire.

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

I knew that was coming.

[Blake Stephenson]

I could not resist it.

Bedfordshire is a beautiful, historic place to live and spend time in. We are fortunate to have some absolutely fantastic local hospitality, leisure and tourism businesses. As its Member of Parliament, I am determined to put Mid Bedfordshire on the map as a place for people to visit.

If the Government are serious about their growth agenda, Bedfordshire represents a real opportunity. Unlocking Universal, delivering the waterway park and ensuring that we have the right promotion in place to take advantage of the opportunities presented by East West Rail and Luton airport would turbocharge our economy.

I hope the Minister will work with us to deliver this agenda. I would welcome him to Mid Bedfordshire to show him the opportunities and some of our beautiful attractions first hand.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Sir Roger, you are not Jurassic. You are a mere slip of a boy, in parliamentary terms anyway.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this debate. I think one of his first parliamentary questions was on this subject. He is obviously very determined to make sure that tourism and the expansion of the tourism offer in his constituency is a key part of securing economic development in his area. I guarantee that if he comes up with any good ideas that we can steal off him, we will be like the proverbial magpie—we will pick it up and run with it. If he ever wants to have a meeting with officials in my Department to discuss specific issues around tourism in Mid Bedfordshire—perhaps we might do that with all the Bedfordshire MPs—I would be more than happy to arrange that.

It is good to have an MP called Blake. The hon. Member might be the first MP in the history of Parliament to be called Blake. I noted the other day that “Blake’s 7” is back—Sir Roger, you can probably remember “Blake’s 7”.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I am afraid I do not.

[Chris Bryant]

You can remember some things still, Sir Roger. By the time “Blake’s 7” ended, it did not have seven people in it, and it did not have a character called Blake in it, which was a bit rum.

I agreed above all with a point that the hon. Member made in his very first paragraph. He talked about Bedfordshire not just being a place that people pass through. I am very conscious of that. My brother lives in St Albans and I am endlessly getting on trains that say the final destination is Bedford, but I never go to Bedford, because I get off at St Albans.

There is a key aspect to what we need to achieve in our tourism and visitor economy strategy over the next few years. It is all very well people coming for a day or half a day and going out with the kids or whatever, but we need to make sure that there is the right kind of accommodation and accommodation mix at different price points in a whole series of different places around the country. Matching the accommodation with the needs and desires of both domestic and international tourists is a key part of what we need to secure in our tourism strategy.

The hon. Member gave us the Cook’s tour, but when he was talking about Wrest Park, which is run by English Heritage, he did not mention that 194,693 people visited in 2023. It has a great Narnia event, which starts, I think, next week or at the end of this week, and that is why parts of it are closed at the moment. He also referred to Houghton House, Woburn Abbey and the safari park. Some 489,751 people visited the safari park, and that was in 2015, so it is likely that the numbers have gone up since then.

The hon. Member focused on what is in his constituency, but we should look at the whole county—of course, tourists and visitors do not say, “I wonder whose constituency I am going to visit today”; they think about the whole offer in an area, including transport links and whether they will be able to park. One of my ambitions in life is to have one parking app for the whole United Kingdom, so that people do not have to use a phone to download a new app every time they go to park somewhere. It is especially irritating when the local council has just changed the app to another app, and people cannot remember the passcode and all the rest of it. Those are the aspects of someone’s journey—every bit, end to end—that we need to think about when we try to create an effective tourism strategy for the United Kingdom.

I would add to the hon. Member’s list the John Bunyan museum in Bedford and, for that matter, the Panacea museum. That is something that politicians have been seeking forever: if only there were a panacea that could cure all ills—although the danger with a panacea is that it is a mirage, and does not really offer what it proposes.

Let me talk about some of the things we are already doing for the visitor economy across the whole United Kingdom. From representations that were made to me immediately after the Government came into office in July, I know that a lot of people in the visitor economy and hospitality industry were particularly worried about the cliff edge that they saw coming at the end of this year in relation to business rates. I am glad that we could take forward the 40% relief. I know that it is not 70%, but placing it on a permanent footing is important, because it allows hospitality businesses to make investments for the future and have a secure financial footing.

One issue in Bedfordshire and many other parts of the country is short-term lets, whether through Airbnb, individual people renting out a room or whatever it may be. In areas with heavy concentrations of visitors at particular times of the year, the art is to come up with a scheme so that we get the benefits of the visitor economy—all the footfall and added money that that brings to a local area—without the danger of ending up with a completely vacated town or village when the tourism period has ended. That is why, following the previous Government’s legislation on short-term lets, we will soon consult on precisely how to implement the legislation, so that we can, at the very least, have a clear understanding of what short-term lets there are across the whole country and then, if necessary, take further action.

The hon. Member rightly referred to local visitor economy partnerships and the fact that there is not one in Bedfordshire at the moment. That is an issue of concern. As he knows, the local visitor economy partnership programme was part of a new vision for England’s tourism management landscape and was recommended by the independent destination management organisations review. In February 2023, VisitEngland launched the LVEP accreditation programme, which will continue through 2024-25 and which seeks to accredit high-performing, strategic and financially resilient organisations that can lead visitor economy development in their areas, working with businesses and local authorities. As I understand it, VisitEngland is working closely with Experience Bedfordshire and other local stakeholders in Bedfordshire to support their progress in building capacity and moving towards local visitor economy partnership status. Over the coming months, I will ensure that I keep in touch with my officials about how that progresses. I am sure that if it does not progress to the hon. Member’s satisfaction, he will call for another of these debates and I will have to answer to him.

In the Budget, the Chancellor confirmed the Government’s support to deliver the East West Rail scheme in full, which is good news; the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred to it. It will strengthen the region’s thriving life science, technology and innovation sectors, but it will also facilitate journeys for tourists and locals throughout the Bedford area. East West Rail is set to bring billions of pounds-worth of growth to the Oxford-Cambridge region, along with tens of thousands of new homes and jobs. I note that the hon. Member was not quite so happy about the tens of thousands of new homes. For what it is worth, my personal view is that the most important thing when developing large numbers of new homes, which we all know this country needs, is to ensure that we have all the infrastructure to be able to cope with them. If there is going to be a significant expansion of the tourism industry, or the visitor economy industry in Bedfordshire, the people who are going to work in that industry will need houses to live in. All those things have to come together.

The hon. Member referred to the prospect of a major development with Universal UK, which is a new theme park. Obviously, I cannot enter into the specifics of the ongoing discussions—that would be unhelpful to everybody —but I am hopeful that we will get to the significant and dramatic change that it would make, not only to visitor numbers in Bedfordshire but to the whole of the United Kingdom.

That takes me to my final point. Of course we should be ambitious for the whole of the United Kingdom in our tourism strategy, but it would be counterproductive if every single person who came from overseas to this country—and we still do not have the numbers that we reached before covid—decided that they were going to visit only London and did not even get to Bedfordshire, let alone farther-flung parts of the United Kingdom. That is why, in all the work we do on behalf of VisitBritain and VisitEngland, we need to ensure that our tourism strategy is genuinely sustainable. It should take people to see not just the historic sites in the capital city of London, or, for that matter, Bath, Stratford, Oxford, Cambridge or Edinburgh, but the full diversity of what we have to offer in this country.

We are a country with extraordinary things to see. There are enormous adventures to take part in across the whole country. The hon. Member has highlighted some of those in his own constituency. I am keen to ensure that many more people come to the United Kingdom, including Bedfordshire, and, as he said, they do not just pass through but stay the night.

Question put and agreed to.

Rural Broadband

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a delight to be here, Dame Siobhain, and I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on securing this debate. I am not sure I will be able to answer the questions of all the Members who have come to this debate in my speech.

Some Members have raised concerns at DSIT questions as well, and I note that one Member said that I was prepared to have an audience with people, which makes me sound like the Pope. I am not the pontifex maximus— I am not even the pontifex minimus—but my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), who is my Parliamentary Private Secretary, and I are happy to organise meetings with officials to go through the specific issues in individual constituencies. Some of the statistics that have been thrown out are different from the statistics I have, and it may be that mine are a little more up to date, because we have a whole Department to look up statistics for us. That offer is available to all hon. Members. I want to be as helpful a Minister as possible, because—

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

rose—

[Sir Ashley Fox]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Wait a second! Because I fully accept the fundamental point that was made right at the beginning by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton: broadband is essential to nearly every form of engagement in modern life—finding out where you are, finding out which is the nearest chemist that is still open, logging on to a Government website, the Government trying to do their business, or someone trying to set up a local business. All those things are absolutely vital.

Broadband is greedy. Every year, more and more speed and capacity is needed. That is why we need to make sure that we get to full gigabit capable broadband for every single set of premises as soon as we possibly can. That is not a difficult thing to achieve.

[Tessa Munt]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the hon. Lady because her request to intervene is timely.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the Minister greatly. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers)—is the Minister actually the king of mobile signal as well? If he is, there is a cracking need to get on with making sure that areas like mine, like his, have got a decent mobile signal.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am the Minister for Telecoms, and that includes—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Does that include Portcullis House?

[Chris Bryant]

That is an interesting intervention from the Chair! I think that Portcullis House is a matter for the Speaker and the Administration Committee. But there is a serious point here: in many cases if we could get to 5G standalone universally, some of these issues would not apply, because we would be able to do lots of things. The police, for instance, could have fully streamed services available through their 5G, and broadband might not be so immediately significant.

I am painfully aware that this is an issue I raised as a Back-Bench MP and baby MP all the time. Sometimes Ofcom’s reporting does not match people’s lived experience. It will say, for instance, that somewhere has 98% coverage from all four operators on mobile, but when people get there they cannot get a signal for love nor money. Often that is because of the way Ofcom has been reporting, which relies on 2 megabits per second. But with 2 megabits per second people cannot do anything. That goes back to the original point made by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton—I will think of her as the hon. Member for Glastonbury Tor now, because it is shorter in my head.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The data issue that the Minister is raising is precisely what we have been experiencing. Looking at it on paper, from the maps, the villages have fantastic signal and broadband, but that is just not people’s experience. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me recently to discuss this and for the roll-out we are going to see from the Government in East Cleveland.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not want Opposition Members to think that I have had an audience with a Labour Member and not with others. There is a universal service obligation on the Minister here. For most of the issues that have been raised, I think the most useful thing would be to book in a time for officials from Building Digital UK to go through both the mobile and broadband issues that relate to Members’ specific constituencies. We do have more precise maps, and we are able to talk all those issues through.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) is right. One of the first things I did when I became the Minister with responsibility for telecoms was to write to Ofcom to say, “You have to review the way that you look at these issues of reporting.” I am glad to say that Ofcom replied recently, and I am happy to put a copy of that letter in the Library so that everybody can see the correspondence we have had. But it is a good point; apart from anything else, mobile operators would quite like to know where there is good coverage—and good coverage should mean coverage that is actually any use to anybody, rather than something that theoretically says 4G but does not feel like 4G at all.

[Richard Foord]

The Minister has kindly agreed to meet me and some Somerset colleagues later this month to discuss this issue. One thing I want to put on the agenda for that meeting is Connecting Devon and Somerset, which has cancelled three contracts previously and has just cancelled a fourth. I wonder if we have a special problem in Devon and Somerset.

[Chris Bryant]

That may be the case, and that is one of the specific things we can take up with BDUK.

I should explain the whole process first. Of course the Government do not want to have to pay for the roll-out of broadband across the whole of the UK. That would be an enormous big-ticket item. Nor, for that matter, do we want to pay for the roll-out of 5G. We are therefore trying to ensure that where commercial operators can do that roll-out, they are able to do so as cost-effectively as possible. Where it is not commercially viable, the Government will step in. That is what the whole BDUK programme is, both through Project Gigabit, which relates to broadband, and the shared rural network, which applies to mobile telephony. That is the plan.

The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton mentioned very hard-to-reach places. The truth is that there will probably be 1% of places where it will be extremely difficult—for either a commercial operation or for the taxpayer—to take a fibre to every single property. That could be so prohibitively expensive for the taxpayer that we will have to look at alternative means. That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) that we will have to look at alternatives, and some of those may relate to satellite or wireless delivery of broadband.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Another new Member wants to make a contribution.

[Mr Angus MacDonald]

The £500 million set aside for the shared rural network was instigated by the previous Government. In the highlands of Scotland, it is organised by land mass, rather than the geographic concentration of people. If the Minister wants to find £300 million or £400 million of that to help with the roll-out of broadband, he can feel free, because it is very unpopular where we are and it is not serving the needs of the people.

[Chris Bryant]

I hope that I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman a little here. I know the highlands of Scotland very well: I spent many of my childhood summers in Aviemore, and I know the Cairngorms well. It seems to me illogical simply to put big masts in places of extreme natural beauty just for the sake of saying that we have covered geographical mass. It is much more important to have masts in places where there are actually people and a connection that will be used, so that is very much the direction of travel that I hope we can go in. I am not sure that it will save the amount of money that he talks about, because, for all the reasons raised by other hon. Members, people still need connectivity in lots of places that are fairly out of the way, but broadly speaking he makes a fair point. I cannot remember if he has written to me about this issue, but I know that several Scottish MPs have. If he writes to me, he will get the same response as the others, which broadly speaking is the point that I have just made. Incidentally, if Members want, they can go to thinkbroadband.com for the most up-to-date figures on broadband roll-out.

I mentioned the figures raised by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton. I think the figures in the south-west are that 97% of premises can now access superfast broadband and 77% can access gigabit-capable broadband. However, that is lower than in the rest of the UK, and our aspiration is to get to the same levels across the whole of the United Kingdom, although there are obviously geographical difficulties; I know that from the south Wales valleys, where this issue is also difficult. There is a difference between “have access to” and “have”. For instance, in many parts of the UK—not rural, but urban—gigabit-capable broadband has gone down the street, but not into the building, so there are sets of issues for urban areas. I know that the hon. Lady and others have written to me or asked me questions about how much of the BDUK budget is being spent on rural areas. It is more than 90%, but we need to address some urban issues as well. I am trying not to see this as urban versus rural, as there are different issues in different areas, and we need to address all of them. I have referred to areas that are very hard to reach, and we are looking at alternatives.

The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton also raised the issue of the electronic communications code, and I rather agree with her that the process is cumbersome. There has obviously been a new electronic communications code, and I can confirm that we are looking at implementing the provisions under the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 that have not yet been implemented in fairly short order. I hope that we can make further announcements about that fairly soon, and that should deal with some of the issues that the hon. Lady is concerned about. The truth of the matter is that broadband, mobile connectivity and connectivity in general are as important as water, electricity and any of the other services on which we have all come to rely, whether it is for the issues that the hon. Lady relates in particular about farms, to do with running the Government or to do with being a member of society.

One of the other areas in which we must do far more—it is a shame that less has been done over the last 12 years by the Government—is digital inclusion. We can map areas of digital deprivation in parts of the country, including in the south-west, and we need to tackle that. We need to have a whole-Government approach, part of which is about access, part of which is about skills and part of which is about tackling poverty. There is a whole series of different issues, but if we really want to take the whole country forward into a digital and prosperous future, we can do so only if we have included every single part of it. As I said, part of that is about connectivity and the affordability of connectivity. Part of it is about people understanding that they need the high speeds talked about by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, and part of it is about having the skills and understanding to take those issues on.

I am very happy to give an audience to anyone who wants one; they should approach me as soon as possible, because we have quite a long list of people who do. However, I see this issue as an essential part of our delivering an economic future that we can all be proud of in this country.

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

Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

As ever, Mr Dowd, it is a joy to see you in your seat and, as usual, in a very fine suit. The regulations we are discussing today were laid before the House on 12 September. In our manifesto, the Labour party stated that we would use every Government tool available to target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence, in order to achieve our landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. I am sure the whole Committee would agree with that. Through this statutory instrument, we are broadening the responsibilities of online platforms and search services to tackle image abuse under the Online Safety Act 2023.

As I am sure all members of the Committee will know, the Online Safety Act received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023. It places strong new duties on online user-to-user platforms and on search engines and search services to protect their users from harm. As part of that, the Act gives service providers new illegal content duties. Under these duties, online platforms need to assess the risk that their services will allow users to encounter illegal content or be used for the commission or facilitation of so-called priority offences. They then need to take steps to mitigate any identified risks. These will include implementing safety-by-design measures to reduce risks, and content moderation systems to remove illegal content where it does appear. The Online Safety Act sets out a list of priority offences for the purposes of providers’ illegal content duties. These offences reflect the most serious and prevalent online illegal content and activity. The priority offences are set out in schedule 7 to the Act. Platforms will need to take additional steps to tackle these kinds of illegal activity under their illegal content duties.

Sections 66B, 66C and 66D of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as amended by the Online Safety Act 2023, introduce a series of intimate image abuse offences. Today’s statutory instrument will add the offences to which I have just referred to the list of priority offences—the ones that the organisations must take action on. These offences include the sharing of manufactured or manipulated images, including deepfakes, and sharing images where the intent was to cause distress. This statutory instrument means that online platforms will be required to tackle more intimate image abuse. I hope that the Committee will support what we are doing here.

The new duties will come into force next spring, as the Act provides that Ofcom needs to be able to implement them within 18 months of Royal Assent. Ofcom will set out the specific steps that providers can take to fulfil their illegal content duties for intimate image abuse and other illegal content in codes of practice and guidance documentation. Ofcom is currently producing this documentation. The new duties will start to be enforced from spring next year, as soon as Ofcom has issued the codes of practice and they have come into force, because of the 18 months having passed. Providers will need to have done their risk assessment for illegal content by then. In other words, the work starts now.

We anticipate that Ofcom will recommend that providers should take action in a number of areas. These include content moderation, reporting and complaints procedures, and safety-by-design steps, such as testing their algorithm systems to see whether illegal content is being recommended to users. I am sure that all members of the Committee will be able to think of instances we have read about in the press that would be tackled by precisely this piece of legislation. I would say, because the shadow Minister will speak shortly, that we welcome the work of the previous Government on this. Where we can co-operate across the House to secure strong regulation that ensures that everybody is protected in this sphere, we will work together. I hope that is the tenor of the comments that the shadow Minister will make in a few moments.

Where companies are not removing and proactively stopping that vile material from appearing on their platforms, Ofcom has robust powers to take enforcement action against them, including the possibility of imposing fines of up to £18 million, or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue—whichever is highest. Although this statutory instrument looks short, it is significant. We are broadening providers’ duties for intimate image abuse content. Service providers will need to take proactive steps to search for, remove and limit people’s exposure to that harmful illegal content, including where it has been manufactured or manipulated and is in effect a deepfake. I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

As I said, I welcome the hon. Gentleman. I hope he stays in his place—I do not mean that I hope he stays in the room for the rest of the day, though. It is good when people actually know something about the subject they are talking about in debates in the House, so it is good to have him still in his place. [Interruption.] I hope that is not a note from the Leader of the Opposition saying that he is no longer responsible for this area.

My speaking brief says: “I thank the members of the Committee for their valuable contributions to this debate”, but—well, anyway. The hon. Member made an important point about the protection of children. That is not precisely what this statutory instrument is about; it is about the requirements on platforms and search services to deal with intimate image abuse. That is the very specific thing we are tackling this afternoon. The pornography review is not what we are debating this afternoon either, but I am happy to write to him about that and hope to provide him with the assurances he seeks.

The hon. Member makes the most important point of all when he says that platforms do not have to wait until next March to take action in this field. I am sure that any parent or anybody else watching this part of society with even the slightest interest will know about the significant damage done to our whole social sphere in this area over the last few years. Platforms need to take their responsibilities seriously. They do not need to wait for Ofcom to tell them how to do it; they should be taking action now. They certainly need to make an assessment now, before next March or April, of where any risks are, because otherwise there is a danger that Ofcom will immediately take action against them, because it will say, “Sorry, you haven’t even done the basic minimum that you need to be able to make people safe.”

Everybody wants the online world to be as safe as the world that we all inhabit. The only way to do that is by making sure that the legislation is constantly updated. There are Members who often ask whether we want to update the Online Safety Act, because there are perhaps things that we might need to take further action on in future. We are very focused in the Department on trying to ensure that it is fully implemented in the shape that it is in now, before looking at new versions of the legislation in this field. But where, as in this case, we can take small, sensible measures that will make a significant difference, we are prepared to do that. That is the attitude that we are trying to adopt.

I hope the Committee agrees with me on the importance of updating the priority offences in the Online Safety Act as swiftly as possible, and I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.