Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

5. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of trends in the level of spending on gambling advertising.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

We monitor a wide range of evidence to aid our assessment of gambling advertising and its impacts, including spend data provided by the industry and independent sources. We will continue to keep our policies under review in this serious context. There is a Westminster Hall debate on gambling harms later today, where hon. Members will get the chance to unpack these issues in more detail.

[Alex Ballinger]

This week FIFA announced a four-year partnership so that gambling platforms can stream world cup games on UK websites for the first time. Football fans are already heavily exposed to gambling advertising, and the Government have confirmed that there is clear evidence linking gambling advertising to harm. As the Premier League has agreed to remove gambling adverts from the front of shirts this year, does the Minister share my concern that the livestreaming of world cup games on gambling sites is a step in the wrong direction and can perpetuate further gambling harm?

[Ian Murray]

There are two ways to answer that question. The first is with regard to exposure to the world cup itself, and I want as many world cup games as possible to be on free-to-air television. When Scotland qualified for the world cup, it was on the BBC and brought the whole nation together, which is what the world cup should do for every nation that has qualified.

Secondly, on exposure to gambling, we are committed to strengthening measures to protect those at risk, including the gambling levy. Twenty per cent of that £120 million will go towards making sure that we have the proper research to build on. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s raising this point. I will consider the issue with the Sport Minister, and I will write to my hon. Friend with an update in due course.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Sitting down to watch a football game with my young family the other day, my wife commented, “Are you watching football, or are you watching a gambling show?” She had a point. Last October, a match between Man City and Wolves had over 5,000 visible gambling ads during the game. Gambling destroys lives and is responsible for close to 500 suicides a year. What consideration is the Department giving to addressing this pressing and devastating issue?

[Ian Murray]

It is a pressing issue that has been recognised, particularly by the Premier League, which has banned shirt sponsorship from next season. A number of robust rules are already in place to ensure that adverts are not targeted at, and do not strongly appeal to, children and those at risk of harm. The Government are looking at this issue very seriously, and I hope the hon. Gentleman comes to the Westminster Hall debate this afternoon.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help protect the creative industries in the context of AI.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

On 15 December we published a progress statement on copyright and artificial intelligence, as required by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. By law, we have to publish an independent impact assessment before 18 March. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology recently held a round of successful technical working groups on copyright and AI, and I am engaging with the creative and tech industries to ensure that our copyright regime values and protects human creativity while unlocking innovation across our creative sector and the wider economy.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The Minister will know that big tech companies want to use songs, recordings and other creative work to train their AI models, without asking or paying the original creators. Does he agree with my union, the Musicians’ Union, that those working in our creative sector should be asked for consent to use their work, get credit for use of their work and be fairly compensated when their work is used in this way?

[Ian Murray]

This is one of the most serious issues we have to deal with in this space. As a joint Minister in DSIT and the DCMS, I know this is something we are looking at, and we are very aware of all the concerns raised by creatives. We want to support rights holders in licensing their work in the digital age and to allow AI developers to benefit from access to creative material. In the UK, that will require a landing zone for both industries, and engagement, such as technical working groups, will be key in finding a solution that works for both sides. We will continue to engage with stakeholders in both sectors to further develop that approach, and that is the commitment from both Secretaries of State.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

When it comes to AI, as with so many other things, this Government are all smoke and mirrors. In response to the Grok AI outrage this week, the Secretary of State for Science and Tech announced with a flourish that she would be banning intimate image abuse with immediate effect. In reality, this meant triggering legislation that had to be forced through by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge against the Government’s will and that received Royal Assent last summer. Imagine how many women could have had their trauma prevented if the Government had just got a grip. Every day, our creative industries are having their work scraped. Intellectual property is being stolen every day, and still the Government sit on their hands, promising the world and delivering nothing. When will we see the AI Bill promised in the last King’s Speech, and when is that legislation likely to be brought forward?

[Ian Murray]

As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), there will be an update to Parliament on 18 March, as provided for by the Data (Use and Access) Act. This is an incredibly serious issue, but what we really need to do is make sure that the Online Safety Act 2023 is completely implemented. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology made it very clear from the Dispatch Box this week that the Government will have an absolutely no-tolerance approach to what has been happening with AI and Grok. Ofcom must do its job. It must do it quickly, it must do it soon, and it must take the greatest possible action it can against the perpetrators of the disgusting and abhorrent ways in which AI is operating on some platforms.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to help increase access to sports facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

10. What steps her Department is taking to help support co-operative live music venues.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

Co-operative live music venues have benefited from the Government’s community ownership fund, which enables communities to take ownership of valued local cultural assets. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does to champion the arts and music in his constituency. Building on the community ownership fund, the new Pride in Place programme will support 244 neighbourhoods with up to £20 million each over the next 10 years, which can support local music venues, while our new music growth package of up to £30 million, which we will launch in the spring, will help to strengthen grassroots music infrastructure, including venues themselves.

[Patrick Hurley]

Southport does not need to apply to be the UK town of culture because we have a fantastic year of culture coming up this year anyway—Members should check out southport2026.com for more details. As part of building a legacy off our year of culture, I am meeting music industry professionals next week to discuss the live music scene. Grassroots music venues are vital to nurturing new talent, but too many venues in this country are closing because of soaring costs. Can the Minister outline whether music venues should have their own sector-specific support package so that we can protect live music for the future?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is correct: Southport is already a town of culture. He has been championing southport2026.com, which everyone should go and look at. In addition to the £30 million music growth package, the Government are encouraging the live music venue to go further to deliver widespread adoption of the voluntary £1 levy on tickets for stadium and arena shows in order to help to safeguard the future of grassroots music. I re-emphasise that we are encouraging the industry to go much further; we want as much take-up as possible and to see the levy in place for as many concerts as possible. We want the music industry to continue to drive progress with this, as all that money will go into grassroots live music.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

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

High Street Gambling Reform

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing this debate to go forward, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing it. Many hon. Members from across the Chamber have talked about the harms of gambling. Although that is incredibly important in underpinning the debate, I will concentrate on what the motion says about licences and premises, and on what local authorities can do to deal with those kinds of issues.

I pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East, because the way that she presented her speech and told real-life stories was really powerful. I join her in paying tribute to Jackie Olden for her campaign on behalf of her mother Wendy—my hon. Friend told a hugely powerful story about the impact of gambling on their family and the campaign that they have subsequently proceeded with—and to Charles and Liz Ritchie, who, after the death of their 24-year-old son Jack, started Gambling with Lives. The Minister for gambling, Baroness Twycross in the other place, met both Jackie and Liz in the autumn, and the Government will take forward some of those discussions. Next Thursday there is a gambling harms debate in Westminster Hall, and I encourage Members to bring some of the contributions that they have made today to that debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East mentioned a list of things that she would like to see going forward, and I hope to cover some of them, but I will start by mentioning a few of the other contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), in an intervention, talked about the 80:20 rule and the changes to the rule that were proposed in the gambling White Paper. The gambling Minister recognises the problems and wants to ensure that protections from harms are much more robust before any thoughts on changing the rule come forward. I hope that satisfies Members who are concerned about the 80:20 rule.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) talked about the Breakeven charity in her constituency, which I believe she is visiting tomorrow, and about the 2023 White Paper. We want to implement the recommendations in that White Paper. Obviously, it was the previous Government’s initiative, but the recommendations were pretty powerful. We want them to be implemented as quickly as possible, but we also want to see them bedded in before there is another review of gambling. She also talked about the gambling ombudsman, which will require primary legislation. We will bring forward those kinds of issues as and when we are able to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) talked about the 30 gambling premises across her constituency and the cumulative impact of them. I hope to come on to some of those cumulative impacts in my speech.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) rightly talked about gambling harms. He should attend the debate next Thursday, if he is able to do so, and bring some of those real-life examples with him.

One high street in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has one of the highest concentrations of gambling establishments in the country. She demonstrated why more powers such as the cumulative impact assessments, which I will come on to talk about, will I hope help with such issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) rightly told us that problem gamblers are invisible, whereas those with other addictions are not. That highlights the problem that has to be dealt with, and the issues raised by the Health and Social Care Committee. I commend him and his Committee for what they have done to bring this issue into the public health domain.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) highlighted some successes that communities have had in limiting the number of gambling premises in his constituency. However, he is frustrated both about their lack of ability to do so, and about the premises that have been approved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about our manifesto commitment to tackle gambling harms, as well as about stake limits and the statutory levy to fund research, protection and treatments. I hope that the cumulative impact assessments, which I will talk about shortly, are able to help with those issues.

Generally, the Government are fully committed to giving communities across the country stronger tools to shape their local areas, and that is what this debate has been about. We have passed the landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will deliver growth and housing, and strengthen local planning through the implementation of spatial development strategies nationwide. That is backed up by the £5 billion Pride in Place funding for neighbourhoods.

We are also widening and deepening local devolution through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and delivering a suite of tools to support communities in improving their high streets. Those include high street rental auctions, which will give councils the power to auction the lease of long-term vacant premises, a community right to buy for communities to take ownership of local buildings that they value, and streamlining of the compulsory purchase process to help local authorities regenerate our high streets.

As many hon. Members will be aware, we intend to provide additional powers to local communities on the location and density of land-based gambling premises. Today, I will focus on the Government’s approach to land-based gambling, and on the powers that local authorities have and will be given in relation to gambling premises. All of us want to see a responsible gambling industry, which brings social and economic value to communities across the country. My own mum worked in a bookmakers. In particular, we are clear about the value of the land-based gambling sector; it was certainly valuable to her when she worked there.

The sector makes an important contribution to our national life, and we have heard about events such as the grand national. I know the importance of seaside arcades and bingo halls to communities across the country, and the joy that they bring to many millions of people. The reforms to gambling duties, including the abolition of bingo duty, announced in the autumn Budget—those duties were mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson)—reflect the contributions of such venues to our economy and our local communities.

In parallel, the Government recognise that harmful gambling can wreck the lives of individuals. We know that families and communities can be wrecked, which is why we are working with the land-based sector, the Gambling Commission and others to ensure that player-protection measures are effective and that people can gamble safely, while seeking effective help when that is needed.

Local authorities are essential to efforts to mitigate this risk, so let me run through what they can do; they play a crucial role in the regulation of gambling up and down the country. They have a wide range of powers—a suite of powers and tools—in relation to gambling premises. Licences are subject to guidance issued by the Gambling Commission and its licensing objectives. Licensing authorities are given broad powers to set conditions that require licensed gambling to be carried out in a way that is consistent with keeping gambling fair and open. During the licensing process, licensing authorities can attach conditions to premises licences to which operators must adhere.

All local authorities should publish a statement of principles on gambling licensing outlining local issues, priorities and risks. In those statements, licensing authorities can identify high-risk areas and specify local risks. Operators must take steps to mitigate those risks in their applications. I fully acknowledge and understand what hon. Members have said about the “aim to permit” principle, but we do not believe that the premises licence application process is a foregone conclusion. The “aim to permit” principle is subject to strict conditions, including that the licence application is consistent with the local authority’s gambling policy statement. It is worth saying that “aim to permit” is a licensing issue, not a planning issue. Once a licence is granted, licensing authorities have extensive powers of monitoring and enforcement, and I would encourage them to use them. Planning permission is always required to create gambling premises or for a change of use to gambling premises such as a bingo hall or a betting shop, and the planning system has to be used.

Given the limited time I have left, let me move on to the cumulative impact assessments, because I think they are at the heart of this issue.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I do not know if I have time, but I will give way.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that freedom of responsibility, when it comes to gambling, is exactly where we should be, rather than restricting people from taking part in activities such as greyhound racing at Romford greyhound stadium in my constituency? It is a part of our local culture and it is very important that we do not allow such places to close down because of severe restrictions from Government.

[Ian Murray]

I appreciate the intervention, but that is a completely different story to the subject of this debate. Nobody is denying that betting on the grand national or on greyhound racing, as tens of millions of people do every week, is safe and secure, but the Government have to regulate industries such as gambling and have always done so. The regulations are in place to keep people safe, but they also ensure that people who enjoy gambling can be assured that the system they are using is safe.

Let me talk very briefly about cumulative impact assessments, which the Prime Minister committed to directly at Prime Minister’s questions in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East. The Government want local authorities to feel empowered to make data-driven decisions that are in their communities’ best interests. We want them to feel able to curate healthy and vibrant spaces that reflect the needs of their local communities. As part of our Pride in Place strategy to strengthen local authority influence over the location and density of outlets, we have confirmed that we will introduce cumulative impact assessments when parliamentary time allows. Cumulative impact assessments will empower local authorities to take data-driven decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling harms. We have heard a lot about where those gambling harms are.

It is really important that “aim to permit” applies also to licensing applications. Planning policies, including local plans, offer councils additional tools to influence the number of gambling premises in their areas. With local plans, the “aim to permit”, the cumulative impact assessments and the ability to enforce and set strict conditions, local authorities have a suite of powers to prevent if they so wish and make their high streets the way they want them to be.

In conclusion, the Government want to ensure that local authorities have the tools and resources they need to shape their local areas in line with their community’s best interests. That is a Government commitment and a prime ministerial commitment from the Dispatch Box. Our plans to introduce cumulative impact assessments are an important part of that commitment, and we will bring them forward as soon as a legislative vehicle is available.

UK Town of Culture

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

As always, Ms Furniss, it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing what I think has been a very enjoyable debate. It has not just been a debate about the town of culture; I think it has actually been the largest lobbying exercise from MPs that we have seen in this Parliament. It has been a geographical trip through everyone’s wonderful constituencies. We heard from my hon. Friend about everything from yarn bombers to mosh pitters, in the form of Led Zeppelin and Robert Plant. Of course, he has invited the President of the United States to come and visit his wonderful green lands—I am glad about his intonation on that.

I pay tribute to the Halesowen Abbey Trust for its work on the Leasowes walled garden, which demonstrates the civic pride that my hon. Friend talked about in his opening speech. As he mentioned, culture is a shared language. Whether we are talking about yarn bombers, heavy metal, mosh pitters or some of the wonderful heritage buildings around the country that we have heard about, one thing is for sure: we all have that shared cultural heritage that we want to preserve. It is not just about celebrating the past; it is about shaping the future, as many of my hon. Friends and others have said.

I also pay tribute to Colin Brookes of Halesowen Town FC, and pass on our sympathies to his family. Those kinds of individuals drive local projects, institutions and organisations. Without those personal commitments from people like Colin Brookes, none of these institutions would continue to exist; we rely on local people’s passions for that. It was not just a great speech from my hon. Friend; it was also a superb oral application form, which I hope Hansard will just pop, verbatim, straight into his application form for the town of culture competition.

This scheme will be delivered across the UK and in collaboration with devolved Governments. As we have already heard, the UK town of culture competition builds on the city of culture model for cultural placemaking, which was first launched in 2009, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), said, and is now in its fifth iteration. Derry/Londonderry, Hull, Coventry and now Bradford have benefited from the lasting and transformative impacts, including more than £1 billion of additional investment added to local economies of past host cities, increasing jobs, tourism and that local cultural pride.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned, Bradford 2025 has delivered a wealth of significant benefits, not just for Bradford itself but for the wider region. The highlights of its time as UK city of culture include delivering more than 5,000 events across all 30 district wards and attracting more than 3 million people with its world-class cultural programme. It commissioned and involved more than 650 local artists, involved 87,000 individuals in participatory projects, 2,700 volunteers—the Colin Brookes of this world—with more than 5,500 people benefiting from training, and engaging more than 160 schools and educational settings.

The direct positive impacts on people’s lives in the local community are clear, as we have heard. More than 80% of people surveyed said that Bradford 2025 had a positive impact on their wellbeing; it made eight in 10 residents feel proud of where they live; and more than 70% of residents felt more connected to the people in their communities. I therefore echo the congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley to the Bradford city of culture directors, Shanaz Gulzar and Dan Bates. I thank them for all that they did, and thank everyone who participated in that.

[Anna Dixon]

I thank the Minister for his congratulations. Bradford council has already committed about £13 million over the next five years to the legacy, but much more is needed for capital projects, such as the Bingley town hall creative workshop. Would the Minister agree to meet me and representatives of Bradford council to discuss how we secure the legacy of Bradford 2025?

[Ian Murray]

I am very happy to take up that invitation to meet with my hon. Friend and representatives to see how that legacy is lasting, because the legacy is actually the most important thing from the city of culture scheme. I hope there are also huge legacies from the town of culture scheme, not just for the successful town but for all the applicants. It may give another boost to all of that cultural heritage and cultural futures in those areas.

When the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport launched the UK town of culture, she said that

“every place has a story worth telling”,

and we have heard those stories this afternoon. I have been struck by the depth of what has resonated from hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen said this is about telling the story of the past and today, but also about shaping the future. Indeed it is.

We have heard lots of wonderful stories. I will run through some of those, rather than going through what the town of culture will be about, because everyone seems to be reflecting. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) dropped a bombshell, and told us that he tries to get Strangford into every debate—who knew? He is a great champion of Strangford. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) talked about the history of opening up the arts to everyone —that is what the town of culture is about; it has to be about art for all—and reminded us not to forget about rural areas and those on the periphery, which I think is really important and what this is all about.

Turning to the town of Amesbury: we had heavy metal from Stonehenge, Romans and Saxons and Spın̈al Tap in a four-minute speech; who would have known we would have got there today? My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) talked about “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, which I thought was more Greek than Stoke-on-Trent. She talked about the art, music, charities and heritage, and the Longton carnival in the Stoke-on-Trent area.

We heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) about the £60,000 of funding to help develop the approach for shortlisted candidates. It is critical that there is that support to ensure that we develop some of those. There is also £60,000 available for longlisted city of culture candidates so that they can develop their proposals. I join in congratulating Wimborne as Dorset’s town of culture 2026. I would love to visit if I possibly can, but only if I get to see “Legally Blonde: The Musical”—I will maybe go down there to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) talked about the Prescot Cables FC, and the story he tells is a story from many places across the country. Who would have thought that William Shakespeare, fleeing the plague, would have turned a bus stop into a playhouse for young people being trained, and for cultural heritage and outreach to schools? One of the key things he said, which drives the town of culture and the city of culture—indeed, it drives the Secretary of State and me in terms of culture across the country—is that change can happen. A big catalyst for change is arts and culture; it is a great advert. My hon. Friend also gave a great advert for Southport’s year of culture in 2026. I cannot remember the website, but I am sure it is in Hansard for everyone to refer back to.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) talked about the whole competition empowering local people, and Chesham being a coiled spring champing at the bit to get their application in. Who knew that Bishop Auckland was the home of the calendar, and therefore the home of time itself? My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) made a reference to Laurel and Hardy, and the “Land of Hope and Glory”, which I think is a great combination to have there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) spoke about turning the Reading Gaol into a cultural and arts centre. I think that is absolutely fantastic, bringing arts and history to life. And who knows? The car park might be a famous royal cemetery. Rather than sending the town of culture prize pot to Reading, maybe we should just send a couple of spades and a digger, and we could do it on that basis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley went through all those issues, and re-emphasised the fact that Bradford, as the city of culture, had something for everyone. Crewe and Nantwich is the home of the Cheshire Archives. It is absolutely fantastic to have those there, but the key thing is arts and culture being a catalyst for town centre regeneration. I think that is key. We tend to forget that arts and culture can be that catalyst: they can bring people together and regenerate footfall in our city centres.

Finally, we heard how hotly contested this competition will be in North West Leicestershire. I am not going to look at my officials when I say this—I do not know who will actually go through the application forms, but how they are going to determine who will win is quite extraordinary, given what we have heard this afternoon and the applications. I would say, to everyone who has spoken this afternoon and to anyone who is interested in the competition, to apply. There is such a rich heritage of culture and arts in every single corner of the country—north, south, east and west. We should celebrate that, and the kinds of celebrations we could have from that can be through this competition. The competition will not just be about winning, although I am sure that all Members present today will want their own town to win; just taking part in the competition will be a big celebration of arts and culture.

I will respond to the specific question by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham about the timeline for the competition. For now, I can merely say that we will launch the competition very shortly. Of course the first town of culture will be in 2028, so the timeline, as Members can see for themselves, is relatively short. Consequently, we will launch the competition as soon as we possibly can.

Each place has a unique story. However, there is also a shared conviction that through culture and creative industries we can share the stories of towns, and celebrate the contribution of towns to our national story. That is why the town of culture award is so important. I thought that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), was slightly curmudgeonly when he asked if we need a town of culture competition; I think he has heard today why we need it. Even if it is just an opportunity for local people, local arts and culture organisations and local MPs to talk about and champion their local area, that in itself is something we should champion.

Our vision for the UK town of culture competition is that the public know we see and value the contribution that towns make to our national story, and that there are benefits for all those who are able to tell their own story. At the end of the competition, a cultural programme will be delivered that draws on the best of art, heritage and creative industries, underpinned by compelling local stories that will be shaped by local people, delivered through local partnership, and designed to leave a lasting legacy through strong cultural infrastructure, increased participation in culture and the creative industries, and a renewed sense of local pride. Indeed, we know that that is what the award does. One of the key things that the Secretary of State and I are very keen to see happen is the bursting of the bubble between there being talent everywhere and opportunity not everywhere. That is something we want to build upon.

This has been a tremendously enjoyable debate and I look forward to all the applications coming in. I do not look forward to having to assess the applications, but I encourage people to get them in, because we know that our national story is not written by one city or one institution. It is not written by one town or one organisation. It is written in the places across the United Kingdom and shaped by the generations of people who have lived, worked, created and contributed there. The UK town of culture competition is an invitation to celebrate that story and invest in it, to ensure that in the future it continues to be told with creativity, confidence and pride.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I call Alex Ballinger to wind up quickly, because we expect a vote at 4 pm.

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

A happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all the House staff. This is the first opportunity I have had to say that to you.

On 3 June 2024, a busy Monday morning in south-east London, criminals attacked Synnovis, an organisation that processes blood tests on behalf of our national health service. They did not turn up physically, but logged on to computers thousands of miles away and set off ransomware—malicious software that encrypts files from afar, making them unusable. The attack had a ripple effect across London hospitals. It delayed 11,000 appointments, blood transfusions had to be suspended and the company lost tens of millions of pounds.

This was not an isolated case. In the year leading up to September 2025, the National Cyber Security Centre dealt with 204 “nationally significant” incidents, meaning that they seriously disrupted central Government or our critical public services. That is more than double the 89 incidents in 2024. No one disputes that we must do everything we can to protect the UK from these attacks. The UK is the most targeted country by cyber-attacks in Europe, and it was the fifth most targeted nation in 2024 by nation state-affiliated threat actors. In 2024, it is estimated that UK businesses experienced over 8.5 million cyber-crimes in the 12 months preceding the survey, and that in that year more than four in 10, or 43%, of UK businesses were subject to a cyber-attack, affecting more than 600,000 businesses in total.

Significantly, cyber-attacks are estimated to cost UK businesses almost £15 billion each year, equivalent to 0.5% of the UK’s annual GDP, notwithstanding the wider economic effects of intellectual property theft or the experience of patients, as in the first example. The average cost of a significant cyber-attack for an individual business in the United Kingdom is estimated to be just over £190,000. There has been a 200% increase in global cyber-attacks on rail systems in the past five years, increasing the likelihood of severe disruption to the economy and to people’s daily lives.

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

Does the Minister agree that, as we become more and more reliant on IT systems—I am thinking in particular about the new patient registration system at the Princess Alexandra hospital in my constituency—it is more and more important that we combat potential cyber-attacks, particularly from foreign powers and enemies of this country? That is why the Bill is so crucial.

[Ian Murray]

I could not agree more. I gave the example of the Synnovis incident that brought blood transfusions in London to a halt, affecting thousands of patients. Our everyday lives are affected by this. As we modernise and digitise our economy and our Government, we have to ensure that our systems are as secure as possible, and cyber-security is right at the heart of that. This is not just a defensive issue; it is very much an economic growth issue as well, as we can see from the impact it has on our economy, our public services and the day-to-day lives of people, as in the example of our train systems that I just mentioned.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and it is great to see him in his post. On economic growth, how has he sought in the Bill to balance the absolute need for a regulatory framework that businesses can have confidence in alongside the ability to attract continued investment, and to ensure that we do not end up with an over-regulatory framework that stifles investment? How did he find that balance?

[Ian Murray]

The Bill builds on the 2018 regulations, which were a hangover from the EU when we adopted them in this country. The Bill expands on those. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) just suggested, this is about economic growth as well as protecting our systems, so we have to find a balance between ensuring that our regulators have the powers and tools to regulate properly and giving businesses and our public services the confidence to use digital technology knowing that we have the most secure cyber-security in Europe, if not the world. We are very good at this stuff, and that is the balance to be sought. This Bill is about economic growth rather than about the over-regulation of businesses. I do not say this flippantly, but cyber-security is one of those areas where if everything is working, nobody notices, but when it is not working, suddenly everyone notices and it is everyone’s problem. That is why we are bringing the Bill forward and extending the scope of the powers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for what he is saying and bringing forward. There is much in the Bill that we should encourage. I know that he is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland is home to 130 cyber-security companies with some 2,750 employees. It is therefore essential that this legislation protects those jobs and enhances the capacity for more. Does he believe that the Bill both protects us and provides the opportunity for growth in Northern Ireland and, indeed, across the whole of the United Kingdom?

[Ian Murray]

Indeed it does. It is one of a number of provisions that the Government are bringing forward to create growth across the country, not just in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State’s passion is to make sure that those jobs are everywhere, right across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. The Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), has been in Belfast recently discussing this legislation and wider cyber-security issues with the industry in Northern Ireland, so I can assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that that is indeed the case.

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

Hackney council was the subject of a major cyber-attack in 2020. It did a good job, though it was very slow because of the nature of the challenge of getting things back up and running. The Bill is therefore very welcome but, pursuant to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), there are challenges for some of the smaller companies. I represent Shoreditch, which has many tech companies that need to maintain a standard on cyber-security but are small. How is the Minister going to balance the regulation for those smaller companies to ensure that they can keep abreast of things but are not so dampened down that they cannot progress and grow?

[Ian Murray]

This is about making sure that we extend the scope of the 2018 regulations into other parts of the economy, and I will come on to that later in my contribution. It is about reporting things more quickly to ensure that the attacks can be seen and action can be taken more quickly. It is also about reporting to the regulators to give the regulators confidence and powers across a wider scope of sectors in the economy, and to give businesses the confidence that those sectors have to report to the regulators when things are going wrong so that swifter action can be taken. We can see from the host of recent high-profile issues, including at Hackney council, that it is important to ensure that this legislation goes through quickly and does the job that it is intended to do.

[Chris Vince]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I apologise for intervening again. Is there a piece of work we need to do on culture? When businesses or the public sector are victims of cyber-crime, there is a danger that employees may feel embarrassed or nervous about reporting their concerns. We need to encourage people if they are victims of cyber-crime to come forward quicker and to recognise the challenges, rather than trying to hide them away and the issue becoming worse.

[Ian Murray]

While physical security and national security are issues for all of us, so is cyber-security. The Bill builds on the 2018 regulations to widen the scope into other areas of the economy where such issues have become much more prevalent—for example, data centres. I hope that doing so will give industries and sectors, including their employees, the confidence to report things to the regulators. Giving powers to the regulators will give businesses the confidence that they can report stuff; it is not a regulatory heavy hand dampening businesses. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend and the rest of the House on that.

Before that significant number of interventions, I was talking about why this issue matters and gave statistics for recent cyber-security activity in the United Kingdom. As a result of all that, one of the very first things we did as a new Government after the election was announce this new cyber-security Bill, just 10 working days in. Since then, the Department has been talking to cyber experts, businesses and regulators to turn these proposals into the comprehensive, serious and proportionate piece of legislation that we present for Second Reading today—one that protects the public and strengthens national security without placing undue burdens on businesses. I appreciate that that is a fine balance, but I think that this Bill finds that balance, so I am confident that the whole House will support it.

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

We support this Bill and its efforts to tackle cyber-security, but it does not address the mass unauthorised scraping of trusted news content by generative AI systems. That content, as the Minister knows, is often taken without consent or compensation. As the Bill progresses, will he be prepared to look at some measures—maybe something like a bot register where people have to declare their intent when it comes to this type of activity? Will the Government look at this seriously so that news can be protected in this new environment?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in the way in which he uses interventions on pieces of legislation. I know AI copyright is close to his heart as a former, or perhaps current, professional musician and, indeed, one of the key musicians in MP4—let’s not push that to a Division! AI copyright is, of course, a key issue that the Government are looking at. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are working closely together on this issue. I think the legislation means that there has to be a report to Parliament in March—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be very interested in that. We are bringing together the industry and tech companies to try to find a way through that particular issue. We know that it is a huge issue. It is not in the scope of this Bill, which has been kept very tight to deal with these specific and serious cyber-security issues.

As we know, the first duty of Government is to keep people safe. The question is how precisely the Bill will achieve that goal. The answer is simple. The UK’s main cyber-rules—the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018, or the NIS regime—were first introduced seven years ago and have not been updated since. Those rules require operators of essential services such as energy, water and hospitals, as well as some digital service providers such as online search engines, to take steps to protect the services they provide and the data they hold from cyber-threats.

As Members might expect, a lot has changed in the cyber-landscape in the past eight years. We have had the rise of AI, which cyber-criminals are using to their advantage. Data centres have become a firm fixture of modern life, and we want to see more of them. Since the rules were introduced, criminals tactics have evolved to exploit loopholes in the regulations, as they did in the attack on the NHS supplier that I mentioned, which revealed how hackers can target third parties, such as IT companies, or supply chains as a back-door way to bringing down a wider system. As always, the story is one of technology and cyber-threats moving faster than policymakers can possibly keep up with.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to mention the impact on supply chains. In the west midlands, we recently had the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover. That had a significant impact not just on that company, but on the supply chain, which has its roots right through the west midlands. That essential part of our economy was brought to a grinding halt by a cyber-attack. Will he confirm that this Bill will help prevent such instances from happening in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for all he did on the issues facing Jaguar Land Rover. I know that the matter is close to his heart and, indeed, it was a really big issue across the country, showing how a cyber-attack can affect not just one company, but has a ripple effect throughout the economy. Of course, the Government stepped in to unlock a £1.5 billion bolster to Jaguar Land Rover’s cash reserves to help it through that problem.

I should say to my hon. Friend, and I will come to it later, that Jaguar Land Rover and other private organisations are not in the scope of this Bill. The reason is that individual private companies should take their own cyber-security seriously and ensure that the risks of such incidents and threats are minimised as much as possible. The Bill widens the scope of the existing regulations, which do not include that, but of course the Government are working closely with Jaguar Land Rover, Marks & Spencer and other high-profile cases, because we know the impact they can have on our economy. Indeed, had the Government not stepped in and resolved that issue, the impact on Jaguar Land Rover, and the tens of thousands of employees at the plants and in the supply chain, would have been catastrophic and is not worth thinking about. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue.

As I said, as always, the story is one of technology and cyber-threats moving faster than policymakers can possibly keep up with, but today we are fixing that. The first change in the Bill is to widen the scope of the 2018 regulations. To keep up with the changes of the past eight years, we are adding a few new things to that list, starting with large-load controllers. That includes any organisation that manages a significant flow of electricity to or from a smart appliance. It might be a company that supports electric car charging, for example. Bringing these entities into scope will safeguard our power supply and give consumers confidence in using energy-smart appliances, all of which are critical as we advance towards our clean power 2030 mission and net zero.

The second change is that we are adding large data centres in recognition of their growing importance to our day-to-day lives and to the economy. These are vast digital warehouses for the United Kingdom, home to servers that host everything from patient records to their bank details. This is the data that underpins modern life and all our lives and communities, and it must be protected.

We are expanding the scope of the regulations to include managed service providers as well. Those are organisations that provide ongoing functions, such as an IT help desk, to an outside client. Their access makes them an attractive target for cyber-attacks as criminals can find one weak spot and bring countless organisations down. For example, in 2014, an attack on a service provider for the Ministry of Defence compromised the personal data of around 270,000 people—military personnel, reservists and veterans. As organisations rely more and more on outsourced tech, we have to close this gap. In fact, weaknesses in the supply chain have become such a risk that we will go even further by allowing regulators to designate certain organisations as critical suppliers. That includes certain suppliers to essential services that could have a significant impact on the economy or society as a whole—for example, key suppliers to water companies, grid operators or air traffic control. These critical suppliers will be subject to cyber-security duties, which we will set out in secondary legislation.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Last year, the Treasury Committee wrote to the top 10 banks in the UK because there had been a number of outages. There was no suggestion that cyber-security attacks were involved in most cases. A trend in the responses was that third-party software providers are often the source of the issue. What is the Minister’s thinking about how to involve the banking sector in the scope of the Bill?

[Ian Murray]

The banking sector is obviously in the regulators’ scope for cyber-security, and there have been a number of outages, as my hon. Friend mentions. The general principle is that cyber-attacks no longer come in through the front door, but through third parties and suppliers. We have seen that, for example, in the recent incidents at Heathrow and in cloud outages with Amazon Web Services and other such companies. They are covered by their own regulations. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) about Jaguar Land Rover, those companies will not be in the scope of the Bill, but we hope that the financial services sector, which is a leader in cyber-security for a whole host of fairly obvious reasons, will take that forward.

The recent attacks on British icons such as Marks & Spencer and Jaguar Land Rover will loom large in people’s minds. Many Members across the Chamber have already mentioned them. Supply chains were thrown into chaos, with small businesses paying the price, which clearly shows the ripple effect across the economy—on other businesses, smaller businesses and patients, such as in the public service examples mentioned earlier—when one part of the system is attacked.

We are clear that all businesses—that covers financial services, Jaguar Land Rover, Marks & Spencer and others—must take immediate steps to protect themselves. That is why, in October, members of the Cabinet wrote to the FTSE 350 companies urging them to strengthen their defences by doing three things: first, to make cyber risk a board priority; secondly, to require suppliers to have a cyber essentials certificate; and thirdly to sign up to the early warning service. That was followed by a similar letter to entrepreneurs and small businesses in November with bespoke advice for smaller teams. We know that those actions work. Organisations with cyber essentials are 92% less likely to claim on cyber insurance than those that do not. Businesses know best how to protect themselves; we are not here to regulate for the sake of regulating.

Government are taking action too. As I announced this morning, the Government cyber action plan sets a radically new model for how Government will strengthen their cyber-resilience and is backed by over £210 million of investment. Government Departments will be held to standards equivalent to those set out in the Bill. That is why the public sector and the Government are not included in the scope of the Bill. The Government should not need to legislate for themselves; we should just get on with making sure that we are leading the charge and that the cyber action plan strengthens the Government’s cyber-resilience. [Interruption.] I do not know if that was an attempt at an intervention from the Opposition Front Bench, but I am happy to take it.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s comments about the obligation on the public sector. However, I caution him that, in my experience, cyber-security is one of those things that Ministers talk about, but then other priorities overtake it. The advantage of legislative requirements is that they force Ministers to think about it. I urge the Minister to look at that point again as the Bill passes through Parliament. There is a case for putting more stringent requirements on the public sector in order to force Ministers’ minds on the point.

[Ian Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman would have had some involvement in this when he was in government; indeed, the 2018 regulations came from the previous Government. We are all trying to make sure that we are catching up with the technology as quickly as it moves. He makes a very interesting point that I am very conscious of and happy to take away. We are determined to deliver the cyber-security action plan, which is backed by £210 million.

The actions that the previous Government took did not come to fruition in terms of their 2030 target, which is why we have refreshed the action plan and brought it forward with some significant cash. It is important for Ministers to take that forward. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will hold us to account to ensure that we are fulfilling that promise in the cyber-security action plan. Public services, and indeed central Government, must take the leading role to show businesses that the approach to take is to ensure that all our systems are as secure as possible, not just on economic grounds, but for the people that we all seek to represent.

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

I thank the Minister for the excellent points he is making on the importance of cyber-security and the cyber-security action plan. Can he say a little bit about how the success of the cyber-security action plan will be measured, monitored and communicated to the House? He is probably aware that only 33,000 cyber essentials certificates were issued in 2024, for example, so an increased take-up of cyber essentials and the guidance in the action plan are essential.

[Ian Murray]

There are some key dates to monitor progress in the action plan itself. I wrote to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, this morning on the publication of the action plan to lay out some of those issues; the letter will be landing soon. I would be happy to discuss that in front of the Committee in more detail. I hope that the Committee, and indeed the Opposition and our own Labour Members, hold us to account for delivering on this, because it is fundamentally important to Government, whether it be digitisation, modernising Government or winning the case with the public about why digitisation is so important and why Government should be as secure as possible and lead the charge on that across the whole economy. I hope that we and the Committee can take that forward in the weeks and months ahead.

As I said, the Government cyber action plan launched this morning is backed by over £210 million of investment and Government Departments will be held to standards equivalent to those set out in the Bill. I hope that that partially answers the question from my hon. Friend the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. Although the focus of the Bill is on essential services, it will also indirectly help businesses, including those damaged by the recent attacks, and Government. Almost all organisations today rely on data centres, outsourced IT or some kind of external supplier. By extending the Bill’s oversight, we are preventing attacks that could, in theory, reach thousands of organisations.

The Bill also gives new powers to regulators responsible for enforcing the NIS framework. Effective compliance is crucial to the success of any regime. These reforms could be world-leading on paper, but without proper enforcement they are meaningless.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

We have talked about the regulators having new powers to designate critical national infrastructure in regard to cyber-security threats, but who actually has accountability? The Bill refers to

“regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

Which Secretary of State is that, given that this is a cross-departmental and cross-Government approach?

[Ian Murray]

Cyber-security is the responsibility of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but the Cabinet Office has a clear resilience issue as well, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), who was in the Cabinet Office previously. The DSIT Secretary of State will make those regulations, but a plethora of regulators are involved in this process—energy, water and data centres all have different regulators. The regulators that regulate those sectors are being empowered through the expanded number of sectors being brought into the legislation to take the responsibility.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the point about regulators, the industry has issued a brief, which points out, quite sensibly, that these regulators are going to have a lot of extra duties to perform and they will therefore need extra resources to be able to perform those duties, but the extra resources they require will only be unlocked when the Bill has passed. Is there not a danger of a transition period where duties will be laid on regulators to fulfil their role before they have the resources to carry it out?

[Ian Murray]

We have to pass the legislation first. It may be amended during its passage through both Houses. Therefore, the regulators will not know what they are regulating until the Bill has passed. However, as I mentioned at the start of my contribution, we have been working with regulators, businesses, organisations and cyber-security experts in the run-up to producing the Bill to make sure that it is in the right place—that it is proportionate on businesses and regulators—and that it is effective, which is the most important thing. I am sure that we will have debates on those kinds of issues as we go through Committee and on to Third Reading, but I very much acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman said.

The Bill will strengthen the powers of the NIS regulators, ranging from Ofgem to the Civil Aviation Authority, which work together to uphold the UK’s cyber rules across those different sectors—I may have taken the previous intervention 10 seconds too early! We are raising the maximum fine that they can impose, for example, while simplifying the penalty bands to make them clearer. The key driving force for this measure is not to punish rulebreakers or raise revenue, but to incentivise firms to be vigilant. Our goal is 100% compliance and zero fines.

We will also ask regulated organisations to change the way they report attacks and expand both the types of instance they have to report and the timeframe in which they have to report them. This is a small but crucial change. Under the current rules, regulators get notified about a breach only once it has already caused significant disruption—when traffic lights have failed or the heating has shut off. The system does not include cases with the potential to cause a crisis much later, like a hospital’s computer system quietly being spied on as hackers wait for their moment to strike. Under the Bill, if an organisation is within scope, it will have to tell its regulator and the National Cyber Security Centre about these types of breaches within 24 hours and provide a full report within three days. Pace and speed are of the essence. This will not only give us better information, but help agencies to warn others, should they need to, before they become the next targets.

The Bill will also allow the Government to set clear and consistent outcomes for regulations to work towards. One of the virtues of having a regime enforced by different agencies is that each has sector-specific expertise—Ofgem understands the complex digital systems that underpin the national grid, and the Civil Aviation Authority knows the precise threats to air traffic control, for example—but that approach has sometimes led to inconsistencies in how the regime is applied. Some bodies interpret the rules differently from others. The Bill aims to fix that with a single set of objectives issued by central Government and applied across the board. That will send the message that no sector is an easy target in the UK.

We will also improve the way in which regulators, intelligence agencies and law enforcement share information with each other by providing greater clarity on what regulators can share and receive. It is important that regulators have the resources to do their job, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. The Bill will also give them new powers to cover the full costs associated with their regulatory duties. To ensure transparency, regulators will consult on how fees are calculated and publish a statement each year to show how the funds are being used. Together, the measures add up to a much more consistent and effective regime with better reporting and much clearer guidance for all involved.

The Bill ensures that the UK’s cyber-security regime is not only fit for today but flexible enough to head off future threats as well. I have mentioned a few things that have changed in the past eight years—shifts in technology and the nature of cyber-attacks, artificial intelligence, data centres and the economy—but one of the biggest changes was, of course, Brexit. Since our exit from the European Union in January 2020, we have been unable to amend the NIS regulations without primary legislation, because the rules were originally part of European Union law. That has slowed the process and made it difficult for us to keep pace with new emerging threats and technology. Meanwhile, Brussels is pressing ahead with NIS2—its forward-looking update—while we lag behind.

That procedural quirk has left essential UK services more exposed, which perhaps tells us something about why the UK has such appalling figures compared with some of our EU counterparts, as hackers and cyber criminals exploit gaps in our dated laws. That is an unacceptable risk, so the Bill includes new powers for the Government to update the NIS regime via secondary legislation, to make it quicker and more agile for dealing with evolving technologies—we might need to respond quickly to a new type of cyber-threat, for example. That is not in order to override Parliament; in almost all cases, the Government will still be required to consult on any changes, and Parliament will have the final say on any legislation made under the power. However, delegated powers are essential for keeping us as responsive as possible. When national security is on the line, we need the ability to act fast and decisively.

In fact, in extreme cases some threats emerge so rapidly that even secondary legislation is too slow; if an ally were to be invaded by a hostile state, for example, the cyber risk to the UK would suddenly escalate. The Government will therefore also be given powers to direct regulators or regulated entities where national security is threatened—to issue specific cyber-security guidance in a crisis, for example. Those powers are intended as a last resort to protect our national security, and safeguards will go into the Bill to ensure that they are used accordingly.

The UK’s cyber sector is the third largest in the world, as we heard from our friend from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It achieves double-digit growth year on year. We have fast-growing clusters of expertise in Cheltenham and Manchester. This legislation will supercharge that success, doubling down on one of our nation’s greatest assets. At its core, the Bill is about protecting the essential services that we all rely on, so that the lights always stay switched on, clean water always runs in our taps, and hospitals are always safe and secure. Those are the real life community issues that we and our constituents all encounter every single day.

This is more than a technical upgrade; it is a bold commitment from the Government to protect one of our biggest economic strengths and keep the UK safe in a rapidly evolving digital world. Together, we are working towards a future in which security is not a hope but a guarantee. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

As my right hon. Friend is aware, local government is outside of the scope of the Bill, but it is a very juicy target—much of the public sector remains a very juicy target. In acknowledgment of that, the Government whipped out a strategy very quickly this morning that is meant to give us assurances about the public sector’s cyber-resilience. I am not sure that that strategy will provide much reassurance, which is why it is important to understand that this Bill can only be one part of a much wider arsenal to tighten gaps where they exist, in both the private and public sectors.

[Ian Murray]

It is worth clarifying for the House that we brought forward the Government cyber-security strategy this morning because the 2022 consultation undertaken by the previous Conservative Government was not acted upon. This Government are acting on those threats, bringing forward a plan that we will subsequently see through, and I think the hon. Lady should acknowledge that.

[Julia Lopez]

I welcome the strategy, but I have not yet had a chance to have a good look at it, because the Government always seem to publish these sorts of documents right at the last minute. The only way to get any information out of this Government is to apply some pressure in this House, and then, remarkably, things come flying out of the cupboard.

I will be very interested to see what the strategy looks like and whether it is up to the challenge we now face. The problems and risks of cyber have increased markedly since we were in Government because of the advent of AI technology—that technology is changing the picture very rapidly, just as the defence picture is changing very rapidly. My concern is that this Government are not taking seriously enough the various defence and security challenges that this House faces; they are prioritising spending on welfare payments, union payments and all manner of other things. It is one thing to get a strategy out of the door; it is another to put in place the measures that will implement that strategy. Basically, all we have seen over the past 18 months is strategy documents, without a great deal of delivery. That is one of the reasons why the Government are so rapidly losing public confidence.

In conclusion, we support this cyber Bill in principle—the threat is real and growing, and it demands action. However, it is only a tool, not a cure-all. A Government who are trying to close down gaps in one place while wilfully opening up huge new risks in a different corner are being negligent in their approach. Furthermore, if this legislation is to command confidence, it must be practical, proportionate and genuinely effective. Without meaningful improvements, the Bill risks placing new burdens on business while delivering only marginal gains for our national resilience. Cyber-security is a shared responsibility between Government, regulators, industry and the public, but leadership must come from the top, and that is where this Bill currently falls short.

With the private sector taking the lion’s share of the load while gaping holes remain in public sector cyber-defences, the Bill begs obvious questions about the confidence that citizens should have in flagship Government projects such as the Prime Minister’s mandatory digital identity system. As it stands, the Bill would not have prevented high-profile cyber-shutdowns such as Jaguar Land Rover’s, it does little to address the chronic vulnerabilities in the public sector, and it certainly will not make Labour’s dodgy ID database any more secure. That is why, as the Bill progresses through Parliament, we will be pressing this Government to ensure that it delivers genuine security, proper accountability and raised cyber-defences across the board, while taking them to task on major mistakes such as mandatory ID. Cyber-security is no longer a niche compliance exercise; it is about protecting the fundamental economic and defence interests of our nation.

Government Cyber Action Plan

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)]

Today I am publishing the Government cyber action plan, which sets out how we will transform cyber-security and resilience across Government and the public sector.

Public incidents demonstrate the devastating real-world consequences of inadequate cyber resilience. The recent incident affecting the Legal Aid Agency compromised personal data and impacted the organisation’s ability to digitally process legal aid applications and bills.

Similarly, the attack on Synnovis—a supplier of pathology services to the NHS—caused delays to over 11,000 outpatient and elective procedure appointments and, tragically, contributed to the death of a patient.

This reality underscores the fact that cyber-security is not a luxury; it is a fundamental component of business continuity, and all organisations should take steps to defend themselves.

Digitisation offers substantial opportunities to transform lives, deliver better public services, and drive economic growth and digital government. By investing in secure and resilient foundations, we do more than protect and transform public services; we drive innovation and growth within the UK’s cyber-security sector.

This Government have taken important steps in understanding and mitigating cyber risk across Government and the public sector. The Government Cyber Co-ordination Centre, also known as GC3, enables us to respond as one Government to cyber incidents, threats and vulnerabilities. Our secure-by-design approach enables us to “fix forward”, ensuring future digital services are designed to achieve cyber-security resilience outcomes. GovAssure, our cyber assurance process now entering its third year of operations, offers an unprecedented picture of current resilience levels and the fundamental blockers to progress.

However, the evidence is clear: we must do far more to address the persistent threat. We must move from a model where individual organisations act alone to one where the Government truly defend as one.

Today’s Government cyber action plan sets out a radically new model for how Government will operate differently to deliver this necessary transformation. It is backed by investment of over £210 million, led by the Government cyber unit within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The unit is taking decisive action to rapidly address the recommendations from both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee by holding Departments to account for their cyber-security and resilience risks, as well as providing them with more direct support and services, and co-ordinating response to fast-moving incidents.

[HCWS1221]

BBC Charter Review: Terms of Reference and Green Paper

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

The Government have today published the terms of reference and the Green Paper consultation for the BBC charter review, formally launching the review.

The BBC is an institution like no other. For over 100 years it has been at the heart of our national life and a light on the hill for people across the world. This charter will formally set the terms of the BBC for the future, with a clear ambition to set the BBC on a path to thrive until well into the latter half of this century.

Our vision is for a BBC that is trusted, loved and belongs to us all, providing those shared spaces and places that have become so rare and so precious in recent decades. Sustainably funded, with a strong presence in every nation and region so that all of us can see ourselves reflected in our national story. A broadcaster known for its unique strengths, from the highest-quality children’s programmes to impartial and trusted news and documentaries, the world over.

The review will focus on the following areas, which are set out in the objectives in the terms of reference and the Green Paper:

Trust, independence and accountability are central to the BBC’s future, to how it operates and to how it engages with audiences. The BBC must remain independent, genuinely accountable to the public it serves, and, critically, it must continue to command public trust.

To ensure that the BBC remains a trusted institution, it must also follow the highest editorial standards. This is how the BBC provides the facts necessary for civilised debate and a foundation of shared national understanding. It must continue the World Service’s vital work in providing trusted and truthful news internationally, and delivering on its role as a UK soft power asset promoting British values abroad.

The BBC needs to also reflect the whole of the UK. People, right across our nation, must be able to access content that genuinely reflects their lives, their communities, and their contributions. This means the BBC must commission, produce and distribute stories that are truly rooted in diverse UK experiences and promote British stories and creativity to the world.

This charter review will ensure that the BBC continues to remain an engine of growth driving good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK and a leader in technologies that provide public value.

Finally, we have to ensure that the BBC is funded in a way that is sustainable for the long term, providing the BBC with the funding it needs to continue to deliver a vital public service, while also being fair for audiences.

The consultation will be open for 12 weeks. Following this, the Government will bring forward a White Paper next year ahead of tabling a new charter, which Parliament will have the chance to debate. The new charter must come into force by 1 January 2028.

[HCWS1176]

Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)]

It is great to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I did not realise you were such a technophobe until we heard from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). I am disappointed that you were not able to contribute to this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank him and other speakers for their contributions.

I have not been on the RTG fans message board that my hon. Friend mentioned, but I am sure it has been very busy this weekend. I wondered if some of the trolls mentioned by the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) were perhaps wearing black and white over the weekend. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central raised an important point, however: it is the site managers and volunteers who are hosting those forums, keeping them legitimate and working very hard to abide by the law.

Jambos Kickback is an important site for my football team, and many people use it to find out what is going on. It is run by volunteers with no money at all—just for the sheer love of being on the forum together—so I fully understand what the petitioner wants to bring forward. I thank my hon. Friend for the measured way in which he put forward the e-petition. He called for robust, effective and proportionate regulation, which is what the Government are trying to do through the Online Safety Act.

The shadow Minister highlighted that by going through the ledger of the positive and negative issues that the Government face, and indeed that were faced when her party was in government. The one thing on that ledger that is non-negotiable is the safety of children online—I think all hon. Members made that point; in fact, I am disappointed that those who do not make that point are not in this debate to try to win that argument, because I would be very interested to hear what they have to say.

The petition received over 550,000 signatures. Although I appreciate the concerns that it raised, I must reiterate the Government’s very strong response that we have no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act. Parents should know and be confident that their children—I am a father of two young girls, aged five years and ten months—are safe when they access popular online services and that they can benefit from the opportunities that the online world offers. That is why the Government are working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and as effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from the Act’s protections.

This year, 2025, has been one of significant action on online safety. On 17 March the illegal harms codes of practice came into effect. Those codes will drive significant improvements in online safety in several areas. Services are now required to put in place measures to reduce the risk of their services facilitating illegal content and activity, including terrorism, child sexual abuse and exploitation, and other kinds of illegal activity.

I asked the officials for a list of the priority offences in the Act; there were 17, but that number has increased to 20, with the new Secretary of State at the Department adding some others. It is worth reading through them because it shows the problem and the scale of it. I was really struck by Members who talked about the real world and the online world: if any of these offences were happening in the real world, someone would be carted off to jail immediately rather than being allowed to continue to operate, as they do online.

The priority offences are assisted suicide; threats to kill; public order offences such as harassment, stalking and fear of provocation of violence; drugs and psychoactive substances; firearms and other weapons; assisted illegal immigration; human trafficking; sexual exploitation; sexual images; intimate images of children; proceeds of crime; fraud; financial services fraud; foreign interference; animal welfare; terrorism; and controlling or coercive behaviour. The new ones that have been added by the Secretary of State include self-harm, cyber-flashing and strangulation porn. Do we honestly have to write that into a schedule of an Online Safety Act to say that those things are unacceptable and should not be happening on our computers?

On 25 July, the child safety regime came into force. Services now use highly effective age assurance to prevent children in the UK from encountering pornography and content that encourages, promotes and provides instructions for self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Platforms are also now legally required to put in place measures to protect children from other types of harmful content, including abusive or hateful content, or bullying and violent content.

When we visited schools, we spoke to headteachers, teachers and parents about the real problem that schools have in trying to deal with the bullying effects of social media. According to Ofcom’s 4 December report that some hon. Members have referenced already, many services now deploy age checks, including the top 10 most popular pornographic sites, the UK’s most popular dating apps and a wide range of other services, including X, Telegram, Reddit, TikTok, Bluesky, Discord, Xbox and Steam. This represents a safer online experience for millions of children across the UK; we have heard that it is already having an impact.

The Government recognise, however, the importance of implementing the duties proportionately. That is why proportionality is a core principle of the Act and is built into many of the duties contained within it. Ofcom’s illegal content and child safety codes of practice set out recommended measures that are tailored to both size and risk to help providers to comply with their obligations —it is really important to emphasise that. When recommending steps that providers can take to comply with their duties, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services.

Let me just concentrate on that for a minute. For instance, Ofcom recommends user blocking and muting measures to help to protect children from harmful content, including bullying, violent content and other harmful materials, and those recommendations are tailored to services’ size and risk profile. Specifically, Ofcom recommends that all services that are high risk for this content need to implement those measures in full. However, for services that are medium risk for this content, Ofcom suggests that they need to implement the measures only if they have more than 700,000 users.

However, while many services carry low risks of harm, risk assessment duties are key to ensuring that risky services of all sizes do not slip through the net of regulation. For example, the Government are very concerned about small platforms that host the most harmful content, such as forums dedicated to encouraging suicide or self-harm. Exempting all small services from duties requiring them to tackle that type of content would mean that those forums would not be subject to the Act’s enforcement powers, which is why we reject the petitioner’s views. Even forums that might seem harmless carry potential risks, such as where adults can engage directly with child users.

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that low-risk services do not have unnecessary regulatory burdens placed upon them, which I hope reassures the shadow Minister. That is why, in the statement of strategic priorities issued on 2 July, the Government set out our expectation that Ofcom should continue focusing its efforts on safety improvements among services that pose the highest risk of harm to users, including small but risky services. The Government also made it explicitly clear that Ofcom should ensure that expectations on low-risk services are proportionate.

Alongside proportionate implementation of the Act, the Government also understand the need to communicate the new regulations effectively, and to work with companies within its scope to ensure that compliance is as easy as possible. To deliver that, Ofcom is providing support to online service providers of all sizes to make it easier for them to understand and comply with their responsibilities under the UK’s new online safety laws. For example, Ofcom has already launched a regulation checker to help firms to check whether they are covered by the new rules, as well as a number of quick guides for them.

I will address some of the issues raised by Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) started by raising the issue of pornography and other harmful content. User-to-user services that allow pornographic content, and content that promotes, provides instructions for or encourages suicide, self-harm or eating disorders, must use highly effective age assurance to prevent all children under 18 from accessing that type of content.

Services must take proportionate steps to minimise the risk of children encountering that type of content when using them, and they must also put in place age assurance measures to protect children from harmful content, such as bullying and violent content. Ofcom’s “Protection of Children Codes of Practice” set out what steps services can take to comply, and Ofcom has robust enforcement powers available to use against companies that fail to fulfil those important duties. We are already seeing that enforcement happening, with 6,000 sites having taken action to stop children from seeing harmful content, primarily via age checks. That shows the scale of the issue.

Virtual private networks have also been mentioned by a number of Members, including the shadow Minister. Following the introduction of the child safety duties in July, Ofcom reported that UK daily active users of VPN apps temporarily doubled to around 1.5 million—the average is normally about 750,000. Since then, usage has dropped, falling back down to around 1 million daily users by the end of September. That was expected, and it has also happened in other jurisdictions that have introduced age checks. According to an Ofcom rule, services should

“take appropriate steps to mitigate against methods of circumvention that are easily accessible to children”.

If a provider is not complying with the age assurance duties, by promoting VPN usage to bypass age assurance methods, Ofcom can and should take enforcement action. The use of VPNs does not protect platforms from not complying with the Act itself.

[Jim McMahon]

The Minister has done a huge amount of work on this issue, which I am sure is appreciated by everyone in this House. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to find a way for these VPN companies to bridge between the service user and the ultimate website or platform that they are viewing, so why are VPNs not in scope of the legislation to ensure that they are compliant with the age verification measures? Presumably, it is more difficult for the end website to know the origins of the user, if they have bypassed via a VPN. Surely the onus should be on the VPN company to comply with the law also.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; let me come back to him in detail on the VPN issue, as his question relates to what we are planning to do in our review of the Online Safety Act, including both what was written into the legislation and what was not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who is no longer in her place, highlighted the really important issue of chatbots, which has also been mentioned by a number of other Members. Generative AI services including chatbots that allow users to share content with one another or search live websites to provide search engines are already regulated under the Online Safety Act. Those services must protect users from illegal content and children from harmful and age-inappropriate content.

[Victoria Collins]

Ofcom has said, and my understanding is, that in certain circumstances AI chatbots are covered, but certain new harms—such as emotional dependence—are not. That is an area where the House and many people are asking for clarity.

[Ian Murray]

I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. There are a whole host of issues around porn bots and AI-generated bots that have now also sprung up. We know that we are committed to the Online Safety Act and its review as its being implemented. As technology moves on quickly, we have to keep pace with what the harms are and how we are able to deal with them. I thank the hon. Lady for raising those particular issues.

We will act on the evidence that comes forward. It is clear that if the evidence shows us that we have to act in various areas, including chatbots, we will do so. The Secretary of State announced plans to support a child safety summit in 2026, which will bring together tech companies, civil society and young people to shape how AI can benefit children and look at online harms and the movements on those.

[Emily Darlington]

I wanted to raise with the Minister that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will be undertaking an inquiry in the new year on brain development, addictive use and how that impacts various key points in children’s development. The Minister says that he will look at all evidence. Will he look at the evidence produced by that inquiry to ensure that its information and advice goes to parents across this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does on that Committee. Of course, the Government have to respond in detail to such reports and we look forward to the recommendations it brings forward. Often we see conspiracy theories in the online world, but there is no conspiracy theory here: the Government are not trying to defend a position against what evidence might come forward.

We have just signed a memorandum of understanding with Australia to look at their experiences of protecting children online and whether there are things that we can do in this country. It has to be evidence-based, and if the evidence base is there, we will certainly make sure to act, because it is non-negotiable that we protect young people and children online.

[Jim McMahon]

I think there is no disagreement on the protection of children and there is no disagreement on what we have legislated to be illegal content. There is more debate needed on harmful but not illegal content and where that line is and what we enforce, and the protections for those who are not children, particularly vulnerable users and those who are being exploited and drawn into some quite extreme behaviours.

I will be honest about where some of these tensions are. How confident will the UK Government be in entering into negotiations on this when we are in the position we are in on trade with the US? The US has also made it clear that it sees any further regulation on social media platforms to be an infringement on trade and freedom of speech. When it comes to making that call, where will the UK Government be?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Act. Although we are regulating to make sure that children and young people are protected online, he is right to suggest that that does not mean we are censoring stuff for adult content. The internet is a place where people can access content if they are age-verified to do so, but it cannot be illegal content. The list of issues in schedule 7 to the Act that I read out at the start of my speech is pretty clear on what someone is not allowed to do online, so any illegal content online still remains illegal. We need to work clearly with the online platforms to make sure that that is not being purveyed through them.

We have seen strong examples of this issue in recent months. If we reflect back to Southport, the public turned to local newspapers—we have discussed this many times before—because they wanted fast and regular but trustworthy news. They turned away from social media channels to get the proper story, and they knew they could trust the local newspaper that they were able to pick up and read. I think the public have a very strong understanding of where we are, but I take the point about people who are not as tech-savvy or are impaired in some way, and so may need further protections. My hon. Friend makes the argument very strongly.

I want to turn to AI chatbots, because they were mentioned in terms of mental health. We are clear that AI must not replace trained professionals. The Government’s 10-year health plan lays foundations for a digital front door for mental health care. Last month, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology urged Ofcom to use existing powers to protect children from the potential harms of AI chatbots. She is clear that she is considering what more needs to be done. The Department of Health and Social Care is looking at mental health through the 10-year plan, but the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has also been clear that she will not allow AI chatbots to affect young people’s mental health, and will address their development, as mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins).

Let me touch on freedom of expression, because it is important to balance that out. It is on the other side of the shadow Minister’s ledger, and rightly so, because safeguards to protect freedom of expression and privacy are built in throughout the Online Safety Act. Services must consider how to protect users’ rights when applying safety measures, including users’ rights to express themselves freely. Providers do not need to take action on content that is beneficial to children—only against content that poses a risk of harm to children on their services. The Act does not prevent adults from seeking out legal content, and does not restrict people posting legal content that others of opposing views may find offensive. There is no removing of freedom of speech. It is a cornerstone of this Government, and under the Act, platforms have duties to protect freedom of speech. It is written into legislation.

Let me reiterate: the Online Safety Act does not limit freedom of speech. In fact, it protects it. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) was clear when he said in his wonderful speech that making the internet a safe space promotes freedom of speech. Indeed it does, because it allows us to have the confidence that we can use online social media platforms, trust what we are reading and seeing, and know that our children are exposed to age-appropriate content.

I will address age assurance, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). Ofcom is required to produce a report on the use of age assurance technologies, including the effectiveness of age assurance, due in July 2026—so in seven months’ time. That allows sufficient time for these measures to embed in before considering further action, but the Government continue to monitor the impact of circumvention techniques such as VPNs and the effectiveness of the Act in protecting children. We will not hesitate to go further if necessary, but we are due that report in July 2026, which will be 12 months from the implementation of the measures.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson asked about reviewing the Act. My previous comments covered some of that, but it is critical that we understand how effective the online safety regime is, and monitoring and evaluating that is key. My Department, Ofcom and the Home Office have developed a framework to monitor the implementation of the Act and evaluate the core outcomes from it.

[Tom Collins]

The Minister describes the review of the Act and how we have a rapidly growing list of potential harms. It strikes me that we are up against a very agile and rapidly developing world. I recently visited the BBC Blue Room and saw the leading edge of consumer-available technology, and it was quite disturbing to see the capabilities that are coming online soon. In the review of the Act, is there scope to move from a register of harms into perhaps domains of safety, such as trauma, addiction or attachment, where the obligation would be on service providers or manufacturers to ensure their products were safe across those domains? Once again, there could be security for smaller businesses available from the world of technical standards, where if a business is offering a simple service and meets an industry-developed standard, they have presumption of compliance. The British Standards Institution has demonstrated very rapid development of that through the publicly available specification system, and that is available to help us to navigate this rapidly. Could that be in scope?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Interventions should be brief, but I am very kind.

[Ian Murray]

Sir John, you are indeed very kind. My hon. Friend gave two examples during his speech. First, he mentioned brakes that were available only for high-end and expensive cars, and are now on all cars. Secondly, he mentioned building regulations, and how we would not build a balcony without a barrier. Those examples seem fairly obvious and almost flippant, but it seems strange that we would regulate heavily to make sure that people are safe physically—nobody would ever argue that it would be a complete disregard of people’s freedom to have a barrier on an 18th-floor balcony—but not online. We do that to keep people safe, and particularly to keep children safe. As my hon. Friend said, if we are keeping adults safe, we are ultimately keeping children safe too.

We have to continue to monitor and evaluate. I was just about to come on to the post-implementation review of the Act, which I am sure my hon. Friend will be very keen to have an input into. The Secretary of State must complete a review of the online safety regime two to five years after part 3 of the Act, which is about duties of care, fully comes into force. The review will therefore be completed no sooner than 2029. These are long timescales, of course, and technology is moving, so I understand the point that he is making. I recall that in the Parliament from 2010 to 2015, we regulated for the telephone, so we move slowly, although we understand that we also have to be nimble to legislate.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, asked whether the Act has gone far enough. Ofcom, the regulator, is taking an iterative approach and will strengthen codes of practice as online harms, technology and the evidence evolve. We are already making improvements, for example strengthening the law to tackle self-harm, cyber-flashing and strangulation. The hon. Lady also asked whether Ofcom has received an increase in resources. It has—Ofcom spending has increased by nearly 30% in the past year, in recognition of its increased responsibilities. She also asked about a digital age of consent. As I mentioned, we have signed a memorandum of understanding with Australia and will engage with Australia to understand its approach. Any action will be based, of course, on robust evidence.

[Victoria Collins]

I would just like to clarify that I made a call for an age of data consent. We put that forward earlier this year as an amendment to the Act. A very first step is to stop social media companies harvesting data and using it to power these addictive algorithms against young people. It is about data consent to 16. Then of course, there is the wider discussion about what is happening with social media in general, but it is that age of data consent that is our first call to action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I take that point about the amendment that the Liberal Democrats tabled.

The hon. Lady also asked for a cross-party Committee to take action. I have already talked about the review of the implementation of the regulations that will happen in July and the other stages after that, as well as the post-implementation review. Of course, setting up a new Committee is a matter for the House. I have no objections to the House setting up Committees to look at these big and important issues that we all care about, if that is what it decides to do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester talked about the issue of Parliament and engagement. He asked whether the Department would engage with the group of academics he mentioned, who are looking at technical safety standards for social media, including considering what role those academics could play in relation to these provisions. I welcome his invitation and I am sure that the Minister responsible for this area—the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan)—would be delighted to participate in those talks. I am sure that he will be in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester to take him up on that offer.

We have heard about algorithms, so it is worth focusing concentrating on them. Hon. Friends have talked about the algorithms that serve harmful content. The Government have been clear that algorithms can impact on the risk of harm for children, which is why the legislation comprehensively covers them. The legislation requires providers to consider, via risk assessment, how algorithms could impact children’s exposure to illegal or harmful content, and providers must then take steps to mitigate those risks. If they do not do so, Ofcom has powers that it can use.

[Jim McMahon]

There needs to be a tie-in here with the Cabinet Office and the review of electoral law. If a kind donor in my constituency owned a big billboard and gave me absolute free use of it during an election period, but made an offer to any other party that they could put a Post-it note on the back of it that nobody would see, I would have been expected to declare that as a gift in kind, or a donation in kind. That is not the case with algorithms that are posting and promoting generally right-wing and far-right content during the regulated period. Surely there has to be a better join-up here of election law and online law.

[Ian Murray]

This is a huge issue and all of us in this House are very concerned about misinformation and disinformation, and the impact on our democracy. Indeed, I am sure that in the time that I have been speaking here in Westminster Hall, my own social media will have been full of bots and all sorts of other things that try to encourage people to get involved in this debate, in order to influence the algorithm. That can fundamentally disturb our democracy, and is something we are looking at very closely. The Cabinet Office and ourselves are looking at the misinformation and disinformation issue, as is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in terms of the media outlook and how elections are run in this country. We should all be very clear about not having our democratic processes undermined by such algorithmic platforms that serve up the kind of content that provides misinformation and disinformation to the public.

[Emily Darlington]

I appreciate what the Minister says—that these powers are in legislation—yet the process is still the social media platforms marking their own homework. We are in a vicious circle: Ofcom will not take action unless it has a complaint based on evidence, but the evidence is not achievable because the algorithm is not made available for scrutiny. How should Ofcom use those powers more clearly ahead of the elections to ensure that such abuse to our democracy does not occur?

[Ian Murray]

A whole host of legislation sits behind this, including through the Electoral Commission and the Online Safety Act, but it is important for us to find ways to ensure that we protect our democratic processes, whether that be from algorithmic serving of content or foreign state actors. It is in the public domain that, when the Iranian servers went dark during the conflict with the US, a third of pro-independence Facebook pages in Scotland went dark, because they were being served by foreign state actors. We have seen that from Russia and various other foreign actors. We have to be clear that the regulations in place need to be implemented and, if they are not, we need to find other ways to ensure that we protect our democracy. At a small tangent, our public sector broadcasters and media companies are a key part of that.

To stay with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), she made an excellent contribution, with figures for what is happening. She asked about end-to-end encryption. We support responsible use of encryption, which is a vital part of our digital world, but the Online Safety Act does not ban any service design such as end-to-end encryption, nor does it require the creation of back doors. However, the implementation of end-to-end encryption in a way that intentionally binds tech companies to content will have a disastrous impact on public safety, in particular for children, and we expect services to think carefully about their design choices and to make the services safe by design for children.

That leads me to online gaming platforms and Roblox, which my hon. Friend also mentioned. Ofcom has asked the main platforms, including Roblox, to share what they are doing and to make improvements where needed. Ofcom will take action if that is not advanced. A whole host of things are happening, and we need the Online Safety Act and the regulations underpinning it to take time to feed through. I hope that we will start to see significant improvements, as reflected on by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central mentioned deepfakes. That issue is important to our democracy as well. The Government are concerned about the proliferation of AI-enabled products and services that enable deepfake non-consensual images. In addition to criminalising the creation of non-consensual images, the Government are looking at further options, and we hope to provide an update on that shortly. It is key to protecting not only our wider public online but, fundamentally, those who seek public office.

The Government agree that a safer digital future needs to include small, personally owned and maintained websites. We recognise the importance that proportionate implementation of the Online Safety Act plays in supporting that aim. We can all agree that we need to protect children online, and we would not want low-risk services to have any unnecessary compliance burden. That is a balance that we have to strike to make it proportionate. The Government will conduct a post-implementation review of the Act and will consider the burdens on low-risk services as part of that review, as mentioned in the petition. We will also ensure that the Online Safety Act protects children and is nimble enough to deal with a very fast-moving tech world. I thank all hon. Members for providing a constructive debate and raising their issues. I look forward to engaging further in the months and years ahead.

Culture, Media and Sport

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Written Corrections

[Jim McMahon]

I get the Government’s intention, which I strongly support, and I credit the Minister for the work that he is doing, but none of us would accept a member of the public going into a newsagents, taking a newspaper off the rack and walking out without paying for it, yet that is exactly what is taking place with these online giants. They are taking the news off the rack without any payment, commercialising it and making billions in the process. That is what we need to consider. I hear the arguments about whether local authorities should continue with statutory notices—I have a different view; I am not sure that we should hold on to something from the past if it is not adding real value that can be demonstrated from the public investment—but we need to move to a modern way of funding a sustainable local press. Surely that requires a bigger intervention from the Government.

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to that, because the AI copyright issue is a key part of what we are trying to determine. As my hon. Friend will know, under the legislation, the Government are preparing to publish the report and impact assessment required by sections 135 and 136 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That must be laid before the House by 12 December… That assessment will be reported to the House by Christmas.

[Official Report, 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 388WH.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray):

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to that, because the AI copyright issue is a key part of what we are trying to determine. As my hon. Friend will know, under the legislation, the Government are preparing to publish the report and impact assessment required by sections 135 and 136 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That must be laid before the House by 18 March… That assessment will be reported to the House by the spring.

Local Media

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

It is brilliant to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan, and it is great to have this wonderful debate with you presiding over us. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing an important debate. We can see from the contributions that it has been an important one, which everyone is interested in. I am delighted that he graduated from stuffing leaflets into newspapers at 13 to stuffing Tory leaflets through letterboxes at 45; he has certainly gone a long way. I, too, had a newspaper run when I was younger, a morning run, which I hated—it was underpaid, too long and too early in the morning—although apart from that, I loved everything about it.

Local media provides a vital and unique service to our communities in its provision of trustworthy—which I emphasise—public interest journalism. Local journalism fosters a range of social benefits, much wider than that itself, empowering local communities and reflecting the issues that matter to us. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right when he said at the start of his contribution that many people would want to pop up to talk about their local titles. I agree that that might not make a blind bit of difference to the way in which we are treated as a local MP in our local newspapers, but it was nice to hear.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that excellent local titles such as the Bridlington Echo, the Driffield & Wolds Weekly and The Holderness & Hornsey Gazette need support? We need to ensure that the income stream from local authority statutory notices continues, so that such thriving local titles continue into the future.

[Ian Murray]

One hundred per cent, and the hon. Gentleman has just secured a column.

We heard from many Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), about the Isle of Wight County Press, the Island Echo, the Isle of Wight Observer and OnTheWight. He hates getting calls from the editors of those newspapers to clarify things, but I am sure his relationship for leaking stuff back to them is rather strong.

We also heard about the Hampshire Chronicle, the Bromley News Shopper, the Biggin Hill News Shopper, the Stranraer and Wigtownshire Free Press, the Meon Valley Times, the Bournemouth Echo, Bournemouth One, the Greater Nunthorpe News, The Oxford Times, the Epping Forest Guardian, Everything Epping Forest online and The Comet. We heard about The Independent Melksham News, Talk of The Town, Coastal View & Moor News, The Yorkshire Post, Yorkshire Radio, the York Press, the Bedford Independent, the Bedford Today, Coast & County, BBC Yorkshire and Tees, the Witney Gazette, The Scarborough News, the Farnham Herald.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the editor of his local newspaper, Paul Symington, but did not tell us the name of the newspaper, but I believe it is the Newtownards Chronicle—they might pronounce “Newtownards” differently in the east of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) talked about local radio—Radio Forth, Central FM and Radio Clyde, such that I thought he was going to burst into a jingle at one point with his experience—and the Stirling Observer.

We heard about the Somerset Western Gazette, The Somerset Leveller and the Bath Chronicle. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) mentioned the Oldham Evening Chronicle, The Oldham Times, the Oldham Reporter and the Manchester Evening News. He even went on to talk about ITV regional news.

I am not going to get involved in the childishness and churlishness of mentioning all our local newspapers, so I will not mention the Edinburgh Evening News, The Edinburgh Reporter or Edinburgh Live. All that shows us, however, the impact that local newspapers have on our life, locally and across the country.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ian Murray]

I am happy to give way—did I forget yours, sorry?

[John McDonnell]

No, I never mentioned it; don’t worry. Does the Minister agree about the sense of urgency in this debate? I will give an example from my constituency. We had those demonstrations outside the asylum hotels, largely fuelled not by local people, but by organisations, quite ruthless ones, with masked men trying to break into the hotels and all the rest. Also, on social media, we have had allegations made against asylum seekers that are completely untrue, but specifically designed to sow division in our community.

We lack a very locally focused newspaper, so people have no access to finding out what the truth really is. They get beguiled and misled by that social media, which is deliberate, because those social media clicks become clickbait, and those individuals make money from it. That is the significance of local media, in particular local press, at the moment when our society is under such threat from those individuals and far-right organisations.

[Ian Murray]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. In fact, he pre-empted what I was about to say on the way in which it is more important now than ever for our local news to be part of the ecosystem of how people digest current affairs and what is happening.

We saw the division and tensions that were created in Southport. Thankfully, those were headed off at the pass because of local people turning to local news outlets, such as the Liverpool Echo, the Southport Visiter and others, where they could trust that the news they were picking up—either in a newspaper or online—was truthful, up to date and in the best interests of local people. Those examples, as well as the ones my right hon. Friend gave, show how important it is to have trusted local news to deal with mis and disinformation.

[Rachael Maskell]

I was certainly referring to such an example in my speech, but I am particularly concerned about the influence that disinformation is having on this place and on the policies of Governments over time, which have been brought out in response to that social, unregulated space. Is that not all the more reason for the urgency behind ensuring that a properly regulated environment is put in place, so that we do not have those influences, and we instead pull on the real stories and evidence out there?

[Ian Murray]

That is really part of the Government’s response to this challenge, as I will lay out in my contribution. The Government are committed to devolving more power and funding to local leaders and communities to bring decision making closer to the people it affects. That, of course, allows local journalism and local news to exercise that transparency and hold power to account by being in the public interest and having that strong accountability. Those are all essential in the examples that we heard in the previous two interventions.

Local media plays a key role in all this—not only in helping to build a more socially cohesive country and providing trustworthy information at that local level, but in countering the false and divisive narratives that are percolating through all our communities, and in helping to keep communities informed, scrutinising local decision making and fostering civic engagement. These are all things that hon. Members have covered in their contributions.

At the same time, never before has this role been so endangered. We have also heard from many hon. Members about the dangers and the challenges. The way that we consume news has transformed—people say over the past 20 years, but actually it has been transforming daily. The way that people consume the news of tomorrow will be different from the news of yesterday.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I understand the importance of involving those at the coalface in the Government’s deliberations on the upcoming media strategy. Would he agree to meet the National Union of Journalists and consult it on the local media strategy?

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to that, but yes—I will lay out later what the local media strategy has done so far, how we have been consulting through the roundtables we have undertaken, and where the Secretary of State has been taking a leading role.

As we know, people are increasingly looking to their mobile phones rather than their local newspaper. I do not know when hon. Members last actually bought their local newspaper—picked it up off a shelf and paid for the physical copy. Across news publishing, local TV and radio, these changes have prompted significant financial challenges, as traditional business models for local journalism are under more pressure than ever. Those pressures are more acute for local news publishers, both in print and online, although many local outlets are now moving online.

Around 300 local newspapers, as we have heard already, have closed since 2005—equivalent to as much as a third of the sector—and the number of journalists employed by the three largest news providers, which have 60% of the market, fell from around 9,000 to 3,000 between 2007 and 2022. Over that 15-year period, revenue for those three publishers fell from nearly £2.5 billion to a little more than half a billion. We can see the challenge of revenue for our local newspapers.

The effect has been an overall decline in the provision of high-quality local media across the country. More than 40% of UK citizens who are interested in local news do not consider that their local news needs are being met. As many as 38 local authority districts now have no print, online, TV or radio dedicated specifically to that area, leaving up to 4.7 million citizens in local news deserts. That is why the Government are committed to the local media strategy.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Does the Minister recognise that, while we are talking about the struggles local media outlets are facing—and that huge drop in revenue over 15 years—taking away £32 million by removing the opportunity for them to carry advertisements for licence changes could have a huge impact?

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to examine that point in more detail, but it is well made and certainly understood by Government. That is why we have committed to the local media strategy—to address all of the issues, but particularly those around sustainability—because our vision is for a thriving local media that can continue to play an invaluable role as a key channel of trustworthy information at local level, reporting on the issues that matter to communities, reflecting their contributions and perspectives, and telling their stories at that local level. The Government also want to empower local media to hold local public services to account, to help foster a self-confident nation in which everyone feels that their contribution is part of an inclusive national story, and, of course, to counter damaging mis and disinformation.

To achieve that, the Government intend to support local media in three key ways. In the short to medium term, we will help the sector, particularly local news publishers, to innovate and transition to sustainable online-focused business models. Over the longer term, we will help the industry to adapt to changing online audience habits and to foster a collaborative and complementary relationship with those that have most influence over citizens’ news diets, particularly big tech—as we have heard—and the BBC, with the important role that it plays. Finally, we will make it easier for journalists to scrutinise local public services and other institutions, conduct investigative journalism and report without fear or favour. Innovation funding is part of that. We have not ruled out the option of financial support being a key part of the local media strategy, bearing in mind the fiscal constraints in which we currently operate.

[Jim McMahon]

I get the Government’s intention, which I strongly support, and I credit the Minister for the work that he is doing, but none of us would accept a member of the public going into a newsagents, taking a newspaper off the rack and walking out without paying for it, yet that is exactly what is taking place with these online giants. They are taking the news off the rack without any payment, commercialising it and making billions in the process. That is what we need to consider. I hear the arguments about whether local authorities should continue with statutory notices—I have a different view; I am not sure that we should hold on to something from the past if it is not adding real value that can be demonstrated from the public investment—but we need to move to a modern way of funding a sustainable local press. Surely that requires a bigger intervention from the Government.

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to that, because the AI copyright issue is a key part of what we are trying to determine. As my hon. Friend will know, under the legislation, the Government are preparing to publish the report and impact assessment required by sections 135 and 136 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That must be laid before the House by 12 December.[Official Report, 8 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 2WC.] (Correction) The impact assessment will include an assessment of each of the options put forward in the Government’s consultation on copyright and AI, including the economic impact of each option on copyright owners and AI developers. That will include the publishing and the news sectors.

In the meantime, the Secretaries of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and at DCMS have jointly shared three meetings with representatives of both the AI and the creative sectors. We are convening expert working groups and parliamentary working groups to consider all the options. We are dedicated to protecting our world-class creative industries and to ensuring that they thrive in the age of AI. Our creative industries sector plan is all part of making sure that that sector flourishes. I am interested in what my hon. Friend said about that British news co-operative model, which might be able to be used as a collecting agency for those kind of issues.

That assessment will be reported to the House by Christmas.¹ There will be great interest in that and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to supply some more information on those particular industries. We are very much dedicated to protecting our world-leading creative industries. I hope that gives him some assurance.

On the local media strategy, in the spring we had a roundtable with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and local news editors. We set up an industry working group to consider the issues in more detail and explore areas for collaboration. I have not dealt with the roundtable yet, being relatively new to this role—I do not know whether the National Union of Journalists is part of it but I will check and inform my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) whether it is. If not, we will make sure that it has input into that working group. That roundtable has been meeting since June and has been invaluable in shaping our approach. We thank all those journalists who have given their time to help us shape that work.

A whole host of other things are happening. Let me touch on a few that address some of the issues that have been raised. Many hon. Members raised concerns about the recent Government proposal to relax statutory requirements—this goes to some of the interventions—to publish and print applications for alcohol licences in local newspapers. That proposal is being explored as part of a wider set of licensing reforms that aim to create a modern, proportionate and enabling system that supports economic growth, revitalises high streets first, as vibrant communities, and helps local authorities. The call for evidence closed in November. We are carefully considering the responses and will take forward the final decision as part of that local media strategy. Of course, the contributions that hon. Members have made in this debate, and others on this topic, will be taken into account in that process.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Councils are currently required to place a notice in one or more newspapers circulating in their area; that Bill would enable councils to decide how best to publish any relevant information. In practice that provision will apply to very few councils, since over 80% in England already operate a leader and cabinet model and will therefore not be required to make any changes to their governance models. The DCMS and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are considering how that measure interacts with the forthcoming statutory notices review that sits alongside it.

At the same time, the Government recognise that statutory notices of all types are important in helping to inform the public of decisions made by the council that affect the quality of their lives, local services and amenities or their property, and the impact that has on the financing of local media. A separate part of the strategy will look ahead to the long-term future of local media. It is important that we consider the role of the BBC as part of that, as many hon. Members have mentioned. As the charter review approaches, the Green Paper will be published soon. That is an opportunity to consider how the BBC can best support and defend local news through its work.

In that context, as the shadow Minister mentioned, the local democracy reporting service plays a key role in helping communities and local businesses to scrutinise decisions that impact them and in holding public services to account through fact-based local reporting. We will look to extend and improve that service as part of the licence charter period. The BBC underpins a lot of local reporting and the local news ecosystem.

We are taking action through the digital markets regime, which came into force at the beginning of the year and which should help rebalance the relationship between the biggest tech firms and news publishers. The issue of big tech companies not being subject to the rules was raised in the debate. We welcome the progress made by the Competition and Markets Authority, in particular in designating Google’s and Apple’s services as being subject to its rules. Measures in the Online Safety Act 2023 on the treatment of journalists’ content will add a further layer of protection for the industry against the erroneous takedown of content by social media platforms, especially at the height of the news cycles that we have seen, once implemented by Ofcom. The local media strategy will explore whether further action may be needed to support local media in adapting to changing audience habits online, and guaranteeing public access to high-quality local journalism, particularly in the context of AI-generated news summaries and aggregators.

On Government advertising expenditure, we are committed to ensuring we make the best use of local media in Government advertising campaigns. My Department has been working closely with the Cabinet Office on that as part of the local media strategy, because we know local media provides that trustworthy environment for those kinds of governmental issues, and is a vital source of revenue. We are working on taking that forward.

I will refer quickly to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the Government establishing a journalism foundation to co-ordinate support. The Cairncross review recommended something similar. Our local media strategy will seek to achieve the same ends by co-ordinating support for this vital industry. That possibility is on the cards and I look forward to working with him to see that happen.

The Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025, which passed in the summer, extends public interest considerations to further protect plurality in our system; there are public interest considerations about the need for a sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises. The statutory instruments about control by a single publisher, which was also mentioned by many hon. Members, have gone through.

I will finish by talking about the protection of journalists, which is hugely important. They need to be protected from harassment, abuse and threats, whether online or offline, of an illegal nature. As co-chair of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, alongside the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), I welcome the delivery of many of the group’s commitments to ensure that journalists can operate free from such threats. The NUJ has been very involved in that hugely important process. That includes the work of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which confirmed in September that each police force across the UK now has an appointed single point of contact for journalists to reassure them that they can operate in the field and online with a direct point of contact to the police should any issues arise.

We are committed to a plural, trustworthy and independent media landscape. Our local media strategy will play a key role in fostering that at a local level. More will be announced on the strategy in the coming months. I look forward to working with right hon. and hon. Members to ensure that the local media strategy delivers for all our local newspapers.

Gambling Levy

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for Museums, Heritage and Gambling and DCMS Lords Minister, Baroness Twycross:

The statutory levy on gambling operators, which commenced in April 2025, represents a major transformation. The levy will provide, for the first time, independent and sustainable funding for gambling-related harms research, prevention and treatment.

Subject to final checks, this year the statutory levy has raised just under £120 million, which will be ringfenced solely for the use of tackling gambling-related harm. This will support our priority of making sure there is sufficient and sustainable funding in the system for projects and services and to fill the gaps that we know exist in the evidence base and provision of treatment and support. The funding will improve and expand services to new areas, to ensure more people can access the right help when they need it.

In line with the objectives of the statutory levy, funding will be directed in specific proportions for the purposes of research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm:

20% will go to UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) for the establishment of a bespoke research programme on gambling. The levy will provide a dedicated and sustainable injection of funding for independently-commissioned research to inform policy and practice. We expect the formal launch of the UKRI Gambling Harms Research Co-ordination Centre to take place in April 2026. A small portion of funding will also be allocated to the Gambling Commission to direct further research in line with its licensing objectives.

30% of funding will go to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the Scottish and Welsh Governments to develop a comprehensive approach to the prevention of gambling-related harm across all three nations of Great Britain. In England, OHID will prioritise the development of an independent, public health approach that recognises the importance of the voluntary sector and local authorities in delivering effective prevention activity.

The remaining 50% of funding will go to NHS England and the Scottish and Welsh Governments to work with providers, including the third sector, to increase access to treatment and support for those experiencing gambling-related harm. This will ensure services are joined up and consistent so that no one is falling through the cracks.

All commissioners are working to establish their respective gambling harms programmes and structures. In England, it is expected that applications for voluntary sector organisations to access levy funding for prevention programmes will open in the new year, with grant funds being accessible from April 2026 in line with the conclusion of GambleAware commissioning. The approach for voluntary sector provision of treatment programmes will be confirmed shortly. It is a priority for all commissioners that those affected by gambling-related harm continue to have access to the help and support they need.

Governance arrangements have been put in place, which will look objectively at how the levy is working and hold commissioners to account. The Gambling Levy Programme Board has been established as the central mechanism for establishment and oversight of the levy to ensure that funding is being spent appropriately and efficiently, and that the system is delivering on its objectives.

The Gambling Levy Advisory Group, has now been renamed the Gambling Levy Delivery Group to reflect its focus on implementation and delivery. This brings together the research, prevention and treatment commissioners at a working level, alongside DCMS and Gambling Commission officials, to facilitate appropriate integration and collaboration between commissioning leads.

Funding decisions will be taken by the appropriate bodies, with scrutiny provided by relevant governance structures. We will also ensure that lived experience voices are informing levy programmes, with further details to be confirmed in due course. Through these governance arrangements, we will continue to review how much the levy is collecting and the distribution of the levy as the evidence base for this grows.

[HCWS1118]