Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026

James Frith Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Mr James Frith)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the Committee for considering this instrument today. Wireless connectivity underpins a vast range of everyday services, from mobile phones and wi-fi to broadcasting and satellite communications. All of those rely on access to radio spectrum, the invisible frequencies that carry wireless signals.

Spectrum is a finite and valuable resource. It must be carefully managed to ensure that different services can operate without interference, that networks function reliably and that consumers and businesses benefit from competition and innovation. In the UK that is the responsibility of Ofcom, the independent communications regulator, which manages spectrum by issuing licences, setting conditions and promoting efficient use. The Government set the overall policy and strategic priorities, including through the statement of strategic priorities.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

Sorry if this is slightly parochial: I welcome the release of spectrum, but what guidance will be given to Ofcom to help with the roll-out in semi-rural areas such as Biggin Hill in my constituency?

[Mr Frith]

I will conclude my remarks and perhaps pick up that question in my closing speech, which I am looking forward to making.

Maintaining a clear and effective framework for managing spectrum is therefore an important part of supporting investment in digital infrastructure and the wider economy. The instrument contributes to that by improving legal clarity without changing existing services, business models or regulatory requirements.

The draft order revokes a direction given to Ofcom in 2010. At the time, the Government used the direction to ensure that a specific set of reforms to support the roll-out of mobile broadband were implemented clearly and at pace alongside Ofcom’s existing statutory framework, and in line with wider European measures to harmonise the use of key spectrum bands. Those measures included allowing operators greater flexibility in how they could use key spectrum bands, enabling spectrum licences to be bought and sold, updating licence conditions to support long-term investment and preparing for major spectrum auctions.

Together, those changes helped operators to transition from older mobile technologies towards newer ones, enabling the roll-out of 3G and 4G services more quickly and efficiently, and supporting the widespread availability of modern mobile services across the UK. The reforms were also reflected in wider European measures to harmonise the use of key mobile spectrum bands and support the transition to newer technologies. They played a significant role in enabling the roll-out of modern mobile networks in the UK and in promoting investment and competition in the sector.

All the obligations set out in the direction have now been fully implemented by Ofcom through a series of regulatory actions over the past decade. As a result, the direction no longer has any practical effect and is now redundant. The instrument therefore revokes that direction, improving the clarity of the legal framework and removing the risk of confusion that could arise from retaining obsolete provisions. For example, when Ofcom looks to set annual licence fees for mobile spectrum, we want to minimise the risk of unnecessary legal challenge.

The instrument does not introduce any new policy or change the way spectrum is managed in the UK. Ofcom will continue to exercise its functions under the existing statutory framework, including the duties set out in the Communications Act 2003 and the powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. They provide the framework for managing spectrum efficiently, promoting competition and investment, and protecting consumers. That step helps to ensure that the framework underpinning wireless connectivity remains clear and effective, supporting continued investment, innovation and reliable services for consumers and businesses. I hope the Committee will support this instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frith]

On the first and third questions asked regarding this measure, consumers should not expect an immediate or visible change as a result of the instrument, but the Government will work closely with Ofcom to ensure that mobile coverage is improved through other policy measures. If the shadow Minister will forgive me, on the substantive numbers of gigabit availability—

[Dr Spencer]

The cancelled gigabit availability.

[Mr Frith]

Yes, sorry—I will write to him. I am grateful for the support across the House on the draft instrument. The direction it revokes has already been fully implemented in terms of obtaining—

[Dr Spencer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Frith]

I will not.

The direction being revoked serves no practical purpose. This SI is therefore a simple but important step to ensure that the statute book reflects the current position by removing provisions that are no longer needed. In doing so, it supports a clear and coherent framework for spectrum management, giving certainty to regulators and industry alike. It helps to maintain the conditions for continued investment, innovation and reliable connectivity across the economy. I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence

James Frith Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr James Frith)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I bring the attention of hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion. He does so on behalf of the signatories of the petition, which asks for

“a public inquiry into pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy”.

I also thank hon. Members from across the House who have participated today. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) in paying tribute to the Prime Minister, who has shown his finest form in his six years leading our party in rooting out antisemitism. I pay tribute to how he has handled himself and took the fight to issues in the party.

On the specific request of the petition, the Government do not support a public inquiry solely on pro-Israeli influence—in fact, I would like to turn to and address what I believe to be the underlying premise of the petition and this debate. Before I do, I should say that we could have had another kind of debate today: a debate about legitimate concerns about foreign influence and interference in our politics and democracy, more wide-ranging than from any one country, and what the Government are doing about that. Instead, the premise of this debate is narrowly and deliberately targeted on Israel. To speak to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) about the need for education in this debate, the premise is that Israel—the world’s only Jewish state—is an influence on British politics that stands alone and must be held to a standard different from that for any other democratic nation.

It is unfortunate that the petition behind this debate plays into the same old antisemitic tropes of hidden forces and malign control. I remind hon. Members that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism lists the “double standards” applied to Israel as one of the hallmarks of contemporary antisemitism in public life. The definition also refers to the mendacious allegations of Jews having power as a collective, controlling the Government and other institutions. This e-petition invokes those very same stereotypes when it talks of pro-Israel organisations shaping Government decisions. With that in mind, I want to be clear that we reject the premise from which this debate originates. The framing used risks reinforcing the narratives historically associated with antisemitism.

The UK and Israel have a deep and enduring relationship. Seventy-six years ago, we were rightly proud to recognise the state of Israel. Our commitment to the security of it and its people remains unwavering. My political party has long been an advocate for the Jewish state. More than 100 years ago, Labour’s 1917 war aims declaration committed us to support for a Jewish homeland. In the 1960s and 1970s, when Israel found itself yet again under attack from its neighbours, it found one of its most passionate advocates in the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson.

Criticism of Governments is democratic and proper. Within Israel itself, citizens regularly protest against and challenge the actions of their elected Government. As a Government, we have challenged and will continue to challenge the Israeli Government when we disagree, such as on recognising the state of Palestine and the expansion of illegal settlements, and to impose sanctions on their leaders.

There are those in the UK who wish to criticise the influence of a particular Israeli Administration or their policies, but we should acknowledge that there are individuals and organisations that support the Government of Israel: they engage in our democratic process and advocate for causes they believe in, just as countless other groups do. They are normal features of a democratic society, not evidence of malign control or undue influence.

Furthermore, donors who support Israel are singled out like no others, expected to defend their position on Israel: “Jewish donors’ support for Israel equals malign influence” is the implicit and too often explicit rhetoric we see and hear. The premise of this debate gravitates towards a familiar inconsistency that even influence rooted simply in supporting Israel, or its legitimacy and right to exist, is somehow an improper or hidden force in British politics.

[Ayoub Khan]

Earlier, the Minister said that the premise of the petitioners and this petition falls foul of the IHRA guidance. He knows that this petition and its wording will have gone through the Petitions Committee. Does he agree that it does not fall foul, otherwise we would not be debating it?

[Mr Frith]

I agree that there is cause for concern that the premise of the petition is antisemitic. I have explained my reasons why. I commented earlier on the Prime Minister’s leadership in rooting out antisemitism in the Labour party. For too long, the Labour party gave too much benefit of the doubt to explicit antisemitic tropes and antisemitism. I encourage all Members not to trip over tropes knowingly or unknowingly when considering this matter, as holding British Jews collectively responsible for the Government of Israel’s behaviour is its itself antisemitic.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Frith]

I will make some progress.

The premise of the debate veers into the unhealthy territory of antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories: the double standard towards the only Jewish state, questioning the legitimacy of a democratic state’s existence that is not applied to other countries, including those with authoritarian regimes.

The Government are clear that antisemitism is unacceptable in all its forms and that British Jews must never be held responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the Minister on his honest, truthful and forthright stand. He deserves credit for that, and he is right to underline the issue. The Prime Minister deserves credit for all he has done to change attitudes in the Labour party. He is about to depart, but we should put our thanks to him on the record for what he did to change attitudes and make sure that antisemitism was frowned upon.

[Mr Frith]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. The record will show his support, and I concur with it.

We have all seen the harm caused by the abhorrent rise in antisemitism, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Antisemitism in the UK has been on the rise, and it has no place in our society. Since the appalling 7 October terror attacks, there has been an increase in antisemitic attacks in the UK, including in Heaton Park, near my constituency. That is just one example of the shocking fear, prejudice and anger directed towards the Jewish community.

The attacks cannot be divorced from the nature of the debate. We should condemn the readiness, ease and tendency to hold 300,000 British Jews collectively accountable for the actions of the Israeli Government. That standard is never applied to other communities in relation to foreign Governments.

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

Can I ask the Minister why so many in this House, including himself, conflate the Jewish faith and Jewish people with the actions of the state of Israel? The petition does not do that, and that is not what has been said in this House. No matter how uncomfortable it may be for some in this Chamber, the state of Israel stands accused of committing genocide in Gaza. Does he agree?

[Mr Frith]

I do not agree with that.

On 30 April, the Government announced £25 million of additional funding for 2026-27 to strengthen policing, protect Jewish communities and provide reassurance in response to the terrorist attacks in Golders Green and the recent spate of antisemitic attacks.

Instead of accepting the premise of this debate without question, I urge Members across the House to reject it, to remember the context and to question the notion of focusing any debate on Israel alone. Had this debate addressed the issue of foreign influence or interference as a whole, we could have focused on the range of actions that the Government are taking to address improper influence outside of the rules.

The Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review of lobbying, disclosure and access to Government. The Government are working with Parliament to consider their own rules on lobbying. We are tackling foreign financial influence by improving transparency, closing loopholes and reinforcing legislation.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I agree with the Minister that lobbying and donations across Parliament from any source must be investigated and that the rules must be reinforced. But on the specific point around Israel, Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel and other friends of Israel groups—

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Mr Frith]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to an earlier answer I gave about misassociation, whether unintentional, explicit, deliberate or wilful. It is possible to be in Labour Friends of Israel without being a Labour friend of the Israeli Government’s actions on a particular day, and it is the duty of allies and friends to point out where we disagree. If we were debating certain behaviours of the Israeli Government, I am sure that a mix of views would be expressed in the House, including on a strong common theme. But that is not this debate, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to pull back from wilfully or unintentionally using tropes.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister answer the question?

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Minister.

[Mr Frith]

Thank you, Mrs Harris.

The Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review into lobbying. We have commissioned and are now responding to the Rycroft review of political finance rules, with immediate steps taken to cap total political donations from British citizens abroad and to put a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations. These measures are a first step, and the Government will have more to say.

The Government will always take legitimate concerns over foreign influence and interference in our politics and democracy very seriously, but I do not believe that the premise of this debate is to focus on those concerns. Criticism of Governments and policies is democratic, but the use of double standards in relation to Israel and conspiracy theories and tropes about the influence of Jews and the Jewish state take us into ugly, inciteful and deeply unhealthy territory. I urge Members to join me in rejecting this framing and rejecting the petition.

Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

James Frith Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I have said before that patience is not my greatest virtue. I do not intend for the period before we publish the consultation or afterwards to be long in any way, shape or form. I want to have a clear position before the summer.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I welcome the leadership that the Secretary of State is showing on this issue. In Bury North, parental appetite for a ban on mobile phones is real, but so are the practical considerations when parents rightly want to track the location of their children, have a form of emergency contact and be able to reach their children safely. Does she agree that the existence of this anxiety is not about the technology itself, but about the design for use? Social media platforms are shaping our children’s childhoods, with excessive screen time and endless feeds absorbing the equivalent of a full-time job’s worth of hours of our young people’s lives every week. Will the Government’s approach focus on shaping healthier digital environments and rewarding first-mover tech companies that lead on safer design, rather than simply leaving the burden on families?

[Liz Kendall]

We absolutely want to focus on children’s health and wellbeing online, and it is really important that we see more competition in this sector, with different options being available for children and young people. I hope that by having a consultation, we will get the debate going and get that action going, because it is extremely difficult for parents to manage this situation. We all share their worries as Members of Parliament, but also as parents ourselves, and we are determined to get this right and to act swiftly.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

James Frith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, who is also trying to break us out of the groundhog day that we seem to have found ourselves in.

The Lords amendment does not fetter the Government’s policy options, nor does it prescribe how proportionate transparency should be achieved. It simply puts a line in the sand for the Government to act on this hugely important issue.

To return to the AI and the Gruffalo,

So on went the story through the deep dark wood

To be loved by its readers, as a good book should.

Yet the AI pondered, as it wanted it now.

“I’ll simply just scrape it”, the AI did avow.

When he was musing, he stumbled across

The author reclining on a patch of green moss.

They had glasses and notebooks and ideas galore.

They had printed five books, but were working on more.

Their eyes came to meet—they were in for a fight.

Both wanted the story, but who was right?

The answer is both, if reasonably sought

For content, not stolen, but licensed or bought.

Be clear what you’re taking, be transparent and true,

And recognise the content and its real value.

Then there’s no monster nor bad guy, just an allegorical rhyme

And a plea to listen and take action in time.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I hope that the shadow Minister sought permission to misappropriate Julia Donaldson’s wonderful work. It is hardly an example that any of us should follow.

We are back here again. I put on record my thanks to Government Front Benchers for their engagement on this issue. It was particularly welcome to see the Secretary of State, in his appearance on “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg”, take such a human approach to recognising the concern that exists in the creative industries and give a commitment to the nation about the seriousness of what comes from this place.

I also welcome the Minister’s comments that the creative and tech sectors will be involved in the next phase of this work, because that is essential. However, I would like to stress two further points. First, that involvement must reflect the breadth of the creative industries, from music and publishing to games, film and beyond—the necessary mix of expertise. That means the creative sector rights holders and business affairs professionals being involved, alongside the tech experts who understand the complexities of data flows, metadata structures, and the practicalities of any opt-out system or tech solution that is to be developed, notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s clarification that the Government no longer have a preferred position.

We look forward to the consultation and its findings being open and transparent, because while all the creative sectors share in the value of copyright as a principle that is tech and sector neutral, the way that commercial licensing models develop in practice will differ, and it is not for the Government to second-guess that. That is not a problem; in fact, it is a good thing. The emergence of bespoke commercial partnerships is precisely how the Government can achieve their objective of driving effective licensing, but to get there, we need sector-specific insight and specialist input, not a one-size-fits-all approach. I welcome the commitment to include Back Benchers, stakeholders and leaders of industry.

Crucially, the Government must consult and liaise with all of us on the formation of these groups, including their terms of reference—this cannot be presented again as a fait accompli. Too often, we hear of officials thinking or mulling things over, but not sharing what those thoughts are or what the implications of their latest thought could be. With the best will in the world, they cannot know the business as clearly as industry does. I believe that the prospects for both industries have improved as a result of this ping-pong process and the arguments we have been having, both in this House and in the other place.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend says that the prospects for both industries have improved. I have spoken in this place about my previous role as a screenwriter—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and this week, the British Film Institute reported that AI threatens the British film industry, with over 130,000 scripts having been plundered. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we fail to take this opportunity to deal with transparency and put powers to legislate on the face of the Bill, we will be leaving screenwriters and other creatives high and dry until we legislate in the future?

[Mr Frith]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which as ever is rooted in the first-hand experience and professional success that brought her to this place. She should be listened to, and her warnings about the implications of not taking transparency seriously should be heeded.

Secondly, I will return to a subject that I have raised before, because it warrants more scrutiny. That is the recurring suggestion that copyright is out of date. On the one hand, we have heard the Government talk about copyright being clear and well established, and of course we agree with that. Only this weekend, the Government clarified again that if no licence or permission is in place, that is theft or piracy. That clarity is precisely what gives rights holders the confidence, control and legal basis to license their works, which the Government also rightly want to encourage.

However, in the same spirit, we sense that the Government still feel that copyright somehow needs to be reformed or ignored. I ask the Minister to take what I hope is the last opportunity during this process to indicate exactly what reform is being proposed, and what it will achieve that copyright does not already do, because the creative industry believes copyright to be best in class as a respected and enforceable measure. If the answer is transparency, personality rights, or anything that sits around copyright rather than within it, let us call that what it is, but can we please avoid vagueness, constructive ambiguity, and language that sets hares running or undermines confidence in what is frankly a best-in-class system?

Finally, if the Government are still entertaining the idea that the stability of UK copyright law could be weakened in pursuit of an idea of innovation, many will feel that the shift in tone and position in recent weeks —which has been deeply welcome—has been counter-productive, and they will be left concerned.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

James Frith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is entirely right about the issue of enforcement, although traditionally it is not for Governments to enforce the law. It is for the courts to do that, although in certain circumstances when there has been a breach of the criminal law, it will be for the prosecuting authorities to consider. In a way this makes my point, which is that it is all very well to legislate on transparency requirements, but if there are no enforcement measures it will not make the blindest bit of difference. All this has to be done in the round.

We have already said that we want to engage with the creative sector and, of course, the technology sector as much as we can. We believe that such engagement will help to chart the way forward on both transparency and technical standards, and possibly on technical solutions to the problem. It may be that the working groups bring other benefits, such as interim voluntary arrangements, until longer-term solutions can be agreed on and implemented. However, we must see what comes of the process rather than imposing preconditions at this early stage.

For all those reasons, I urge Members to vote against the Lords amendment. The first part of the proposed new clause is a helpful addition to the work that we will do and are now committed to doing, but the lion’s share of it would lead to what I believe is confusing law and constitutionally uncertain.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I echo the comments of my hon. Friends about how open and engaging both the Minister and the Secretary of State have been on this issue. As for the consideration of working groups, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s policy is to ensure that both sides are in the room at the same time, with the Minister and the Secretary of State? This has been rehearsed before; the last Government failed, and talks broke down. May I urge this Government please to ensure that both voices hear each other? Their job is to manage that process, as well as leading it.

[Chris Bryant]

I agree 100%. There would be absolutely no point in not having both sides—indeed, I would say several sides—of the argument in the room at the same time. Yesterday morning I had an interesting conversation with someone who is very prominent on the music scene. He told me, in granular detail, what we would need to do for transparency in the music sector, but added that obviously it would be completely different for the publishing sector. That is the kind of detail we will have to go into. If we are to bring about a licensing regime that really works, it will have to work differently for sound, music, words and images, which means that we will have to have all those people around the table, as well as AI—not just “big tech”, a phrase that was used frequently in their lordships’ House yesterday, but tech from the UK. That is a very important part of what we need to be promoting. So yes, I can guarantee to my hon. Friend that we will have everyone in the room, and also that we want to get on with it as soon as we possibly can—

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

James Frith Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend’s tone is most welcome, but it is also consistent with how he has been both in private and public on this matter, and I thank him for that, while sharing much of his taste in music. Does he agree that transparency should be a prerequisite for all AI development, not a matter for copyright to handle? If not now, will he commit to including such powers in secondary legislation, should the voluntary approach fail?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s tone and for the way that he has engaged so fruitfully, passionately and effectively, both on the record and in the conversations that we have had together.

Transparency is the foundation upon which we will build the future solutions to this problem. In a moment, I will go on to talk a bit more about how I intend to deliver that progress, but in order to have remuneration, solutions and the empowerment that creatives need in the digital age, of course we need transparency, which is essential and immutable. I will strive on behalf of creatives to deliver those things in a way that is also enforceable and will make the tangible difference, to give them the grip that they need in a digital age that they are currently lacking in the age that we live in.

Broadband and Mobile Connectivity: Rural Areas

James Frith Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant]

We have looked at satellite provision. The difficulty is that there is not much of it left. It is already pretty occupied and it is quite expensive. There are other options as well, such as fixed wireless, where the connection is delivered to an area locally and the rest is delivered wirelessly. It would not be gigabit capable, but it would run at significant speeds that would match most people’s modern needs. We are looking at all of those options.

My suspicion is that in the next few years, technology will advance at such a pace that that will become easier for us, rather than more difficult. There probably needs to be more than one operator providing satellite options to people’s homes, and that might arrive in the next couple of years as well, with Amazon and perhaps others. That will definitely be part of the mix. There will always be a tiny percentage of properties that are simply impossible for us to reach with fibre; it would be crazy for us to try to take a piece of fibre down a 25-mile road just to serve one property.

We have obviously aimed to deliver as much connectivity as we possibly can on a commercial basis first, because that just makes sense. However, that is quite difficult in itself, because commercial operators change their investment plans. Some of that is about the availability of money to them in the market. We have been working on some of those issues so that they might be in a stronger position, but sometimes they make very specific decisions in local areas that make it difficult for us to know when we should intervene to provide a subsidy and when it should be delivered simply on a commercial basis. That makes Building Digital UK’s job of managing those decisions phenomenally complicated.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

Openreach has changed its mind several times about the affected community of Affetside in my constituency. What advice would you give that resolute, resilient community as it tries to convince Openreach to honour not just its historical commitment, but the one that it made, through me, only in December, and has since reneged on?

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I will give no advice, but the Minister will.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

James Frith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Oh my Lord—I am almost as keen to get on to the next bit of my speech as I am to get the data Bill through to Royal Assent, but I probably ought to give way to the right hon. Lady and then I will come back to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I know it is out of order to say that an hon. Member is not telling the truth, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were there! [Laughter.] And I accept your apology.

[Mr Frith]

The hon. Gentleman has been generous with his time today and in the process to date, and I thank him for that. I understand the Government have long maintained that this Bill is not the right place for these amendments. Given the Government’s anticipated removal of the Lords amendments and the use of financial privilege, what definitive action will the Minister take to address the ongoing serious concerns of our world-leading creative industries, particularly on copyright and transparency? What does he advise those of us seeking stronger commitments to do next? Would he point to any specific timeline, mechanism or legislative tool that will be used to offer the certainty that the sector is crying out for?

[Chris Bryant]

Notwithstanding the hilarity, this is obviously a very important matter to a large number of people. For many people in the creative industry, it feels like a kind of apocalyptic moment—they think that their careers are disappearing in front of their faces. I fully recognise that.

The moment that the Bill is out of the way, I and the two Departments I sit in—the Departments for Culture, Media and Sport and for Science, Innovation and Technology—would like to get people back in to work on two working parties. One would work on transparency and precisely what it looks like in granular detail—very high-level stuff does not really meet the moment. The second would work on technical standards and solutions that might deliver greater access to data for the AI companies, and on the ability for the creative industries to protect their works.

I do have some sympathy with Lords amendment 49B. There is one element that I would like to explore, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). It is one thing for Getty Images, for example, to go to court and protect its rights under the existing law, because it has deep pockets and can engage lawyers. It is quite a different matter for individual artists, who may want to promote their work by putting it on the internet and do not want it to disappear from the internet, but also do not want it to be scraped and turned into another version of their work created by AI.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

rose—

[Mr Frith]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will take only one more intervention, I am afraid, because I have taken so many. I probably ought to give way to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I completely agree. My hon. Friend makes the good point that in the UK, many of the creative industries—roughly 40%—are tech. They are fast-growing, and part of what we want to incentivise. She makes the good point that we need to talk to lots of different kinds of artificial intelligence companies, just as we need to talk to lots of different kinds of creative industries. All those points are well made, and what she refers to is precisely the work that I and the team will want to take forward as soon as we can.

[Mr Frith]

This will be my last intervention for now. Will the Minister make it his policy to include representatives of the creative industries on the technical committees that are working on AI and copyright reform? We arrived at this point because there is a sense that one Department speaks to some people, and another Department speaks to others, whereas there are implications for both sectors. We should have both sectors in the room, talking about each other with the Minister and his Department.

Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence

James Frith Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of AI on intellectual property.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms McVey. I am grateful to all colleagues who have joined us here today. None of us will wish to prevent the inevitable, exciting power of change. This is not about resisting that change, but about shaping it, determining what comes next, for what and for whom. The debate grows louder and louder, and more important by the day. Today, I hope that we can begin to mark a landing zone of shared positions.

Our creative industries, with their might and strength, remain deeply alarmed. Copyright is the foundation of their creations, our UK industry and livelihoods, across music, films, books, news, investigations, coding, games, paintings and much more. The Government have made strong commitments to our creative industries, but their upcoming industrial strategy for growth will fall well short of the priority placed on those industries if it does not ensure legal peace of mind and action on artificial intelligence for those creating some of life’s greatest experiences.

The Government and the Minister have said continually that they want creatives to be better paid and better looked after, with licensing in the AI age to come. Given the agreement on the need for licensing and remuneration, why do the loudest AI tech companies expect to train their machines on human-created content for nothing? The Minister has referred to learning the lessons of the Napster age. I ask him: does he agree that it was the assertion of copyright that ensured we live with Spotify, for example, and not a music industry cannibalised by piracy?

Artificial intelligence is reshaping life as we know it. Its extraordinary potential must be built on integrity. Ignoring rights, abandoning trusted status or undermining commercial principles make for bad policy and worse law.

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Is he aware of the Society of Authors’ petition, which has 50,000 signatures so far, calling for action following Meta’s use of 7.5 million pirated books from the illegal LibGen database to train its Llama 3 AI? That is a blatant infringement of the authors’ copyright.

[Mr Frith]

My hon. Friend makes a precise and excellent point. Seemingly by the day, we learn of whole sections of our creative industries having their work ripped off. I will come on to what we need to do.

We need an assertion of first principles: economic fairness and an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work—the cost of doing business and paying one’s way. Our mission for our creative industries cannot mean creative industry submission. The opportunity plan will not work if our creative industries are the opportunity cost. As Labour, we back the working people who make our creative industries so powerful.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate, because many of my Slough constituents have contacted me with concerns about the impact of AI on the intellectual property of creatives. We have a thriving UK creative industry, which contributed more than £120 billion to our economy in 2022. Just down the road from Slough, we have Pinewood studios and Shinfield studios, which have given us global hits over the years. Does my hon. Friend agree that those industries must be listened to properly before any legislative changes, to ensure that the film, book, media and other creative industries can continue to thrive?

[Mr Frith]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and demonstrates both the economic might of these industries—the sheer size of their contribution—and the fact that this is Britain’s best industry, giving some of the best life experiences. I know how well my hon. Friend is thought of.

Creative industries must not be expected to forfeit their legal rights for uncertainty. There is no doubt that AI will unlock huge gains in our society. The story some tell is selective, though. We are told that only if we deregulate will we unlock the AI economic growth, that the UK must hurry up or fall behind and that regulation will only slow us down, but the urgency to get the deal done is theirs. It is no coincidence that this hurrying up has intensified as the first US judgment has found that AI training is not deemed fair use.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the creative industries have shown us that they are willing to engage and embrace AI? The Financial Times was the first UK publisher to sign a licensing agreement with OpenAI, and Shutterstock has just this month signed a research licence with Synthesia, a London-based AI start-up. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should seek to create a framework that facilitates more of these deals and ensures that small, independent creatives can access them, too?

[Mr Frith]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is fundamental to future coexistence that the licensing and legal peace of mind that the industry requires, and is seeking, is uppermost in any future position that the Government take.

Let us take a closer look. We know that behind the AI models being created and trained are massive datasets, which are not built on transparency and trust, but on the unpaid labour of creators. Our concern must be to grasp the progress that AI presents, but not by dismantling or destroying a sector already giving Britain such substantial economic, cultural and social capital, both here and around the world. We are the creative superpower and our cultural exports are world class. Our IP industries are high-value, high-skilled and globally admired. Creative industries are not seeking to change the rules of the game; all they want is their rights to be upheld—rights that underpin the very licensing and remuneration that the Government have assured us, in person, are fundamental to any settled position.

The problem, though, is not uncertainty in the law, it is the opacity in the technology. UK copyright law is clear: if someone uses someone else’s work without permission, that is infringement. Arguments that cite complexity in an age of AI ignore the capabilities of the very web crawling under way.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate—we can see how important it is by the huge amount of people who have come to see the debate and who want to speak in it. Is he aware of the recent DACS survey of visual artists, most of whom live on pay under the minimum wage? That survey showed that 84% of artists would agree to license their work for fair remuneration. That would require a technical solution that is embedded in the metadata that is respected by AI and platforms. At the moment, anything uploaded on to our social media platforms has that metadata scraped. Does my he agree that, in looking for solutions, the Government need to make sure that we legislate with that in mind?

[Mr Frith]

I agree, and as I am about to say, there is ample proof of the stripping away of that very metadata, which could be the identifying feature when it is being used and scraped. With AI models, rights holders cannot see what is being used. This is not a crisis of legislation; it is an absence of transparency, attribution and recompense for the very content and resource that those giant machines are being built with and from.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The problem is not copyright law, but transparency and enforcement. My constituent Marion Todd, the author of the Detective Inspector Clare Mackay novels, found herself subject to LibGen, which the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) referred to. Does the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) agree that we need a full response from Meta, and that the new clauses that the Lib Dems have tabled will address future compliance?

[Mr Frith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; I will expand on her point about transparency.

We must have transparency, and it needs to be granular, enforceable and practical. AI developers must be required to disclose which copyrighted works they used to train or fine-tune their models. TollBit’s “State of the Bots” report confirms:

“Whilst every AI developer with a published policy claims its crawlers respect the robots exclusion protocol, TollBit data finds that in many instances bots continue scraping despite explicit disallow requests for those user agents in publishers’ robots.txt files”.

Many AI companies say that this need not hamper AI, and it is their voices that I wish to amplify today. This is about creating a fair, functioning market for training data that benefits all sectors. Last month’s YouGov survey of MPs and the general public agrees: 92% of MPs believe that AI companies should declare the data used to train their models, 85% say that using creative work without pay undermines intellectual property rights, and 79% support payments to creators whose work is used in training. The public expect us to do our best for our UK industries, and that is why we are square behind the Government’s instincts on British Steel. Let us apply the Government’s instinct here, too, as well as their strong record and rhetoric on digital images, deepfakes, online harms and the principle that if it is illegal offline, it is illegal online.

Big tech always begins on the fringes before being regulated to the centre. We saw that most recently with age verification on app stores. Will the Minister commit to table Government amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, in recognition of these supermassive concerns, to introduce a power to regulate for transparency, consent, copyright and compensation?

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is making a very hard-hitting speech. Any reforms we introduce should ensure that artificial intelligence companies are more transparent about the materials they use to train their AI tools. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would benefit the development of AI while ensuring adequate protections for the creative industries and individuals’ intellectual property?

[Mr Frith]

It is absolutely imperative that we strike the right balance. This is not about pitting one side against the other; it is about coexistence and mutual interdependence.

Will the Minister consider introducing a stronger framework for personality rights under the data Bill, as proposed by Equity and the wider creative sector, to improve protections against the illegal exploitation of artistic works by generative AI companies? Will he also explain why the position is still to bundle transparency in with copyright?

The stories are increasingly familiar: entire creations and careers are copied and remixed into data, while the original human creator and rights owner is left out of the conversation entirely. One visitor I met from big tech likened the training of an AI on copyrighted work to the use of a library, but that argument dries up when we remember that libraries pay for their books, and it wilfully ignores the scalability differences between machine learning and human inspiration. If a warehouse traded in stolen guitars or paintings, we would expect action, but in digital form online, theft is somehow not just tolerated but to be expected. The logic that the creative industry feels it is being asked to swallow is that because tech saw it, read it or heard it, it can have it, own it and resell it.

Copyright is not an obstacle but infrastructure—a cornerstone of the British economy. As colleagues said, it makes possible the £1.24 billion contribution to UK plc. We should not be weakening it with vague exceptions or opt-out regimes. The Berne convention, signed by more than 180 countries, makes it clear that creators must not have to exert their rights for them to exist, and they should not have to sue to keep them. This violation of international copyright norms will undermine international relations and investment in our country. It will see capital take flight and cause economic damage.

I would like to introduce a new thought to the Minister: please consider the relationship with managed risk and the freedom of expression in a regulated model that creativity needs and relies on. Creatives take risks, and express themselves freely. For growth, we need an economy of risk takers with the freedom to express without fear that they will be ripped off. Without the legal frameworks that protect copyright, risk will not be embraced and creativity will dry up or move away. That is why there is so little faith in an opt-out model, or a strategic direction placing the burden on individual creators to prevent their work from being taken by tech. A technical solution does not yet exist to make such opt-outs meaningful. As they emerge, the same concerns and questions will need answering.

Worldwide, there is no comparable territory where this matter is settled. No functioning rights reservation has emerged in the EU, and in the US, further litigation is rife. California, the home of silicon valley, has a carve out—they do not get high on their own supply. The Chancellor and the leadership of our Government are right to propose on the world stage that the UK is a safe and certain bet for investment, but being the UK branch for US tech demands will not deliver that. New growth must ensure net growth. Industrial-scale unregulated scraping is not innovation; it is infringement. It erodes the commercial certainty that serious investors need.

In the regulation space, we have exciting growth opportunities in the emerging AI licensing sector. They demonstrate that copyright is well understood, and that there are scalable possibilities for licensing and ethical AI here in the UK. The emergence of platforms such as Created by Humans, Narrativ, ProRata, Getty Images, Musiio, Adobe and We Are Human, and relationships between Sony Music and Vermillio, Universal Music and SoundLabs, Lionsgate and Runway, and news publishers and Microsoft all point to new licensing with a duty of candour. With these examples, will the Minister confirm if the Government are considering building new foundational models led and built by UK AI firms?

In conclusion, this rapid technological change demands that we confront the decisions in front of us as a creative powerhouse. In this defining moment, we must stand with those whose creativity shapes our culture, economy and shared human story. Algorithms may calculate, but it is the human creativity behind it all that pours heart, history, hope and the human into and out of every note, frame and story. AI cannot be allowed to redefine the soul of creation. If we erode the rights that protect our creators, we risk not only economic loss but strangulation of those voices that tell our stories, reflect our struggles and inspire our futures. Let us affirm that in Britain we value not just innovation but the irreplaceable human spirit behind creativity, and protect the rights that mean that we thrive, for now and for generations yet to imagine, to dream and to create.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frith]

I thank everybody for their considered remarks. I have been so inspired by the turnout, not just of colleagues, but of industry representatives and other concerned stakeholders. It was remiss of me not to begin by referring to my wife, as is often the case: I failed to declare that she is a jobbing actor and a recording vocal artist. I apologise to her, and for my failure to follow protocol on such matters.

I will jump straight into the remarks by my hon. Friend the Minister. I cannot fault him for his engagement, but I will send him the questions that I posed to him, because I do not think that we got commitments to remove the opt-out clause or to a more clinical focus on the enforcement of copyright. If we addressed both of those issues, we would solve much of the problem that brought so many people to the Chamber today. I thank stakeholders for their engagement, and all those who wrote to me following my request for evidence.

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

Social Media Use: Minimum Age

James Frith Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and the petitioner for bringing this vital debate.

Since being elected to this place in July, I have spoken about children’s safety online several times, including in this Chamber. For too long, our children’s development and protecting them from harm from predators, inappropriate and disturbing content and from each other, have been treated as an afterthought. As legislators, it falls to us to protect our children, but we are way behind where we need to be.

In my constituency of Darlington, this issue came up time and again on the campaign trail as parents, siblings and grandparents all reported feeling ill equipped to fulfil their most important role of giving their children a safe and healthy childhood. It is vital we understand that parents are asking for our support now, because for many of them, the fight and pressure from their own children to allow them the latest phone, more screen time, or access to an adult version of a game and much more, feels relentless.

This debate is about social media, but it is also about the digital age of consent. My view is that children under 16 should not be given the responsibility to permit or to deny companies’ access to their data. The risks are too high, and the long-awaited children’s codes from Ofcom are not yet in place; we do not know what impact the measures in the Online Safety Act will have on children’s behaviour and experience online. We should, therefore, stipulate that 16 is the age of digital consent.

Last week I visited Firthmoor primary school in Darlington for an assembly on online safety. It was exceptional; the children had songs, raps, roleplay and helpful tips for staying safe online. These children, aged between four and 11, are online already. I was struck by their understanding of passive screen time versus active screen time. Passive screen time includes scrolling aimlessly through suggested content, and active screen time is about learning. These children are trying to protect themselves, but it cannot just be left to them. I do not think that we can ban children from accessing screens, but we must safeguard them from harm until they are old enough to navigate the risks themselves.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

My wife and I regret ever getting a smartphone for our two eldest children. We have four, and we are wondering what to do when the third expects access to the same rights. Smartphone management is something we continually get wrong. My hon. Friend has talked about screen time. It cannot be beyond the wit of our smartphone creators to give parental controls better intuitive use, so that they cannot be undermined so easily by the smart children using the smartphones. Does she agree that while we need to strengthen the role of Ofcom in rooting out the toxic content that our children are pushed towards, the smartphone manufacturers also have a job to empower parents? It is a real concern, because children’s use of smartphones and their access to social media is a daily battle for their parents.

[Lola McEvoy]

I fully support what my hon. Friend says. Lots of parents in Darlington have said that although the default setting may be that children cannot access chat rooms on games or a more violent version of a game—because it is not just the phones and devices, but what they are accessing on those devices that really matters—they just lose the battle. When it comes to the crunch and their child is arguing that they want to go on the device and they are going to have a tantrum, they just allow them to go on it. Parents need more support from us as legislators, which is basically my point.

Children should be able to enjoy games and access safe and engaging educational content. Platforms should not be allowed to target them with suggested content. That is where the problems are coming in—with suggested content, children are exposed to harmful and unhealthy things. Platforms should have children-safe search engines, and features including live location and chat rooms should be designed to be transparent and child-friendly, with their safety at their heart. Accessing certain social media features, such as chatting with adults who they do not know or sharing content, should be solely for those who have been strictly age-verified as over 16.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, of course; my hon. Friend is always intervening on me.

[Mr Frith]

I thank the Minister; as ever, he has been very generous and is making excellent remarks. Away from the emergency—the toxicity and the worst aspects of this—the mundane sapping of hour after hour after hour is just as dangerous when we consider social media use and our ineffective guardrails for smartphone use. Yes, we all agree that the content the Minister has described should be done away with and prevented, but what is his reflection on the mundane drip and sapping away of the energy and attention of our young people and the doomscrolling ethos that has developed in their expectation of their everyday lives?

[Chris Bryant]

I do not want to be a hypocrite; this 63-year-old engages in all those things as well. In fact, it is a shocking shame for me every time I get that notification that says, “You spent on average x number of hours a day on your mobile phone.” I can make justifications—I have to find out what an hon. Member’s seat is, I have to send things back to my private office on WhatsApp and all of those kind of things—but the truth is that if somebody had said to us 40 years ago that they were going to invent something that would make us all, in an addictive way, spend hours and hours and hours looking at a phone rather than engaging with other human beings, we would have said, “Maybe not, eh?”

I was really struck by that when I went to a primary school in Blaengarw in my patch. The headteacher was saying that one of the difficulties is that all the parents waiting to pick up their kids were on their mobile phones outside, as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) mentioned earlier. Whatever they did inside the school, the message that every single child got was that life was about being on a mobile phone. As has been said, one of the most important things that a parent can do is engage eye to eye with their children. If they are engaging eye to eye only with their phone, I would argue that that is as much of a problem. I will come on to some of the issues, but I do not want to be hypocritical about it.

I think we all accept that we have to do more. One thing that was not included in the list of things that someone might do if they did not have a mobile phone to spend all their time on was reading a book. I would love more young people to read a book. That longer attention span is one of the things that is an admirable part of being an adult human being.

Several hon. Members referred to the fact that legislation needs to keep up. I will put this very gently to Conservative Members: we argued for an online safety Act for a long time before one ended up becoming legislation. It went through a draft process, and there were lots of rows about what should and should not be in it, and whether we were impinging on freedom of speech and all those kinds of things, but the legislation did not end up on the statute books until the end of 2023. Even then, the Act provided for a fairly slow process of implementation thereafter, partly because Ofcom was taking on powers that, on that day, it simply would not have had enough staff to engage with. The process has been difficult, and I am absolutely certain that the Online Safety Act will not be the end of this story. That is why the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has said clearly that everything is “on the table”, and that is why today’s debate is so important.

Of course, legislation has to be proportionate, balanced, based on evidence—I will come to that in more detail in a moment—and effective. That is why the Online Safety Act will require all platforms that are in scope, including social media platforms, to set up robust systems and processes to tackle the most egregious illegal content or activity proactively, preventing users from encountering it in the first place. Platforms will be required to remove all other illegal content as soon as it is flagged to them.

The Act will also require platforms easily accessed by children—this goes to a point made by several people—to deploy measures to protect children from seeing content that is harmful to them. That includes the use of highly effective age assurance to prevent them from seeing the most harmful types of content, such as that which promotes, encourages or provides instructions for self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Platforms will also be required to provide age-appropriate access for other types of harmful content, such as bullying, abusive content or content that encourages dangerous stunts or serious violence.

Additionally, under the Act, providers that specify a minimum age limit to access their site must specify how they enforce that in their terms of service and must do so consistently. As many Members have said, this spring will be a key moment in the implementation of the Act, and that is an important point for us to recognise: later this year, things will change, because of the implementation of the Online Safety Act. Ofcom has already set out its draft child safety codes of practice, which are the measures that companies must take to fulfil their duties under the Act.

Ofcom’s draft codes outline that all in-scope services, including social media sites, will be required to tackle algorithms that amplify harm and feed harmful material to children. I would argue that that includes the process of trying to make something addictive for a child. Services will have to configure their algorithms to filter out the most harmful types of content from children’s feeds, and to reduce the visibility and prominence of other harmful content. In January, Ofcom published its guidance for services to implement highly effective age assurance to meet their duties, including the types of technology capable of being highly effective at correctly determining whether a user is a child.