Digital ID

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Simons]

There was quite a lot in the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I will do my level best to answer it. Digital right-to-work checks will make it easier for those who have a digital ID to prove their right to work. Crucially, it will make it easier for employers to check people’s right to work. That will benefit our economy. When a digital right-to-work check is done, it creates a record. That is a key piece of information that this Government will use, alongside the other ways we are toughening up our illegal working regime, to ensure we are enforcing against employers who are undercutting British workers by hiring people illegally.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call John Lamont. [Interruption.]

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Oh! Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. We do not want digital ID. It will cost billions of pounds and it should be scrapped completely. Despite what the Minister said, I am concerned that digital ID will not be technically compulsory, but people will be blocked from accessing services if they do not have it. In response to other questions, the Minister alluded to childcare. Can he confirm whether accessing childcare will be dependent on having a digital ID card?

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Simons]

Members will see more details about the costings in a very few weeks in the consultation. To be very clear: no, this Government do not recognise the figures in the OBR’s estimate, because the crucial design choices about how to make the scheme work for ordinary people will be made after the consultation and after we have talked to the public.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Hopefully there will be easier questions for the Minister to answer in the time to come. This is issue is very important to my constituents; I get hundreds of emails about it. The response to the proposal of digital ID has been swift and intense, and the feelings on all sides of the community have not diminished in any way. The general public seek assurance that their autonomy, in so far as it does not harm anyone else, is a foundational principle in our democracy. How do the Government intend to rebuild the trust that has quite clearly been lost?

Hospitality Sector

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The House will have seen that many Members are seeking to catch my eye. After the next speaker, there will be three-minute time limit.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

As Members of Parliament, we receive campaign email after campaign email every week on dozens of issues, from environmental matters to recent calls for a general election. Amid all that, there is one concern that continues to cut through: support for our pubs and the wider hospitality sector. Why? Because the UK’s hospitality sector is more than just about business. It is a vital part of the social fabric of our communities. Whether it is the Nook café in Anstey, the Ex-Servicemen’s Club in Groby or the Coach and Horses in Markfield, these are not simply places to eat and drink; they are places of refuge from everyday life, places where people come together and places that sustain the spirit of our towns and villages.

Yet what do we see from this Government? With Starmer the pub harmer at the helm, it seems they are determined to call last orders on our fantastic hospitality sector. Since the general election, we have witnessed a series of reckless decisions that have shattered business confidence. Take the Chancellor’s disastrous autumn Budget, which slashed the rates relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors and imposed damaging rises in employer’s national insurance contributions; or look at the Secretary of State for Business and Trade attempting to push one of the most damaging employment Bills in a generation through Parliament—and I know so, because I sat on the Bill Committee. The legislation will do more to hinder job creation than to help workers.

In my own constituency, I have spoken to countless publicans and small business owners who are feeling the strain—none more so than the Royal Oak in Kirby Muxloe, which recently won my Mid Leicestershire best pub competition. Local hospitality businesses in Mid Leicestershire pose the same questions to me time after time. Should they raise their prices and risk losing customers, or should they cut staff and reduce their opening hours just to stay afloat? Neither choice is fair and neither is sustainable. Across the country, we have seen the consequences: 83,000 hospitality jobs lost as a direct result of this Government’s actions. And what for the future? We know the Chancellor is facing a self-inflicted £40 billion black hole as a result of her Budget, and with the recent reshuffle at No. 10, with supporters of high taxes and high spending being promoted, there is a worry among businesses in Mid Leicestershire that the worst is yet to come.

It does not have to be this way. If the Government would only listen to industry experts such as UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association, or to brewers such as Punch Pubs and Everards, we could actually help the industry rather than hinder it. I urge the Government to act boldly and continue to cut business rate reliefs for the hospitality sector, reduce duty on draught beer and lower VAT on products sold in hospitality settings, just as many of our European neighbours do. It is time that the Government stopped punishing the sector and listened to the rational arguments of those who work in and care so much about the industry they love.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind Members that we do not refer to other Members by name in this Chamber.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

In the spirit of the Minister’s invitation, I invite any Member to come to one of our brilliant Black Country Desi pubs, or to come and eat orange chips with me next to the canal.

Everyone in this Chamber wants high and rising wages, and for their constituents to feel that they can just take the family out for a curry on a Friday night. That is why I was so disappointed to see in the wording of the motion before us today an attack on the Low Pay Commission—a piece of settled government machinery that has served Governments of all parties well. The commission is tripartite, representing business, unions and academics; it consults business closely, visits employers and talks to both managers and workers. If Conservative Members were to read the report of the last session of the Low Pay Commission, they would find that it visited hospitality businesses in the city of Glasgow, speaking both to workers and to the people running those businesses. It is one of the very best, most consensual ways of forming Government policy, and I am disappointed in the attack on it, especially as it is at present chaired by a Conservative peer.

I stand here today, as I always do, representing workers. Many hospitality workers are represented by my union, Unite. I am proud of the record of our Government, for far from being a Bill that attacks the hospitality sector, the Employment Rights Bill is written with the hospitality sector in mind. The extension of day one rights is a policy tailor-made for the hospitality sector; as 50% of all hospitality workers do not have two years’ service, they can be hired and fired at will, as if we were America. That is not what we want in our economy. Why should it be possible for someone who has worked faithfully for an employer for a year and 11 months to lose their job overnight, with no process and no reason, meaning they cannot pay the rent next month? We will stop that.

Ditto zero-hours contracts, on which 18% of hospitality workers are employed—the highest of any sector. Let us remind ourselves of the reality of that. Workers on zero-hours contracts cannot set things up because they do not know when they will be working. They may get a text message when they are stood at the bus stop on the way to their shift saying, “Sorry mate, we don’t need you today. Don’t come in.” We will ban those contracts.

My last point is on sick pay. Some 279,000 workers in the hospitality sector earn below the lower earnings limit, and we will make sure they are entitled to sick pay. This is Labour delivering for workers.

The Tories and the Lib Dems, along with their mates in Reform, have ganged up together in the House of Lords to try to gut the Employment Rights Bill, but we will not have it. I do not want the hospitality workers serving me a curry on Friday night—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Damian Hinds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) should not shake her head—that is true. It is a fact.

In the last Parliament, I campaigned for the 75% discount on business rates for leisure, hospitality and retail businesses. It was game changing for many, but with the stroke of a pen, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and ended that lifeline thrown to many employers. With the average pub having seen its business rates increase from £3,938 to £9,451, and the average restaurant from £5,051 to a whopping £12,122, the Government are taxing the sector to death. Two hospitality businesses are closing every day and it is thought that more than—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Christine Jardine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The wind-ups will start at 6.40 pm prompt.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

The hospitality industry in Eastleigh contributes £113 million every year, generates £56 million in economic value, employs 1,805 people and sustains 84 pubs, cafés, restaurants and hotels.

My constituent Lorraine, the landlady of the Master Builder pub in West End, saw her wage bill rise by £1,500 compared with the same month last year despite having no extra staff. She now works 70 hours a week, earning the equivalent of £5 an hour, and in the past two years she has had just five days off. Jane is the manager of the Holiday Inn in Eastleigh, a popular base for those wishing to watch cricket at the Utilita Bowl and for families wanting to explore Peppa Pig World at Paultons Park nearby. She tells me that they have been unable to fill vacancies because of the increased payroll burden from national insurance hikes.

David, the owner of Steam Town Brew Co, tells me that for a part-time member of staff doing just 10 hours a week, costs have risen by more than 9% year on year. For small breweries such as his, these increases make it harder to keep staff on, to recruit and to invest in local jobs. Does the Minister acknowledge that the changes to employer national insurance contributions act as a disincentive for small, labour-intensive businesses—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today at Prime Minister’s questions in relation to the Norwegian Government’s £10 billion investment in the Scottish defence sector, the Prime Minister stated, “I am perplexed that the First Minister of Scotland has not welcomed this deal.” The problem for the Prime Minister is that the First Minister did in fact welcome the order from the Norwegian Government to Scottish shipbuilding, meaning that the Prime Minister’s statement today was untrue.

The First Minister said:

“The announcement by the Norwegian Government of their intention to buy frigates from BAE is obviously a significant boost to employment and opportunity in the defence sector in Scotland. It’s an indication of the steps that have to be taken to ensure that countries are able to defend themselves. And I welcome the investments in Glasgow.”

This is an open and shut case and a serious one where the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was today engaged in advancing a completely false accusation against the First Minister of Scotland. I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we might get the Prime Minister to come to the House to correct the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The content of Members’ speeches or responses by Ministers are not matters for the Chair. However, the Treasury Bench will have heard the Member’s point of order, and I am sure that if there is a need to correct the record, the Prime Minister will do so.

Music Streaming: Label-led Principles

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

On famous names, I call Paul Waugh.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I declare an interest, in that my son Fin is a member of the band Big Huge New Circle, whose latest single “Pearl” is out on Spotify, and is recommended by Clash magazine, which calls it “beautifully complex”.

I welcome today’s announcement, particularly the introduction of per diems and the session musician uplifts. I thank the former Member for Cardiff West, who is sitting in the Peers’ Gallery, for all his work on this. It is hugely welcome, and perfectly timed for the Musicians’ Union delegate conference this week. Given the widespread concern about fair pay for streaming, and how long it has been since our Select Committee first reported on this, can the Minister explain what further powers the Government hold to intervene if these industry-led measures fall short?

[Chris Bryant]

First of all, can I wish—was it Big Huge New Circle? [Interruption.] Yes, Big Huge New Circle. So we have got it in Hansard three times now. I will take my fee later—10% obviously. Or 15%; it is 15% for lots of agents these days.

Obviously, the future of the music industry in the UK depends on having a pipeline. The single most important thing we can do is make sure that every single child has an opportunity to be a musician at school. Creative education in our schools not only delivers by providing musicians, but is a force multiplier for lots of other forms of education. That is something on which I am working very closely with the Department for Education.

I note that Lord Brennan is up in the Gallery—that is another song from music hall, I think. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Lord Brennan, who was on the Select Committee, was one of the driving forces making sure that there was not only a first report, but a second report in the last Parliament; he held the Government’s feet to the fire. I am determined to do precisely the same when it comes to the record labels. I honestly believe that we will now have one of the best arrangements in the world for the remuneration of artists from streaming, and I am sure that the record labels will stick with the arrangement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Britain’s musicians have long been our most beloved cultural treasures. In the crowded field of excellence in our creative sectors, our musicians are some of our proudest exports. They are part of a £124 billion industry that drives our economy, so support for our legacy and session musicians is completely overdue and very welcome. The musicians covered include the Devines in Berkhamsted, upcoming artists like Myles Smith, and national treasures like Elton John—I agree that Adele is one of our national treasures—and, as was mentioned, all those around them: songwriters, producers, and those who support them.

Technological change means that online streaming now constitutes the vast bulk of music consumption, and 120,000 new tracks a day are uploaded to music platforms. This often leaves a hole in musicians’ income, so it is absolutely right that the Government are taking this issue seriously. We simply need to get this right, so I ask the Minister to clarify for the House how much confidence we can really have that the principles he is spelling out will finally lead to a more equitable distribution of streaming revenue. Ultimately, this is a label-led, voluntary framework; where is the independent oversight? Crucially, what guarantees are there of consistency or enforcement across the industry?

We have raised this issue many times in the past, but it remains true that if we are serious about protecting artists’ right to remuneration, we need to ensure that copyright, which has underpinned success for decades, works in our digitally evolving world. Musicians and creatives face an AI tsunami, which could pose a threat to their livelihoods; we need to tackle it seriously. I conclude by asking the Minister once more to consider swifter action from the Government on copyright and data mining, in order to support our musicians and creatives, as well as innovation across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether he is intending to buy it himself. Of course, many acts have appeared on the pier over the years.

My hon. Friend makes the point again about the importance of having small venues where people can perform to start and build their career and end up as the kind of household successes that we know. Not everybody will earn millions from music, but we do want many more people to be able to make a decent living out of their music in the UK. Establishing good terms of trade and having a strong copyright regime is absolutely key to delivering that. The Musicians’ Union was a key part of the discussions that we held throughout the last year.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

For the final question, I call Chris Vince.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was some mention of national treasures earlier; to quote Alison Moyet, “Only you”. [Laughter.] I won’t be called last next time.

From the Newtown Neurotics to Don’t Worry and The Subways, Harlow has always had a vibrant music scene. What plans does the Minister have to engage with artists at all stages of their careers to ensure that these welcome changes provide meaningful improvement?

Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

I am thrilled to follow the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who I would like to call my right hon. Friend. We do a lot of work together on the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. He is a former leader of the British delegation—that role has now passed to me—and we still attend delegations together. He made a good opening speech in support of the Bill.

As Members will know, since 2010 I have served as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse, which I also set up in 2010. As the right hon. Gentleman highlighted, I have also fought tirelessly against touts scalping tickets away from fans to sell at massively inflated prices online. I was therefore horrified when tickets for events at the Royal Albert Hall—one of our country’s most recognisable and cherished institutions—started appearing on sites such as Viagogo. That included, to name but one, Ed Sheeran tickets being listed online for just under £6,000 per ticket. I was even more horrified when I learned that those tickets belonged to seat holders, some of whom also sit on the council of trustees.

As we have heard tonight, and all know well, the Royal Albert Hall was opened in 1871 by Queen Victoria in commemoration of her husband Prince Albert and the furtherment of arts and sciences. As a thank you, some of the wealthy benefactors who financed the hall’s construction were gifted seats in the hall on a 999-year lease to attend as many events as they wished. Those seats have passed down through the generations.

Fast-forward to today and things are very different. Seat holders can sell their seats for huge amounts of money—I will come to that in a moment—and sell their tickets for events they receive as seat holders but do not wish to attend personally. They could give those tickets to friends and family to use at no charge, and I know that some do. Many choose to return their tickets to the box office via the hall’s ticket return scheme, receiving the face value of the ticket minus a small fee that goes towards the hall. That would obviously be the preferential option for the hall, because it would make a little bit of money from that. Increasingly, however, seat holders are choosing to sell their tickets through third party websites such as Viagogo and Hoorah Tickets—in some cases for sums that are many, many times their face value. This includes tickets for Roger Daltrey’s annual Teenage Cancer Trust fundraising concert being sold for seat holders’ personal gain.

These seats therefore represent a massive investment, and the seats themselves have been bought and sold over the years, with some individuals or families now amassing over 50 seats. Again, that was not the original intention of those altruistic benefactors funding the hall. Most recently, one 10-seat box was listed online for £3 million. The advertisement claimed that there were 12 seats in the box—pre-empting this Bill, which originally contained proposals to increase the number of seats in a box from 10 to 12, which would boost the portfolio of the box owners. Those clauses have fortunately been removed in the other place.

I understand that the Royal Albert Hall has said that it needs this Bill to pass in order to make necessary changes to its constitution and safeguard the future of the hall economically. The hall holds charitable status and received a £20 million loan out of public money as part of the covid-19 culture recovery fund, which I am aware it is paying back at the rate agreed. Part of this legislation would reasonably allow the hall to increase and formalise the number of exclusive events from which seat holders are excluded, which the right hon. Member for Maldon spoke about. The hall can then make that vital profit from all the seats, instead of the seat holders selling them on the open market. Obviously, I support that.

However, the main reason I support this Bill is the common-sense amendment introduced in the other place by my very good friend and namesake—although no relation—Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, supported by a cross-party majority of Lords. As the right hon. Member for Maldon explained, the Royal Albert Hall is controlled primarily by a council of 25 trustees, a majority of 19—equivalent to 75%—of whom, including the chairman of the board of trustees, must be seat holders, according to the hall’s governance statutes. The council has a say over which acts are booked and decides how many and which events will be for the exclusive benefit of the hall. The seat holder majority of trustees, whether this has happened or not, can therefore prioritise booking and securing tickets to events that will maximise their income.

Those in the other place have taken the reasoned view that charity trustees must not benefit, or be seen to benefit, from decisions they take as trustees. Lord Hodgson’s amendment first sets out that any power to exclude members from the hall can be exercised only when

“approved by a sub-committee of the council of which the independent members of the council will form a majority”.

Secondly,

“any tickets for seats received from the exercise of the power to alter the number of events from which seat holders are excluded must only be sold by the trustee or relatives of the trustee through a ticket return scheme operated or approved by the Corporation.”

I believe that this is a moderate change that still gives seat holders a lot of freedom to resell their tickets. However, those who wish to govern the hall will receive only the face value of their tickets.

I genuinely believe that this is a vital step in bringing the hall into line with every other reputable charitable institution. There are obviously those at the hall who oppose this Bill, and it would be massively shameful if they took this opportunity to withdraw the Bill. Like many others, including the right hon. Member for Maldon, who spoke of it so fondly, I hold the hall in high esteem and have many fond memories of times enjoyed there. I really want it to survive and to thrive for future generations, so I hope that this serious conflict of interest in the running of this beloved charity comes to an end, and that the Bill is given safe passage.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Pride Month

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am imposing an immediate three-minute time limit, with the exception of the Front Benchers.

[Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism for opening this important debate and giving us this opportunity, and for doing it in such a poignant yet joyful way. I am also honoured to be sharing the Chamber with both of my predecessors; I think that shows that this is an area where we do have more in common.

From boxing champion and sporting legend Nicola Adams to beloved playwright Alan Bennett and award-winning composer Angela Morley, Leeds has produced countless trailblazers who are part of the LGBTQ+ community. In true Yorkshire fashion, we don’t do things by halves. Leeds boasts one of the biggest LGBTQ+ communities in the UK. From The Bookish Type, an independent bookshop, to the Leeds Queer Film Festival in our city centre, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), Leeds has so much to offer, thanks to our vibrant community.

In my constituency of Leeds North West, many local businesses are celebrating and showing their support with vibrant rainbow flags and Pride-themed window displays, such as Courtyard Creativities in Horsforth. There is so much to celebrate, but there is still work to be done. The community, as we have discussed already— I am sure more will come—still faces discrimination and last year, sadly, 10,000 hate crimes were reported to West Yorkshire police. I am proud that we are leading the charge, committing to strengthening our hate crimes legislation until everyone is free to live and express themselves without fear.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak in celebration of Pride Month and to have listened to all hon. Members. I want to recognise the outstanding contributions of individuals and organisations in Portsmouth North who work tirelessly to support our LGBT+ community and who worked hard to ensure that we had a UK Pride this year. I thank the dedicated team at Pompey Pride, whose vibrant events and year-round advocacy promote inclusivity and visibility; the incredible support provided by the Portsmouth LGBT+ community forum; TransLucent, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) has already praised; the YOU Trust, which offers specialist help to LGBT people facing homelessness or domestic abuse; and the fantastic Fight with Pride, a military charity leading a great campaign.

Our city should stand proud of our LGBT community, as I stand in this place a proud ally of them. Schools and institutions such as the University of Portsmouth and Portsmouth college proudly continue to foster inclusivity, and local businesses, trade unions and the city council are demonstrating leadership by championing equality in the workplace. Pride is not just a celebration but a commitment to dignity, respect and human rights, which in a sometimes hostile world we must continue to push for all.

I am proud of the actions of this Government and other Governments, both historically and currently. I am proud of the changes to bring about the equal age of consent, the repeal of section 28, the Civil Partnership Act 2004, the commitment to banning conversion therapy and strengthening hate crime protections, and the commitment to implementing Lord Etherton’s report.

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their combined and positive words in speaking up on behalf of our trans community, who are at this moment feeling very fragile and facing a very difficult world. I commend and want to thank all in Portsmouth North who through their actions are seeking to make our city of Portsmouth more open, compassionate, equal and a beautiful place for all to live. When we think about Pride and the need to still have Pride in 2025 in the UK, we must remember that love should not be a limitation but our greatest freedom, because in embracing who we are, we help the world become more authentic and more compassionate. In a world where this is not always possible, we must all continue to stand together, speak up and speak out until we are all truly free to love who we want.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Niblett]

I am pleased to speak in this debate in support of new clause 14, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), to which I have added my name. The clause would give our media and creative sectors urgently needed transparency over the use of copyright works by AI models. I am sure that my speech will come as no surprise to the Minister.

I care about this issue because of, not in spite of, my belief in the power of AI and its potential to transform our society and our economy for the better. I care because the adoption of novel technologies by businesses and consumers requires trust in the practices of firms producing the tech. I care about this issue because, as the Creative Rights in AI Coalition has said:

“The UK has the potential to be the global destination for generative firms seeking to license the highest-quality creative content. But to unlock that immense value, we must act now to stimulate a dynamic licensing market: the government must use this legislation to introduce meaningful transparency provisions.”

Although I am sure that the Government’s amendments are well meant, they set us on a timeline for change to the copyright framework that would take us right to the tail end of this Parliament. Many in this House, including myself, do not believe that an effective opt-out mechanism will ever develop; I know it is not in the Bill right now, but it was proposed in the AI and copyright consultation. Even if the Government insist on pursuing this route, it would be a dereliction of duty to fail to enforce our existing laws in the intervening period.

Big tech firms claim that transparency is not feasible, but that is a red herring. These companies are absolutely capable of letting rights holders know whether their individual works have been used, as OpenAI has been ordered to do in the Authors Guild v. OpenAI copyright case. Requiring transparency without the need for a court order will avoid wasting court time and swiftly establish a legal precedent, making the legal risk of copyright infringement too great for AI firms to continue with the mass theft that has taken place. That is why big tech objects to transparency, just as it objects to any transparency requirements, whether they are focused on online safety, digital competition or copyright. It would make it accountable to the individuals and businesses that it extracts value from.

The AI companies further argue that providing transparency would compromise their trade secrets, but that is another red herring. Nobody is asking for a specific recipe of how the models are trained: they are asking only to be able to query the ingredients that have gone into it. Generative AI models are made up of billions of data points, and it is the weighting of data that is a model’s secret sauce.

The Government can do myriad things around skills, access to finance, procurement practices and energy costs to support AI firms building and deploying models in the UK. They insist that they do not see the AI copyright debate as a zero-sum game, but trading away the property rights of 2.4 million UK creatives—70% of whom live outside London—to secure tech investment would be just that.

There are no insurmountable technical barriers to transparency in the same way that there are no opt-outs. The key barrier to transparency is the desire of tech firms to obscure their illegal behaviour. It has been shown that Meta employees proactively sought, in their own words,

“to remove data that is clearly marked as pirated/stolen”

from the data that they used from the pirate shadow library, LibGen. If they have technical means to identify copyright content to cover their own backs, surely they have the technical means to be honest with creators about the use of their valuable work.

I say to the Minister, who I know truly cares about the future of creatives and tech businesses in the UK—that is absolutely not in question—that if he cannot accept new clause 14 as tabled, he should take the opportunity as the Bill goes back to the Lords to bring forward clauses that would allow him to implement granular transparency mechanisms in the next six to 12 months. I and many on the Labour Benches—as well as the entire creative industries and others who do not want what is theirs simply to be taken from them—stand ready to support the development of workable solutions at pace. It can never be too soon to protect the livelihoods of UK citizens, nor to build trust between creators and the technology that would not exist without their hard work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I rise to support new clauses 2 to 5 in the name of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins); to pay tribute to Baroness Kidron, who has driven forward these amendments in the other place; and to speak in favour of new clause 20 in the name of the official Opposition.

I am beginning to sound a bit like a broken record on this matter, but our creative industries are such a phenomenal UK success story. They are our economic superpower and are worth more than automotive, aerospace and life sciences added together, comprising almost 10% of UK registered businesses and creating nearly 2.5 million jobs. More than that, our creative industries have so much intrinsic value; they underpin our culture and our sense of community. Intellectual property showcases our nation around the world and supports our tourism sector. As a form of soft power, there is simply nothing like it—yet these social and economic benefits are all being put at risk by the suggested wholesale transfer of copyright to AI companies.

The choice presented to us always seems, wittingly or unwittingly, to pit our innovative AI sector against our world-class creative industries and, indeed, our media sector. It is worth noting that news media is often overlooked in these debates, but newspapers, magazines and news websites license print and content online. In turn, that helps to support high-quality and independent journalism, which is so vital to underpinning our democratic life. That is essential considering recent news that the global average press freedom score has fallen to an all-time low.

I want to push back against the false choice that we always seem to be presented with that, somehow, our creative industries are Luddites and are not in favour of AI. I have seen time and again how our creators have been characterised by big tech and its lobbyists as somehow resistant to technological progress, which is of course nonsensical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that very serious point. When the clinicians—whose duty is to protect their patients—say they are not convinced about the safety of data being handed over to a central database, we have to listen to their reactions.

I do not intend to press my new clause to the vote, but it is important that we continue to debate this matter, because this enormous database—which can contribute to the general welfare of all humanity—must be protected in such a way that it retains confidence and ensures the security of the whole system. With that, I leave the discussion to continue on other matters.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Pete Wishart.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you ever so much, Madam Deputy Speaker—other matters we shall attend to.

I speak in support of new clauses 2 to 6 and new clause 14, which I enthusiastically support. I believe that those new clauses represent our very last chance to guarantee at least a bit of security for our creative industries in the face of what can only be described as the almost existential threat posed by generative AI. This is critical. I listened to the Minister very carefully, but this lackadaisical approach and the progress he is intending do not properly reflect the scale of the threat and challenge that our creative industries are currently confronted with. I accept that we have come a long way in this debate, and I accept the positive tone the Minister tries to take when dealing with these issues. I believe that he is sincere about trying to find a solution—he wants to get to a place where both the AI companies and the creative industries are satisfied. I am not entirely sure that we will get to that place, but I wish him all the best in those efforts.

We have certainly come a long way since the first statement we had in this House. I am sure that hon. Members will remember the belligerent way in which the Secretary of State presented that first statement— I am surprised that he is not here today. He was almost saying to the creative industries that they had to take it on the chin in order to satisfy this Government’s attempts to find some economic growth—which they have so far found elusive—in the shape of unfettered artificial intelligence, and that we should just get on with that agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. From the next speaker, there will be a five-minute time limit.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

As many Members will be aware, my constituent Ellen Roome knows only too well the tragedies that can take place as a result of social media. I am pleased that Ellen joins us in the Gallery to hear this debate in her pursuit of Jools’ law.

In 2022, Ellen came home to find her son Jools not breathing. He had tragically lost his life, aged just 14. In the following months, Ellen battled the social media giants—and she is still battling them—to try to access his social media data, as she sought answers about what had happened leading up to his death. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for raising this in his speech. In her search for answers, Ellen found herself blocked by social media giants that placed process ahead of compassion. The police had no reason to suspect a crime, so they did not see any reason to undertake a full investigation into Jools’ social media. The inquest did not require a thorough analysis of Jools’ online accounts. None of the social media companies would grant Ellen access to Jools’ browsing data, and a court order was needed to access the digital data, which required eye-watering legal fees.

The legal system is unequipped to tackle the complexities of social media. In the past, when a loved one died, their family would be able to find such things in their possession—perhaps in children’s diaries, in school books or in cupboards. However, now that so much of our lives are spent online, personal data is kept by the social media giants. New clause 11 in my name would change that, although I understand that there are technical and legal difficulties.

The Minister and the Secretary of State met Ellen and me this morning, along with the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), and we are grateful for the time they gave us. My new clause will not go to a vote today, but we will keep pushing because Ellen and other parents like her should not have to go through this to search for answers when a child has died. I understand that there are provisions in the Bill that will be steps forward, but we will keep pushing and we will hold the Government’s and all future Governments’ feet to the fire until we get a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Many people wish to speak in this debate, so before I call the next speaker I ask Members please to be mindful when taking interventions. I will now impose a four-minute time limit.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

We live in a rapidly changing world. Like everyone else, I am sure that I am guilty of handing my data to organisations every hour of every day, oblivious to the impact on my privacy. I am also guilty of absorbing and using content assuming that it is trustworthy and that it has been obtained fairly.

On the other hand, my generation has been fortunate to have seen the introduction of social media and the online world, and to have experienced the time before it, which perhaps provides us with a level of scepticism about what we see, and an ability to switch it off and distance ourselves from the onslaught to our senses that digital content can provide.

Like other interventions of the past, we are now at a crossroads where we must pause and not simply plough on. The Bill gives us the opportunity to make it clear to the tech giants that we are not giving them everything that we have created, that they cannot own our children, and that we value our data as part of our identity.

Some of the amendments give us a great opportunity to improve the Bill—to make the most of this moment in time and to make sure that we do not leave people behind. We know that children’s brains continue to develop until they are in their early 20s. We know that young people’s development leads them to be risk takers in their adolescence and teenage years, and, as adults, we sometimes have to take decisions to curtail their fun to protect them. My own children have enjoyed social media from the age of 13, but, as the sector develops, and our understanding of its addictive nature improves, it is critical that we reflect that in law. Lifting the age of consent for social media data collection, as in new clause 1, will help to protect our children at the time they need it.

It is unimaginable to lose a child and to do so in the circumstances where the reasons behind their death are unclear, which is why I signed new clause 11 tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which would allow bereaved parents access to their child’s social media content. This should not be necessary given that GDPR and privacy rights do not apply to those who have died. The fact that we even need such legislation calls into question the motivation of tech giants and tells us where their interests lie. I urge the Government to support this and welcome the assurance today that more work will be done.

Trust is at an all-time low not only in the Government but in other authorities such as the NHS. As AI changes how we interact with the state, commerce and each other, the public should have a right to know how and when AI is involved in the decisions made. Transparency matters, which is why I am supporting the new clauses proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). We know that if we use each other’s content we must pay for it, or at least credit it if we are not profiting from it. We know that if we do not, we infringe that copyright, so why should tech giants, probably based in some far-flung place, have a right to scrape that content without knowledge or payment? The idea that they even need to train their systems off the backs of people who have used their talent and time and made their living through creativity is obscene.

I really must speak strongly against new clause 21. I have been overwhelmed by the scale of distress brought about by this awful proposal. It is cruel and it completely undermines the privacy of people who are transgender at a time when they are already feeling victimised.

Those who have transitioned socially, medically or surgically are protected in law, and we were told that the Supreme Court decision last month does not change that. But new clause 21 does. If it were passed, sex at birth would be recorded on a driving licence or passport, outing every trans person whenever they buy an age-restricted product, change their job, travel abroad, or even come to Parliament to visit their MP. Not only is this a fundamental breach of privacy, but it is potentially dangerous. They would be prevented from travelling to countries with poor records on rights, and they would be at higher risk of suicide and self-harm than they already are. A constituent said,

“This is a direct attempt to erase me from the public record.”

Please reject this new clause 21.

[Ms Creasy]

In the short time available to me, I want to speak to four amendments. On two of them, I would like to urge the Minister to think again. On one, I am in total agreement with the Minister that we should oppose it; the other is one that I want to draw to the House’s attention.

First, I join the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah), my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and the indomitable Baroness Kidron, who joins us today from the Gallery, in encouraging the Minister to look again at amendments on AI and copyright. We know that this problem will come back and that we need to move at pace.

I represent Walthamstow, the home of William Morris, the creators and makers—and creatives abound. At least William Morris could protect his wallpaper patterns. With the AI technologies we see now moving so quickly, unless we stand up for British copyright technology, we will be in a very different place. The Minister says that if we do not pass new clause 2, we will still have copyright law tomorrow, and he is right, but we will not have the tools to deal with the technology we are dealing with now.

This issue is about not just the Elton Johns, the Ed Sheerans, the Richard Osmans or the Jilly Coopers, but the thousands of creators in our country—it is their bread and butter. Nobody is opposing technology, but they are saying that we need to act more quickly. I hope to hear from the Minister what he will do in this area. New clause 14, which has not been selected, is about the question of transparency and will help creatives exercise their rights.

Briefly, I want to support what the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) said about new clause 21. I have always supported the appropriate collection of data, but this is not an appropriate collection of data. It is a targeting of the trans community, which is deeply regressive.

I praise the Government for what they are doing with schedule 11—and I wager that nobody else in this Chamber has looked at it. The Victims and Prisoners Act received Royal Assent in May 2024. Section 31 of the Act provides a mechanism to delete data that has been created as part of a malicious campaign of harassment. Schedule 11 is a technical amendment to GDPR laws that will make that Act, which got cross-party support, possible to enact.

For parents and carers, the thought that someone who disagrees with them might use the auspices of social services to try to remove their children because of that disagreement is impossible to comprehend. It is a nightmare that I have lived through myself. Thanks to my local authority, I am still living through it, because the record created by the person who did this to me remains on the statute book, along with the allegation that I am a risk to my children because of the views that I hold.

The primary intent of the man who made this complaint was to trigger an investigation into my private life. The judge who convicted him of harassment said that it was one of the worst examples of malicious abuse in public life that he had seen. The judge demanded that the file be stricken, as did I when it first came to light and when the man was subsequently convicted of harassment. However, Waltham Forest council continue to argue that they have to retain that data to protect my own children from me. This is an example not of how data is used to safeguard but how data can be used to harm by its existence. It is not a benign matter to have such a record associated with one’s name. Anyone who has ever been to A&E knows that the question, “Is your child known to social services?” is not a neutral inquiry. Not having a way of removing data designed to harass will perpetuate the harassment.

My local authority has not labelled the fathers who are MPs in my borough in the same way, but it argues that it must retain this data about me under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, regarding children who might reasonably be considered at risk of harm from an individual. To add insult to injury, the council has not offered to delete this data but told me that I can add to it a note to dispute the claims by the person who has been convicted of harassing me about my fitness to be a parent, and then the council might consider including the note—add more data to a file, therefore, rather than remove it. That will keep the link between me, my family, these allegations and the gentleman who harassed me in the first place. I have never received any form of apology or acknowledgement.

There have always been strong grounds and legal processes to remove malicious records. It is also right that we set a high bar, as the 2024 Act did. This consequential amendment in the Bill should now mean that the Government can use the affirmative resolution to make that law a reality. We cannot delete the misogyny at the heart of Waltham Forest council’s response, but we could finally delete the records and those of others like them and move on with our lives—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Steff Aquarone.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

My new clause 7 would ensure that, alongside the creation of a digital verification framework, there would be a right to use non-digital ID. Digital exclusion is a major challenge for many communities around the country, including in North Norfolk. Part of the answer is to improve digital education and bring those numbers down, but, as Age UK rightly says,

“it will never be possible to get everyone online.”

The progress we make in the digital age must ensure provision for those who will not be supported by it, or that they are not left behind or excluded.

Older people are not the only ones who struggle with digital exclusion—poverty is also a significant driver. A study in 2021 showed that more than half those who are offline earned less than £20,000 a year. The Government told the Lords that if it turned out that people were being excluded, they could consider legislating, but how many people earning less than £20,000 a year will be taking a business through the courts—perhaps as far as the Supreme Court—to secure their rights? Why are we waiting for it to go wrong, placing the onus on vulnerable people to generate test cases and legal precedent when we could put this matter to bed once and for all with this simple addition to the Bill?

I will also speak in support of new clause 1. It has become abundantly clear to us all that we cannot trust the social media giants to keep our children safe. In fact, I would go as far as to say that they have very little interest in keeping children safe. The algorithms that drive these platforms, which are designed to keep users scrolling for as long as possible to maximise ad revenue, can be deeply damaging to children and young people. It is important to emphasise just how pervasive the content stream can be. Not every hon. Member may have experienced it, but pervasive, targeted content is not the same as a child seeing something distressing on the news. Once seen—if only fleetingly—there is the potential for them to be exposed to unsubstantiated, misleading or even traumatic content, or versions of that content, over and over again every few swipes as the algorithm realises it can suck them in, keep them scrolling and make profit for its social media giants. That is not what social networks set out to do, but it is what they have become.

Whatever the social media giants told the Government or the Opposition, whether “It is too complex,” “It would cost too much,” or, “The flux capacitor is not big enough,” that is just rubbish. If we simply removed the right to process personal data for under 16s, we would remove the algorithms’ ability to target them with content based on what they say and do. If the social networks cared about children’s wellbeing, they would have done that already. I hope that today we will finally take the action necessary to protect the next generation.

Overall, my views on the Bill remain broadly similar to the frustrations I expressed months ago on Second Reading. There is important, commendable and sensible stuff in the Bill, and I welcome that, but what is not in the Bill is more frustrating, as it could have put it in a much better position to harness the power of data. We could have addressed the litany of failures in public sector data use that the Government’s own review outlined just months ago. We could be equipping our civil service and public sector with the talent, culture and leadership to make us a global trailblazer in data-driven government. It is really frustrating that the Bill does not contain any of the steps necessary to make those improvements.

If we use data better, we do government better. I am sure that the whole House and all our constituents are keen to see that.

Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lola McEvoy]

It has been very interesting to be part of this campaign, and I think there is a lot more to do.

There are other areas that we must urgently take action on, from going forwards with the second iteration of the children’s code to ensure that functionalities are included, to upgrading the requirement for risk assessments to make them more dynamic and supporting bereaved families.

To conclude, I am incredibly grateful to all those who have supported the Bill—to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington for his incredible work, to Ben Kingsley for his excellent expertise, and to my wonderful constituents in Darlington, who have put me here to represent them, improve their lives and help them to protect their children. This Christmas just gone, I was at a carol concert at the Crown Street library in Darlington, and a man tapped me on the shoulder, pointed at his beautiful child, who was looking up at me and beaming, and said, “Keep going on the online safety. You’re doing it for her.” I am, and I will continue to do so. I urge our Government to get on with it and to take as much action as we reasonably can within the timeframe that we have.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes]

Thank you so much for giving way. Do you agree that, although this point has not come across in the debate, we all meet the most incredible young people every day in our constituencies, and we must congratulate them on the amazing things they do—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions must be very short at this point, and please do not to refer to each other as “you”.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I join the hon. Lady in congratulating young people on their work.

I say as a father that we must act now to reduce the harm caused to two current generations of children and never expose future generations to those harms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.

Point of Order

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hansard will confirm that during questions to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology earlier today, the Secretary of State—who is in his place—said that no Conservative Ministers had met AstraZeneca representatives following the announcement of a £450 million investment to expand its Merseyside vaccine facility. The Secretary of State is wrong. Publicly available transparency data from the Treasury and the Secretary of State’s own Department confirm that meetings did take place between AstraZeneca and my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), the then Chancellor, and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). May I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what to do, and may I offer the Secretary of State the opportunity to apologise and correct the record for the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for giving me notice of it. I trust that he notified the Secretary of State of his intention to raise it. Should the Secretary of State feel that the record needs to be corrected, there are processes whereby he may do so, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why detain the House? Why don’t I just apologise now, and correct the record? I am grateful to the hon. Member for alerting me to that information. I am happy to correct the record, and I am happy to apologise to him for saying what I said earlier. I should also correct the thrust of my argument this morning, which was that there was insouciance during the period between the March statement and the general election in July. Actually, it was not insouciance; it was just incompetence that meant they could not get the deal across the line.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Secretary of State.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling]

The hon. Lady makes her point well, and we have already heard from the Minister about the rationale behind those clauses. There are real issues with putting such measures through in secondary legislation, because this House should have more ability to scrutinise them. We know there is a consultation at the moment, and we have heard from the Secretary of State that he is very open to having a conversation on this issue and making sure that we address it. I am sure we all agree that we need to do that properly.

On safeguards, the Bill makes it very clear that where an organisation makes automated decisions, an individual has the right to a proper explanation of those decisions and the right to make representations about the decision taken, to obtain human intervention and to contest the automated decision. Those are really robust safeguards, but they are key provisions that must be shown to work in practice. We cannot enter a situation in which automated decisions are made wrongly, with no recourse. I strongly support the Bill and these safeguards, but I note that the British Medical Association has raised concerns around clause 77 and clause 70. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to those concerns around diluting protections for health data held by non-public bodies. I am sure that he has a response, and it would be good to hear it.

To wrap up, the innovative use of data, following strict guidelines and data protection rules, will massively improve the efficiency of public services and grow our economy. It is right that the Government take this route. The UK should be leading the way in innovative technology and fully utilising technological developments to improve people’s lives, and I believe that this Bill will do that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Creative Industries

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse]

I congratulate Taunton town council on putting that money into the arts. That is absolutely what is needed, but many councils struggle to balance the books and have to make very difficult decisions.

To deliver on the full potential of the UK’s competitive advantage in the arts and entertainment, additional public investment is required. We need to understand why we are so far behind the rest of Europe in terms of funding and take urgent action to correct that. Core funding is key to the resurgence of Bath’s creative sector, and of creative industries across the country. I hope this new Government can turn the page on the constant cuts to our creative industries and ensure that every community has a vibrant creative sector for all to enjoy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, not least because I spent many years working in publishing before I came to this place. I have the honour of serving on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and I am a former ambassador for Xbox, which is possibly the only time my son thought I was cool.

Recently, I visited Barton Peveril, a consistently successful local sixth-form college in my constituency, where many students have a keen interest in the creative industries. For all those students and the thousands of young people across the UK who want to pursue careers in film, music, video games, TV, fashion, architecture, design and, of course, publishing, it is vital that those sectors are supported. Yet over the past 14 years, there has been a 47% drop in students taking arts-related GCSEs and a 29% decline at A-level. Universities are also slashing creative courses; at least 14 institutions are cutting arts funding or merging departments. That is hugely concerning. Arts education fosters ingenuity, critical thinking and innovation, which are skills that benefit all industries. We must protect arts education and funding.

For those talented performers who want to share their work, Brexit red tape continues to make it unnecessarily difficult for performers and artists to tour in Europe. The complex visa and permit requirements stifle opportunities for British talent to showcase their work abroad, and independent musicians are among those hardest hit. Touring has become increasingly hard because of the mountain of bureaucracy now involved. Musicians face navigating different visa rules for each EU country and financial burdens that make tours unviable for many. I sincerely hope that will be addressed.

As we have heard, AI poses a growing threat, and Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Elton John are right to have concerns about that issue. While AI offers exciting opportunities, it must not come at the expense of our talent. Recent reports that The Guardian used AI to produce stories during industrial action are concerning. Can the Minister outline what steps the Government will take to ensure that AI serves and enhances the creative industries, rather than undermines them? The Association for UK Interactive Entertainment has highlighted the need for better support to ensure that the gaming industry, which is growing rapidly, can continue to thrive. Sector-wide job losses and the rise of AI replacing creative roles are putting studios under immense pressure. As a global leader in video game creation, it is vital that we protect this sector.

To ensure that Britain remains a global leader in creativity, we need continued safeguarding of copyright, investment in arts education, and more support for grassroots venues. We should be proud of our creative industries, so let us work together to ensure that they continue to be world class. I hope that the Government will provide the ambition, investment and vision needed to ensure that the creative industries continue to thrive.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.