Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendment 49B, the Lords disagreement with the Commons in Commons amendment 52 and Lords amendments 52B and 52C engage Commons financial privilege. If any of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 28

DVS trust framework

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 32 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 32B and 32C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 34B and 34C proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment 34.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 43B.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 49B.

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 52 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 52B and 52C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement.

That this House does not insist on Commons Amendment 55 to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 55D and 55E proposed in lieu of Commons Amendment 55.

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment 56B

[Chris Bryant]

Notwithstanding the views of the Chinese Government, it is a delight to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am only saddened that I have not been sanctioned, which feels a shame—nor by Russia, for that matter. There is still time.

I am delighted to be here today to discuss the Bill, which we last discussed in depth a week ago today. First, I would like to express how pleased I am that the other place has agreed to the Government’s amendments relating the national underground asset register and intimate image abuse. I pay tribute to all those Members of the House of Lords who took part in getting that part of the legislation to the place where it is now. I am glad we have been able to work with them. I will start by encouraging the House to agree to those amendments, before I move on to discuss the amendments relating to AI and intellectual property, scientific research, and sex and gender—in that order.

Lords amendments 55D, 55E and 56B, which were introduced to the Bill in the other place by the noble Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, place a duty on the face of the Bill that requires the Government to: review the operation of the “reasonable excuse” defence in the offences of creating and requesting intimate image deepfakes without consent, or reasonable belief in consent; publish the outcome of the review in a report; and lay that report before Parliament. The Government were pleased to support the amendments in the other place, as we share the desire to ensure that the criminal law, and these offences in particular, work as the Government intend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

“A long time ago!” says the rather ungenerous Member sitting at the back.

Honestly, I have not been asked to go long. I am simply, because I do believe in parliamentary scrutiny, trying to answer all the questions and engage in a proper debate. I know that colleagues want to press me on a series of issues. There are some issues coming up that they might want to press me on that are completely different from this, and I am happy to be pressed, including by the right hon. Lady, as many times as she wants. But I do not think there was a question in her point. She thought she was trying to help me go long, but I am trying to go slightly shorter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

To help the Minister for a moment, because colleagues are looking bewildered: I do not know who was or was not invited to the Minister’s 60th birthday party, in case they are feeling a little left out.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way again. I will sum up at the end of the debate, so if she wants to raise issues again, I will take interventions then. [Interruption.] I think you would like me to get a move on, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I turn finally to the issue of sex and gender, particularly in the context of the measures on digital verification services. I have tabled amendments to remove the measure that was voted for in the House of Lords on Monday, for reasons that Lord Vallance and I have noted in previous debates. For clarity, the data accuracy principle requires personal data to be accurate and not misleading for the purpose for which it is being used. That safeguard should ensure that personal data shared by public authorities with digital verification services for the purposes of verifying a particular attribute appropriately confirms the specific attribute in question. Public authorities and digital verification service providers are legally required to comply with that principle at different stages of the digital verification process. As I said last week, although it is very unlikely that digital verification services will be used in the kind of cases raised by Opposition Members, the provisions mean that if an organisation requests verification of a person’s sex at birth, the public authority must not share data that records gender more widely for the purpose of that check. Likewise, digital verification service providers must not rely on data that records gender more widely as part of the verification process in that scenario.

This Government recognise that there are instances where sex and gender data appear in the same field in public authority data sets. Existing legislation requires personal data to be accurate for the purpose for which it is being used, which means that personal data processed as part of digital verification checks must reflect the specific requirements of that check. I assure the House that if the Government were to identify an instance in which a public authority was sharing with digital verification services gender data that was mislabelled as biological sex data, we would respond appropriately.

To reiterate, this Government consider the issue of data accuracy to be of importance, and accept the Supreme Court ruling. That judgment and its effects must be worked through holistically, with sensitivity and in line with the law. The Government are already undertaking extensive work on data standards and data accuracy that will consider upcoming updated guidance from the equalities regulator. I do not think it would be appropriate to legislate in the way proposed without having taken those steps, particularly given the sensitive nature of this matter and the potential impact on people’s privacy and human rights.

I finish by noting your opinion, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Lords amendments 49B, 52B and 52C engage the financial privilege of this House, which the Government do not believe it is appropriate for this House to waive. I am sure that the other place will reflect on that carefully during its further consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to all those Members who intervened, and I hope that I have not managed to cut off anybody before their prime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was a substantial opening speech.

[Simon Hoare]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that on Monday, Mr Speaker took to task those on the Treasury Bench for making a very important announcement about major policy changes on immigration to the media before it was made to this House. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) had an urgent question on that issue just this afternoon, and at the heart of the matter is the ministerial code. It has been brought to my attention that this afternoon, the Ministry of Justice has announced some fairly major changes: a limit to the length of time for which some offenders can be returned to prison, under plans to ease prison overcrowding, and a major shake-up of offenders. It seems that the Government are persistent offenders themselves on this matter. It strikes me as arrogantly cavalier that, given the very strong strictures from the Chair and on a day on which a UQ has been granted, another offence has been added to the charge sheet.

This is something that affects, and should concern, all Members of this House who do not sit on the Front Bench. Parliament hears important announcements as they affect our constituents, and public safety and the removal of people from our streets through the prison system and so on are of concern to all our constituents, irrespective of where we represent. I also understand that no indication has been given of a written ministerial statement on this important issue. As such, I rise to reinforce the point that has been made over the past several days on this significant breach of the ministerial code, and to inquire of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether—even at this late-ish stage on a sitting day—the Chair has had any indication at all of a statement from the Ministry of Justice, so that a relevant Minister can be questioned on what this policy means for our constituents.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. He is entirely correct to say that the House took an urgent question earlier today on the provisions of the ministerial code. Those provisions make clear that when the House of Commons is sitting, major Government announcements should be made to the House first. That point has been made repeatedly from the Chair, including on multiple recent occasions. Ministers are accountable to this House, and should make every effort to inform this House of policy developments via statements wherever it is possible to do so. While I have been in the Chair, I have had no warning that a statement is due today. The Government and, no doubt, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard both the point of order and my response, and I trust they will act accordingly and with some urgency.

I call the shadow Minister.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 17—Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems.

New clause 1—Age of consent for social media data processing—

“(1) The UK GDPR is as amended as follows.

(2) In Article 8 of the UK GDPR (Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services)

After paragraph 1 insert—

‘(1A) References to 13 years old in paragraph 1 shall be read as 16 years old in the case of social networking services processing personal data for the purpose of delivering personalised content, including targeted advertising and algorithmically curated recommendations.

(1B) For the purposes of paragraph 1A “social networking services” means any online service that—

(a) allows users to create profiles and interact publicly or privately with other users, and

(b) facilitates the sharing of user-generated content, including text, images, or videos, with a wider audience.

(1C) Paragraph 1B does not apply to—

(a) educational platforms and learning management systems provided in recognised educational settings, where personal data processing is solely for educational purposes.

(b) health and well-being services, including NHS digital services, mental health support applications, and crisis helplines, where personal data processing is necessary for the provision of care and support’”.

This new clause would raise the age for processing personal data in the case of social networking services from 13 to 16.

New clause 2—Compliance with UK copyright law by operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision (including any such provision as might be made by Act of Parliament), requiring the operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to comply with United Kingdom copyright law, including the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts relating to the pre-training, development and operation of those web crawlers and general-purpose AI models take place.

(2) Provision made under subsection (1) must apply to the entire lifecycle of a general-purpose AI model, including but not limited to—

(a) pre-training and training,

(b) fine tuning,

(c) grounding and retrieval-augmented generation, and

(d) the collection of data for the said purposes.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires web crawlers and general-purpose AI models with UK links to comply with UK copyright law across all stages of AI development.

New clause 3—Transparency of crawler identity, purpose and segmentation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to disclose information regarding the identity of crawlers used by them or by third parties on their behalf, including but not limited to—

(a) the name of the crawler,

(b) the legal entity responsible for the crawler,

(c) the specific purposes for which each crawler is used,

(d) the legal entities to which operators provide data scraped by the crawlers they operate, and

(e) a single point of contact to enable copyright owners to communicate 35 with them and to lodge complaints about the use of their copyrighted works.

(2) The information disclosed under subsection (1) must be available on an easily accessible platform and updated at the same time as any change.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models to deploy distinct crawlers for different purposes, including but not limited to—

(a) web indexing for search engine results pages,

(b) general-purpose AI model pre-training, and

(c) retrieval-augmented generation.

(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models to ensure that the exclusion of a crawler by a copyright owner does not negatively impact the findability of the copyright owner’s content in a search engine.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires operators of web crawlers and AI models to disclose their identity, purpose, data-sharing practices, and use separate crawlers for different functions.

New clause 4—Transparency of copyrighted works scraped—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to disclose information regarding text and data used in the pre-training, training and fine-tuning of general purpose AI models, including but not limited to—

(a) the URLs accessed by crawlers deployed by them or by third parties on their behalf or from whom they have obtained text or data,

(b) the text and data used for the pre-training, training and fine-tuning, including the type and provenance of the text and data and the means by which it was obtained, and

(c) information that can be used to identify individual works, and (d) the timeframe of data collection.

(2) The disclosure of information under subsection (1) must be updated on a monthly basis in such form as the regulations may prescribe and be published in such manner as the regulations may prescribe so as to ensure that it is accessible to copyright owners upon request.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory 35 instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause mandates transparency about the sources and types of data used in AI training, requiring monthly updates accessible to copyright owners.

New clause 5—Enforcement—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring the Information Commission (under section 114 of the Data Protection Act 2018) (‘the Commissioner’) to monitor and secure compliance with the duties by an operator of a web crawler or general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) model whose service has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (‘a relevant operator’), including but not limited to the following—

(a) the regulations must provide for the Commissioner to have the power by written notice (an ‘information notice’) to require a relevant operator to provide the Commissioner with information that the Commissioner reasonably requires for the purposes of investigating a suspected failure to comply with the duties;

(b) the regulations must provide for the Commissioner to have the power by written notice (an ‘assessment notice’) to require and to permit the Commissioner to carry out an assessment of whether a relevant operator has complied or is complying with the duties and to require a relevant operator to do any of the acts set out in section 146(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018;

(c) the regulations must provide that where the Commissioner is satisfied 15 that a relevant operator has failed, or is failing to comply with the duties, the Commissioner may give the relevant operator a written notice (an ‘enforcement notice’) which requires it—

(i) to take steps specified in the notice, or

(ii) to refrain from taking steps specified in the notice;

(d) the regulations must provide that where the Commissioner is satisfied that a relevant operator has failed or is failing to comply with the duties or has failed to comply with an information notice, an assessment notice or an enforcement notice, the Commissioner may, by written notice (a ‘penalty notice’), require the person to pay to the Commissioner an amount in sterling specified in the notice, the maximum amount of the penalty that may be imposed by a penalty notice being the ‘higher maximum amount’ as defined in section 157 of the Data Protection Act 2018; and

(e) the regulations may provide for the procedure and rights of appeal 30 in relation to the giving of an information notice, an assessment notice, an enforcement notice or a penalty notice.

(2) The regulations must provide that any failure to comply with the duties by a relevant operator shall be directly actionable by any copyright owner who is adversely affected by such failure, and that such copyright owner will be entitled to recover damages for any loss suffered and to injunctive relief.

(3) The regulations must provide that the powers of the Commissioner and the rights of a copyright owner will apply in relation to a relevant operator providing a service from outside the United Kingdom (as well as such one provided from within the United Kingdom).

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause grants the Information Commissioner enforcement powers to ensure compliance with AI and web crawler transparency rules, including penalties for breaches.

New clause 6—Technical solutions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the technical solutions that may be adopted by copyright owners and by the operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to prevent and to identify the unauthorised scraping or other unauthorised use of copyright owners’ text and data.

(2) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must report on such technical solutions and must issue guidance as to the technical solutions to be adopted and other recommendations for the protection of the interests of copyright owners.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review and report on technical measures to prevent unauthorised data scraping by web crawlers and AI models.

New clause 7—Right to use non-digital verification services—

“(1) This section applies when an organisation—

(a) requires an individual to use a verification service; and

(b) uses a digital verification service for that purpose.

(2) Where it is reasonably practicable for an organisation to offer a non-digital method of verification, the organisation must—

(a) make a non-digital alternative method of verification available to any individual required to use a verification service; and

(b) provide information about digital and non-digital methods of verification to those individuals before verification is required.”

This new clause would create a duty upon organisations to support digital inclusion by offering non-digital verification services where practicable.

New clause 8—Data Vision and Strategy—

“Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a ‘Data Vision and Strategy’ which outlines—

(a) the Government’s data transformation priorities for the next five years; and

(b) steps the Government will take to ensure the digitisation of Government services.”

New clause 9—Departmental Board Appointments—

“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed—

(a) Government departments;

(b) NHS England; and

(c) NHS trusts

shall appoint to their departmental board or equivalent body at least one of the following—

(i) Chief Information Officer;

(ii) Chief Technology Officer;

(iii) Chief Digital Information Officer;

(iv) Service Transformation Leader; or

(v) equivalent postholder.

(2) The person or persons appointed as under subsection (1) shall provide an annual report on the progress of the department or body towards the Government’s Data Vision and Strategy.”

This new clause would require digital leaders to be represented at executive level within Government departments and other bodies.

New clause 10—Data use in Public Service Delivery Review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, every 12 months, lay before Parliament a ‘Data use in Public Service Delivery Review’.

(2) The Data use in Public Service Delivery Review shall include, but is not limited to assessment of the steps being taken to—

(a) improve the Government’s use of data in public service delivery over the previous 12 months;

(b) expand the use of data to support increased and improved digital services in public service delivery;

(c) improve expertise and digital talent within Government departments to help expand the use of data for public service delivery; and

(d) facilitate and regulate for better use of data in the delivery of public services.”

This new clause would require an annual assessment by the Secretary of State to examine the steps being taken to facilitate and regulate the use of data in the delivery of public services using digital and online technologies.

New clause 11—Access to a deceased child’s social media data—

“(1) Where a person under 18 years of age has deceased, a parent or legal guardian (the ‘requestor’) may request from any internet service provider (ISP) the child’s user data from up to 12 months prior to the date of death.

(2) The ISP must provide a copy of the requested data, or direct account access, upon verification of the requestor’s identity and relationship to the deceased person, and no court order shall be required for such disclosure.

(3) ‘User data’ includes all content, communications, or metadata generated by or associated with the deceased person’s online activity, including stored messages and posts, except where the deceased person had explicitly directed otherwise prior to death.

(4) The ISP may refuse or redact specific data only where—

(a) disclosure would unduly infringe the privacy rights of another individual,

(b) the deceased person had explicitly opted out before death,

(c) there is a conflicting court order, or

(d) a serious risk to public safety or national security would result.

(5) In providing data under this section, the ISP must comply with data protection legislation.

(6) This section constitutes a lawful basis for disclosure under Article 6 of the UK GDPR.

(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—

(a) provide guidance on verifying parent or guardian status,

(b) clarify any additional grounds for refusal, and

(c) prescribe safeguards to protect third-party confidentiality.

(8) For the purposes of this section—

‘internet service provider (ISP)’ includes any provider of social media, messaging, or other online platforms; and

‘data protection legislation’ has the meaning given in section 51 of this Act.”

This new clause would allow parents of a deceased minor to obtain that child’s social media data without a court order, subject to privacy safeguards for third parties.

New clause 12—Raising the minimum age at which users can consent to processing of personal data—

“(1) The UK GDPR is amended in accordance with subsection (2) of this section.

(2) (2) After paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the UK GDPR (Conditions applicable to child’s consent in relation to information society services) insert—

‘(1A) References to “13 years old” and “age of 13 years” in paragraph 1 shall be read as “16 years old” and “age of 16 years” in the case of processing of personal data.

(1B) Paragraph (1A) does not apply to—

(a) platform systems and services operated where the primary purpose of processing of personal data is for the advancement of a charitable purpose as defined in the Charities Act 2011;

(b) publicly owned platform systems and services operated for the primary purpose of law enforcement, child protection, education, or healthcare;

(c) cases in which the Secretary of State determines it is in the best interests of the child for an operator to accept the child’s own consent.’”

This new clause would raise the age for processing personal data from 13 to 16 years old with certain exceptions for charitable purposes and child safety.

New clause 13—Code of practice for the use of children’s educational data—

“(1) Within 6 months of the passage of this Act, the Information Commissioner must prepare a code of practice which contains such guidance as the Information Commissioner considers appropriate on the processing of children’s data in connection with the provision of education.

(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) all aspects of the provision of education including learning, school management, and safeguarding;

(b) all types of schools and learning settings in the development of guidance;

(c) the use of AI systems in the provision of education;

(d) the impact of profiling and automated decision-making on children’s access to education opportunities;

(e) children’s consent to the way their personal data is generated, collected, processed, stored and shared;

(f) parental consent to the way their children’s personal data is being generated, collected, processed, stored and shared;

(g) the security of children’s data;

(h) the exchange of information for safeguarding purposes.”

This new clause requires the Information Commissioner to produce a code of practice for accessing children’s educational data.

New clause 14—Transparency of business and customer data used in training Artificial Intelligence models—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of general-purpose AI models to disclose upon request information about business data and customer data processed for the purposes of pre-training, training, fine-tuning, and retrieval-augmented generation in an AI model, or any other data input to an AI model.

(2) Business data and customer data must include, but is not limited to, the whole or any substantial part of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, sound recording, film or broadcast included in any text, images and data used for the purposes set out in subsection (1).

(3) Information disclosable under subsection (1) must include but is not limited to:

(i) Digital Object Identifiers and file names;

(ii) Details of how the work was identified, including metadata;

(iii) The source from which it was scraped or otherwise obtained; and

(iv) The URLs accessed by crawlers deployed by operators, or by third parties, to obtain the data.

(4) The owner of rights in any individual work identifiable in information disclosed under subsection (1) must be provided upon request to the relevant operator with information as to whether and how they have complied with the laws of the United Kingdom in respect to that work.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set out transparency provisions requiring generative AI developers to provide information to enable individuals and creative businesses to determine whether their data, works and other subject matter have been used in training datasets.

New clause 15—Complaints procedure for vulnerable individuals—

“(1) The Data Protection Act 2018 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).

(2) After section 165(3) insert—

‘(3A) For complaints under subsection (2), the Information Commissioner must provide appropriate complaints-handling procedures for—

(a) victims of modern slavery,

(b) victims of domestic abuse,

(c) victims of gender-based violence, or

(d) data subjects otherwise in a position of vulnerability.

(3B) Procedures under subsection (3A) must include—

(a) appropriate support for vulnerable individuals;

(b) provision of specialised officers for sensitive cases;

(c) signposting to support services;

(d) provision of a helpline;

(e) de-escalation protocols.’

(3) After section 166(1)(c) insert—

‘(d) fails to investigate a complaint appropriately or take adequate action to remedy findings of inadequacy.’

(4) After section 166(2)(b), insert—

‘(c) to use formal powers as appropriate to investigate a complaint and to remedy any findings of inadequacy, unless the request from the data subject is manifestly unfounded or excessive.’”

This new clause would require the Information Commission to introduce a statutory complaints procedure for individuals in a position of vulnerability and new grounds of appeal to an Information Tribunal.

New clause 18—Report on the introduction of a public interest test for allowing access to NHS data by third-parties and companies—

“(1) The Secretary of State must within six months of the passing of this Act—

(a) prepare and publish a report examining the need for a specific statutory public interest test to determine and safeguard access to NHS data by third-parties and companies.

(b) within 28 days of a report being laid under subsection (1) the Government must schedule a debate and votable motion on the findings of the report in each House.

(2) The report must consider—

(a) whether and in what situations it would be necessary, proportionate and lawful to share NHS data with third-parties and companies when the interests and risks to both the individual and/or public is considered.

(b) when it would be in the public interest and in the best interests of patients and the NHS to allow access by third-parties and companies to NHS data in relation to the provision of health care services and for promotion of health.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the introduction of a public interest test for allowing access to NHS data by third-parties and companies and then to schedule a debate on it in each House.

New clause 19—Secretary of State’s duty to review the age of consent for data processing under the UK GDPR—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of Royal Assent of this Act, have conducted a review and published a report into the operation of Article 8 (Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services) of the UK GDPR in relation to the data processed by social media platforms of children under the age of 16.

(2) As part of this review, the Secretary of State must consider—

(a) the desirability of increasing the digital age of consent under the UK GDPR from 13 to 16, taking into account the available evidence in relation to the impact of social media platforms on the educational, social and emotional development of children; and

(b) the viability of increasing the digital age of consent under Article 8 of the UK GDPR in relation to specific social media platforms which are shown by the evidence to be unsuitable for use by children under the age of 16.

(3) Within six months of the publication of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay a plan before Parliament for raising the digital age of consent to 16 through amendments to Article 8 GDPR, unless the review concludes that such changes are unnecessary.”

New clause 20—Duties of the Secretary of State in relation to the use by web-crawlers and artificial intelligence models of creative content—

“The Secretary of State must—

(a) by 16 September 2025, issue a statement, by way of a copyright notice issued by the Intellectual Property Office or otherwise, in relation to the application of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to activities conducted by web-crawlers or artificial intelligence models which may infringe the copyright attaching to creative works;

(b) by 16 September 2025, lay before Parliament a report which includes a plan to help ensure proportionate and effective measures for transparency in the use of copyright materials in training, refining, tuning and generative activities in AI;

(c) by 16 September 2025, lay before Parliament a report which includes a plan to reduce barriers to market entry for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises on use of and access to data;

(d) by 1 July 2026, publish a technological standard for a machine-readable digital watermark for the purposes of identifying licensed content and relevant information associated with the licence.”

New clause 21—Directions to public authorities on recording of sex data—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, issue regulations relating to the code of practice set out in section 49 of this Act which require public authorities to—

(a) collect, process and retain sex data only where it is lawful to do so in accordance with data protection legislation;

(b) request and record sex data accurately, in every circumstance where sex data is collected, in accordance with following category terms and definitions—

(i) ‘Sex’ meaning male or female only based on ‘sex at birth’, ‘natal sex’ or ‘biological sex’ (these terms carrying the same meaning and capable of being used interchangeably); and,

(ii) in addition, where it is lawful to do so in accordance with data protection legislation and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, ‘Acquired Gender’ meaning male or female only, as recorded on a gender recognition certificate issued in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004;

(c) have updated relevant organisation guidance to stipulate that, where sex data is collected, this must be done in accordance with the definitions set out by subsection (1)(b) within three months of these regulations coming into force;

(d) have conducted a review of the accuracy of data held in relation to the sex of data subjects to ensure that the data is accurate in recording sex at birth and, where relevant and collected lawfully, acquired gender as recorded on a gender recognition certificate within 12 months of these regulations coming into force;

(e) have taken every reasonable step to ensure that any data held in relation to the sex and, where relevant and collected lawfully, acquired gender as recorded on a gender recognition certificate of a data subject that is found to be inaccurate is rectified or erased within 18 months of these regulations coming into force; and

(f) have produced and submitted to the Secretary of State a report setting out the findings of its review in relation to the matters set out by subsection (1)(d) and, where relevant, a description of the steps taken to ensure that the data held by the relevant public authority is accurate within the definitions set out subsection (1)(b) with 18 months of these regulations coming into force.

(2) The Secretary of State may, on receipt of a report in accordance with subsection (1)(f) instruct a public authority to take any further remedial steps within a specified timeframe reasonably necessary to ensure the accuracy of the sex and acquired gender data held by the relevant public authority.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within one month of the passage of this Act, establish and maintain a register of public authorities approved to act as sources of data relating to the attribute of sex for persons providing digital verification services.

(4) The register in subsection (3) must be published on the website of the Office for Digital Identities & Attributes or any successor body.

(5) Until such time as a public authority is added to the register under subsection (3), persons providing digital verification services may only obtain data on the sex of an individual requesting the provision of digital verification services from the record of births held by the General Register Office in accordance with subsection (6).

(6) Information supplied by the General Register Office pursuant to subsection (5) must specify sex as recorded at birth, as well as any subsequent corrections to the register in the field marked ‘Sex’.

(7) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, add public authorities to the register as under subsection (3) only upon being satisfied on the basis of a report issued under subsection (1)(f), or satisfaction of such further steps required by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) that the data held by the relevant public authority in relation to sex and, where relevant, acquired gender as recorded on a gender recognition certificate, as defined in subsection (1)(b), is accurate.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue regulations relating to the code of practice in section 49 requiring public authorities to record sex data in line with these regulations when data are collected. This clause is linked to amendments 39 and 40.

New clause 22—Recording of ethnicity data for the purposes of public service delivery—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for the collection of individual ethnicity data in the process of public service delivery and associated data collection.

(2) The regulations set out by subsection (1) must make provision for ethnic classifications to include Jewish and Sikh categories.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed which will be subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make statutory provision for individual ethnicity data to be collected in the process of public service delivery.

New clause 23—Recording of ethnicity data on the Register of Births and Deaths—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for the collection of individual ethnicity data during birth and death registration.

(2) The regulations set out by subsection (1) must make provision for ethnic classifications to include Jewish and Sikh categories.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed which will be subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make statutory provision for individual ethnicity data to be able to be collected during birth and death registration.

Government amendments 11 to 32.

Amendment 39, in clause 45, page 42, line 30, at the beginning insert—

“Save in respect of data relating to sex,”.

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Amendment 40, page 43, line 15, at end insert—

“”gender recognition certificate” means a gender recognition certificate issued in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Government amendments 1 to 8.

Amendment 37, in clause 67, page 75, line 24, at end insert—

“(2A) For the purposes of paragraph 2, ‘scientific research’ means creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humankind, culture and society, and to devise new applications of available knowledge.

(2B) To meet the reasonableness test in paragraph 2, the activity being described as scientific research must be conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.”

This amendment incorporates clarifications to help reduce potential misuse of the scientific research exception. The first is a definition of scientific research based on the Frascati Manual. The second is a requirement that research be conducted in line with frameworks and standards in the UKRI Code of Practice for Research.

Amendment 41, in clause 80, page 95, line 19, at end insert—

“3. For the purposes of paragraph 1(a), a human’s involvement is only meaningful if they are a natural person with the necessary competence, authority and capacity to understand, challenge and alter the decision.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 45, page 96, line 2, at end insert—

“5. Consent in accordance with paragraph 2 cannot be given by persons under the age of 18 where—

(a) the automated decision-making is likely to produce legal or similarly significant effects on the child, or

(b) the processing involves the profiling of a child to determine access to essential services, education, or other significant opportunities.

6. The controller shall not be obliged to maintain, acquire or process additional information in order to identify the age of a data subject for the sole purpose of complying with this Regulation.

7. A significant decision may not be taken based solely on automated processing, if the data subject is a child or may be a child unless the provider is satisfied that the decision is in, and compatible with, the best interests of a child, taking into account their rights and development stage, authorised by law to which the controller is subject, and after suitable measures to safeguard the data subject’s rights and freedoms and legitimate interests are made publicly available.

8. Profiling or solely automated processing of children’s data may not occur for the purposes of targeted advertising or behavioural analysis.”

This amendment ensures that automated decision-making cannot take place in circumstances where it would affect a child’s access to significant opportunities or would not be in their best interests, as well as protections against practices such as behavioural analysis.

Amendment 46, page 96, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert—

“(a) communicate to the data subject before and after the decision is taken the fact that automated decision-making is involved in the decision, the extent of any human involvement, and the availability of safeguards under this Article;

(b) provide the data subject with information about decisions described in paragraph 1 taken in relation to the data subject including meaningful information about the logic involved, the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject, and a personalised explanation for the decision;

(c) enable the data subject to make representations about such decisions;

(d) enable the data subject to obtain human intervention on the part of the controller in relation to such decisions;

(e) enable the data subject to contest such decisions.

3. For the purposes of paragraph 2(b), a personalised explanation must—

(a) be clear, concise and in plain language of the data subject’s choice in a readily available format;

(b) be understandable, and assume limited technical knowledge of algorithmic systems;

(c) address the reasons for the decision and how the decision affects the individual personally, which must include—

(i) the inputs, including any personal data;

(ii) parameters that were likely to have influenced or were decisive to decision or a counterfactual of what change would have resulted in a more favourable outcome;

(iii) the sources of parameters and inputs;

(d) be available free of charge and conveniently accessible to the data subject, free of deceptive design patterns.

4. Where the safeguards apply after a decision is made, the controller must give effect to data subject requests as soon as reasonably practicable and within one month of the request.

5. The controller must ensure the safeguards are fully in place and complete a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 before a decision under Article 22A is taken, documenting their implementation of the safeguards in addition to the requirements of that Article.

6. The controller must publish details of their implementation of the safeguards and how data subjects can make use of them.”

This amendment would ensure that data subjects are informed of automated decisions made about them in a timely way, and that that explanation is personalised to enable them to understand why it was made. It also ensures processors are incentivised to put the safeguards in place before commencing automated decision-making.

Amendment 42, page 96, line 23, after “Article 22A(1)(a),” insert

“and subject to Article 22A(3)”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 43, page 97, line 19, at end insert—

“(3) To qualify as meaningful human involvement, the review must be performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 44, page 98, line 31, after “and 50C(3)(c),” insert “and subject to 50A(3)”.

This amendment and Amendments 41, 42 and 43 would make clear that in the context of new Article 22A of the UK GDPR, for human involvement to be considered as meaningful, the review must be carried out by a competent person who is empowered to change the decision in practice.

Amendment 9, in clause 81, page 100, line 7, at end insert—

“Age assurance

1C. Information society services which are likely to be accessed by children must use highly effective age verification or age estimation measures for the purpose of delivering on children’s higher protection matters.”

This amendment requires services which are likely to be accessed by children to use highly effective age verification measures.

Amendment 38, in clause 86, page 103, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) Where personal data is processed for the purposes of scientific research under section 87(4) of the 2018 Act (‘reuse’), the processor or controller must publish details of the data sources used.

(2B) These details must as a minimum include a description of the scientific research, the provenance and method of acquisition of the personal data being reused, the original lawful basis for processing, the number of data subjects affected, and whether the data subjects have been notified of the reuse.

(2C) The processor or controller must notify the Information Commission when processing data for the purposes of scientific research under section 87(4) of the 2018 Act with the same details.”

This amendment ensures transparency for the use of scientific research exemptions by requiring those reusing personal data to publish details of that reuse and notify the Information Commission of that reuse.

Government amendments 33 and 34.

Amendment 10, in schedule 7, page 201, line 5, at end insert—

“(1B) A third country cannot be considered adequate or capable of providing appropriate safeguards by any authority where there exists no credible means to enforce data subject rights or obtain legal remedy.

(1C) For the purposes of paragraph 1A, the Secretary of State must make a determination as to whether credible means are present in a third country.

(1D) In making a determination regarding credible means, the Secretary of State must have due regard to the view of the Information Commissioner.

(1E) Credible means do not exist where the Secretary of State considers that any of the following are true:

(a) judicial protection of persons whose personal data is transferred to that third country is insufficient;

(b) effective administrative and judicial redress are not present;

(c) effective judicial review mechanisms do not exist; and

(d) there is no statutory right to effective legal remedy for data subjects.”

The amendment would prohibit personal data transfer to countries where data subject rights cannot be adequately upheld and prohibit private entities from using contracts to give the impression that data security exists.

Government amendments 35 and 36.

[Chris Bryant]

Earlier I appeared as a Department for Culture, Media and Sport Minister, and now I appear as a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology Minister. I hate to embarrass Members, but they will get two bouts of me today. I will start with the Government amendments, and then once I have heard the arguments from Members advancing other amendments, I will speak to those later in the debate. If I do not cover subjects in this initial speech, I will get back to them later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

The question of technical solutions is very important, but my challenge is this. I have spoken to representatives of some of the big tech companies who are pushing for that, and who are saying that it is hard for them to do it at scale but creatives can do it. Why can the tech companies not be leading on an opt-in system for creatives? Let me hand that back to the Minister.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I should point out that the hon. Lady, as the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party, will be speaking very shortly.

[Chris Bryant]

I know, but she is wonderful, so we will let her—or you will let her, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This is a really important point. Surely it cannot be impossible for us to find a technical solution. People who can develop AI—and they are now developing AI on their laptops, especially following DeepSeek; they do not need massive computers—should be able to develop a very simple system, as I have said before, whereby all creatives who are copyright owners are able to assert their rights, very simply, across all platforms, without any great exertion. That is what I want to achieve.

The hon. Lady was quite right to raise that question, so what are we going to do next? We say in new clause 17 that we will report in 12 months’ time. If we were to report in 12 months’ time that we had done absolutely nothing, I think that everyone would rightly rant and rave at us. It is our intention that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will together co-ordinate a special taskforce specifically to consider how we can facilitate, incentivise and enable the development of these technical solutions. I suspect that, if we can get there, opt-out will look remarkably like opt-in.

The second matter on which new clause 17 requires us to report is access to data for AI developers to train AI systems in the UK, the third is transparency, and the fourth relates to measures to facilitate the licensing of copyright works for AI training. The publication will be required within 12 months of Royal Assent, and will of course be laid before Parliament. New clause 16 supplements these reports with a full economic impact assessment that will go further than previous assessments, and will present an analysis of the economic impact of a range of policy options available in this context, supported by the additional evidence that the Government have received in response to their consultation. The reporting requirements are important: they mean that we will have to engage with each of these issues apace and in depth, and we will do that. We are determined to find and incentivise technical solutions that support our objectives, and I believe that if we do that we can be a world leader. As I said earlier, the two Secretaries of State will convene working groups to tackle each of these issues.

I have heard people say that we are legislating to water down copyright, but that is simply not true. If Members support the Government’s position today, the UK’s copyright law will remain precisely as robust tomorrow as it is today. For activities in the UK, people will, in law, only be able to use copyright material if they are permitted and licensed to do so or if a copyright exception allows it, such as the existing copyright exceptions for education, public libraries and non-commercial work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

By its nature, enforcement would have to be compulsory, but we are running ahead of ourselves, because nobody has actually come up with a system that has an enforcement mechanism. Who would do it? What body would do it? How would that body be resourced? That is one of the things that we need to look into, and it is one of the elements of the consultation.

I will move on to another subject: the issue of purported intimate images. Government amendment 34 deals with the creation of intimate images or deepfakes. Earlier in the Bill’s passage, my colleague Lord Ponsonby added a new offence of creating purported intimate images without consent or reasonable belief in consent, and I am sure all hon. Members agree that this is a really important addition. In Committee, we introduced the offence of requesting the creation of purported images without consent or reasonable belief in consent, as hon. Members who were on the Public Bill Committee with me will know. It seems axiomatic that the courts should have the power to deprive offenders of the image and anything containing it that relates or is connected to the offence. This is already the case for the creating offence, which was introduced in the House of Lords. Government amendment 34 amends the sentencing code to achieve that for the requesting offence. It ensures that the existing regime of court powers to deprive offenders of property also applies to images and devices containing the image that relate to the requesting offence.

We have tabled a series of amendments to clauses 56 to 59 to reflect our discussions with the devolved Governments on the national underground asset register. The amendments will require that the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers and the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland, rather than merely consult them, before making regulations in relation to the provisions. Co-operation with the devolved Governments has been consistent and constructive throughout the Bill’s passage. We have secured legislative consent from Scotland, and the Senedd in Wales voted in favour of granting the Bill legislative consent only yesterday. We regret that for procedural reasons, the process with Northern Ireland has not yet reached the stage of legislative consent. We are, however, working constructively with the Department of Finance to ensure that we can make progress as quickly as possible. We continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to secure legislative consent, and to ensure that citizens and businesses of Northern Ireland feel the full benefits of the Bill.

Before I finish, I turn to our amendments to help ensure that smart data schemes can function optimally, and that part 1 of the Bill is as clear as possible. Amendments to fee charging under clauses 11 and 15 follow extensive stakeholder engagement, and will maximise the commercial viability of smart data systems by enabling regulations to make tailored provision on fee charging within each smart data scheme. For example, amendments 19 to 21 enable the fees charged to exceed expenses where appropriate. This is necessary to fulfil the commitment in the national payments vision to establish a long-term regulatory framework for open banking. Outside smart data, Government amendment 35

“adds references to investigating crime to existing references in the Data Protection Act 2018 to detecting or preventing crime”,

which will bring these references into line with other parts of the legislation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, and to speak to the new clauses and amendments. This is an ambitious piece of legislation, which will enable us to harness data—the currency of our digital age—and use it in a way that drives the economy and enhances the delivery of public services. Since its original inception under the Conservatives in the last Parliament, the Bill has also become the platform for tackling some of the most pressing social and technological issues of our time. Many of these are reflected in the amendments to the Bill, which are the subject of debate today.

I start with new clause 20. How do we regulate the interaction of AI models with creative works? I pay tribute to the work of many Members on both sides of this House, and Members of the other place, who have passionately raised creatives’ concerns and the risks posed to their livelihoods by AI models. Conservative Members are clear that this is not a zero-sum game. Our fantastic creative and tech industries have the potential to turbocharge economic growth, and the last Government rightly supported them. The creative and technology sectors need and deserve certainty, which provides the foundation for investment and growth. New clause 20 would achieve certainty by requiring the Government to publish a series of plans on the transparency of AI models’ use of copyrighted works, removing market barriers for smaller AI market entrants and digital watermarking and, most important of all, a clear restatement of the application of copyright law to AI-modelling activities.

I cannot help but have a sense of déjà vu in relation to Government new clause 17: we are glad that the Government have acted on several of the actions we called for in Committee, but once again they have chosen PR over effective policy. Amid all the spin, the Government have in effect announced a plan to respond to their own consultation—how innovative!

What is starkly missing from the Government new clauses is a commitment to make it clear that copyright law applies to the use of creative content by AI models, which is the primary concern raised with me by industry representatives. The Government have created uncertainty about the application of copyright law to AI modelling through their ham-fisted consultation. So I offer the Minister another opportunity: will he formally confirm the application of copyright law to protect the use of creative works by AI, and will he provide legal certainty and send a strong signal to our creative industries that they will not be asked to pay the price for AI growth?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I point out to Mr Bryant that Dr Ben Spencer is the shadow Minister.

[Dr Spencer]

I think that was wishful thinking by the Minister in this debate.

Our new clause says that we need to look at the desirability of raising the digital age of consent for data processing from 13 to 16 in terms of its impact particularly on issues such as the social and educational development of children, but also the viability of doing so in terms of the fallout and the shaking out of the Online Safety Act and with regard to age verification services. Should there then be no evidence to demonstrate that it is unnecessary, we would then raise the digital age of consent to 13 to 16. It might be the case that, over the next six months, the shaking out of the Online Safety Act demonstrates that this intervention is not necessary. Perhaps concerns around particular high-risk social media platforms will change as technology evolves. We are saying that the Government should do the work with a view to raising the age in 18 months unless there is evidence to prove the contrary. [Interruption.] I have made this crystal clear, and if the Minister would choose to look at the new clause, rather than chuckling away in the corner, he might see the strategy we are proposing.

[Dr Spencer]

I say again that the position is that, following a careful look at the evidence regarding the desirability and validity of doing so—taking into account findings regarding the impact and implementation of the Online Safety Act and age verification and how one defines social media, particularly high-risk platforms—unless there is direct evidence to show that raising the age from 13 to 16 is unnecessary, which there may be, then we should raise it from 13 to 16. If that has not provided clarity, the hon. Gentleman is very welcome to intervene on me again and I will try and explain it a third time, but I think Members have got a grasp now.

This new clause will also tackle some of the concerns at the heart of the campaign for Jools’ law, and I pay tribute to Ellen Roome for her work in this area. I am very sympathetic to the tragic circumstances leading to this campaign and welcome the additional powers granted to coroners in the Bill, but I know that they do not fully address Ellen Roome’s concerns. The Government need to explain how they can be sure that data will be retained in the context of these tragedies, so that a coroner will be able to make sure, even if there are delays, that it can be accessed. If the Minister could provide an answer to that in his winding-up speech, and detail any further work in the area, that would be welcome.

On parental access to children’s data more broadly, there are difficult challenges in terms of article 8 rights on privacy and transparency, especially for children aged 16 to 17 as they approach adulthood. Our new clause addresses some of these concerns and would also put in place the groundwork to, de facto, raise the digital age of consent for inappropriate social media to 16 within 18 months, rendering the request for parental access to young teenage accounts obsolete.

I urge colleagues across the House to support all our amendments today as a balanced, proportionate and effective response to a generational challenge. The Bill and the votes today are an opportunity for our Parliament, often referred to as the conscience of our country, to make clear our position on some of the most pressing social and technological issues of our time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

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

I would like to thank colleagues in the other place and in this House who have worked so hard to improve the Bill. By modernising data infrastructure and governance, this Bill seeks to unlock the secure, efficient use of data while promoting innovation across sectors. As a tech evangelist, as well as the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I welcome it, and I am pleased to see colleagues from the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), here for this debate.

Having spent many unhappy hours when working for Ofcom trying to find out where British Telecom’s ducts were actually buried, I offer a very personal welcome to the national underground asset register, and I thank the Minister for his work on this Bill as well as for his opening comments.

I agree with the Minister that there is much to welcome in this Bill, but much of the Second Reading debate was consumed by discussion on AI and copyright. I know many Members intend to speak on that today, so I will just briefly set out my view.

The problem with the Government’s proposals on AI and copyright are that they give all the power to the tech platforms who—let us be frank—have a great deal of power already, as well as trillions of dollars in stock market capitalisation and a determination to return value to their shareholders. What they do not have is an incentive to design appropriate technology for transparency and rights reservation if they believe that in its absence they will have free access to our fantastic creators’ ingenuity. It is essential that the Minister convinces them that if they do not deliver this technology—I agree with him that it is highly possible to do so—then he will impose it.

Perhaps the Minister could announce an open competition, with a supplier contract as the prize, for whichever innovative company designs something. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, sitting with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, heard from small companies that can do just that. The tech giants might not like it, but I often say that the opposite of regulation is not no regulation—it is bad regulation. If the tech platforms do not lead, they will be obliged to follow because the House will not allow the copyright of our fantastic creators to be put at risk. The Minister knows that I think him extremely charismatic and always have done, but I do not believe that “Chris from DSIT” can prevail against the combined forces of Björn from Abba and Paul from The Beatles.

The prospects for human advancement opened by using data for scientific research are immense. As a world-leading science powerhouse, the UK must take advantage of them. That is why, despite being a strong advocate of personal data rights, I welcome the Bill’s proposals to allow the reuse of data without consent for the purposes of scientific research. I am concerned, however, that the exemption is too broad and that it will be taken advantage of by data-hungry tech companies using the exemption even if they are not truly advancing the cause of scientific progress but simply, as with copyright, training their AI models.

Huge amounts of data is already collected by platforms, such as direct messages on Instagram or via web-scraping of any website that contains an individual’s personal data such as published records or people’s public LinkedIn pages. We know it can be misused because it has been, most recently with Meta’s controversial decision to use Instagram-user data to train AI models, triggering an Information Commissioner’s Office response because of the difficulty users encountered in objecting to it. Then there is the risk of data collected via tracking cookies or the profiling of browsing behaviour, which companies such as Meta use to fingerprint people’s devices and track their browsing habits. Could the data used to create ads also be freely reusable under this exemption? The US tech firm Palantir has the contract for the NHS federated data platform. Amnesty International has already raised concerns about the potential for patients’ data being mishandled. Does the Bill mean that our health data could be reused by Palantir for what it calls research purposes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Minister referred to that briefly, describing it, in relation to AI, as a pipeline where bad data in would mean bad data out. My hon. Friend knows that the definition of sex and gender has been controversial and contested. The Supreme Court brought some clarity and it is important that data collection reflects consistency and clarity. If we have bad data definitions, we will undoubtedly have bad consequences. As I said, it is important that we have consistency and definition when it comes to the collection of data for these purposes, and I look forward to hearing how that will be achieved.

I also want to speak briefly in support of clause 125, which introduces rules allowing researchers to access data from online services for online safety research. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s inquiry into social media algorithms in misinformation heard considerable evidence on the role of algorithms in pushing misinformation generally, and particularly to children. I very much welcome this clause, which will increase transparency, but could the Minister clarify that it will fully cover the recommender algorithms used by social media platforms, which drive new content to users?

My constituents often feel that advances in technology are done to them rather than with them and for their benefit. Critically, our constituents need to feel that they have agency over the way data impacts their lives. Rather than feeling empowered by digital innovation, too many feel the opposite: disempowered, undermined, dehumanised, tracked and even attacked. Delivering the improvements promised by the Bill must therefore go hand in hand with respecting the rights of citizens to control and manage their data and driving innovation and scientific research benefits to them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and for your patience regarding my earlier intervention. I am very passionate about all elements of the Bill.

On Second Reading, I said:

“Data is the new gold”—[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 302.]

—a gold that could be harnessed to have a profound impact on people’s daily lives, and I stand by that. With exponential advances in innovation almost daily, this has never been truer, so we must get this right.

I rise today to speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled in my name specifically, and to address two urgent challenges: protecting children in our digital world and safeguarding the rights of our creative industry in the age of artificial intelligence. The Bill before us represents a rare opportunity to shape how technology serves people, which I firmly believe is good for both society and business. However, I stand here with mixed emotions: pride in the cross-party work we have accomplished, including with the other place; hope for the progress we can still achieve; but also disappointment that we must fight so hard for protections that should be self-evident.

New clause 1 seeks to raise the age of consent for social media data processing from 13 to 16 years old. We Liberal Democrats are very clear where we stand on this. Young minds were not designed to withstand the psychological assault of today’s social media algorithms. By raising the age at which children can consent to have their data processed by social media services, we can take an important first step towards tackling those algorithms at source. This is a common-sense measure, bringing us in line with many of our European neighbours.

The evidence before us is compelling and demands our attention. When I recently carried out a safer screens tour of schools across Harpenden and Berkhamsted to hear exactly what young people think about the issue, I heard that they are trapped in cycles of harmful content that they never sought out. Students spoke of brain rot and described algorithms that pushed them towards extreme content, despite their efforts to block it.

The evidence is not just anecdotal; it is overwhelming. Child mental health referrals have increased by 477% in just eight years, with nearly half of teenagers with problematic smartphone use reporting anxiety. One in four children aged 12 to 17 have received unwanted sexual images. We know that 82% of parents support Government intervention in this area, while a Liberal Democrat poll showed that seven in 10 people say the Government are not doing enough to protect children online.

Neon Signage

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will touch on a few more things.

Authentic neon signs are handcrafted from glass tubes that are heated, bent and shaped by hand, then filled with inert gases, like neon or argon. It is a meticulous and time-consuming process requiring years of training, dexterity and experience. There are only 27 full-time neon glass benders left in the United Kingdom, down from hundreds in previous decades. It is a red-listed, endangered craft and, without action, it will be lost.

The problem we face is not just commercial, but cultural: it is about the loss of a craft that is as British as Harris tweed or Sheffield cutlery. In fact, like Harris tweed, we believe that neon signs deserve formal legal protection through a certification mark, a defined British standard or, ideally, the introduction of a neon signs protection Act. This is not an anti-technology argument. LED signage has its place—it is cheaper, mass-produced and useful in many applications—but to allow businesses to market LED signs as “neon” is misleading consumers, harming artisans and erasing our heritage.

Let me illustrate how this is affecting real businesses. Neon Creations has seen a sharp drop in demand because customers are being told by large retailers that £30 LED signs are neon signs. The products may look superficially similar, but they are entirely different in construction, quality and artistry. When customers receive them and discover that they are not authentic, they contact businesses like Neon Creations not to buy but to ask for repairs on something that is not actually neon. Catherine and Tony have faced online harassment and threats of legal action, and have had their comments blocked on social media for merely correcting the record. That is what comes to people when they tell truth to power.

Let us consider the facts. Neon is safe. Despite common misconceptions, neon signs are powered by low amperage and do not get dangerously hot. The gases used—neon and argon—are inert and naturally occurring in our atmosphere. Neon is efficient. A typical neon sign for business use costs around 21p per day to run, barely more than an LED and far less than people assume. Neon is sustainable—unlike plastic-heavy LED products, neon signs are made of glass and are fully recyclable. Perhaps most importantly, neon signs last much longer. They have a lifespan of at least 10 years, outpacing LED alternatives, so why are we allowing this confusion to persist? Why are we allowing misleading labels?

The British Sign and Graphics Association, the Heritage Crafts Association, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Greater Manchester chamber of commerce all support stronger protections for neon craftsmanship. This is not just about one constituency or one business; it is about defending the principle that authenticity matters, and that heritage crafts should be recognised, not undermined by the march of mass production. We must also address the issue of consumer transparency. It should not be acceptable for retailers, large or small, to market a product as neon when it contains no glass, no gas and no craftsmanship. We have rightly challenged fake olive oils and falsely labelled meat; we must apply the same standard in this case.

Harris tweed is protected by law, ensuring that only fabric hand-woven in the Outer Hebrides can bear that name. We propose a similar model for neon signs, which could take the form of a certification mark that can only be applied to genuine glass neon products; a formal British standard for neon signs, developed with input from the British Standards Institution and the BSGA; and maybe a private Member’s Bill, a neon signs protection Act, that would enshrine a legal definition of the term “neon”. These measures would not be burdensome, and they would not create red tape. They would simply be a way of telling the truth in advertising and providing a very important protection to a very small but significant industry.

Let us not forget the cultural value of neon. It is signage, but it is also art; it evokes memories of cinemas, diners, music venues and city skylines. It is a symbol of expression and identity, and to lose it would be to dim the vibrant glow of Britain’s creative past. Neon Creations and other similar businesses are trying to pass on their skills to the next generation, but they cannot, because there is not enough work to justify training new glass benders. As of now, there are no full-time neon trainees in the whole of the United Kingdom. If we do not act, the pipeline of skills will close forever. That is why I am in the Chamber today to advocate for that pipeline and the small businesses that refuse to give up on this craft.

I have written to the Secretary of State, urging the Government to support clear definitions and protections for neon signs. I know that the all-party parliamentary group for craft is supportive of that campaign and is looking into the next steps, but more needs to be done. Will we stand by and watch the lights go out on one of Britain’s most unique and visually iconic crafts, or will we act to ensure that when someone buys a neon sign in this country, they are buying the real thing? This campaign is not just about glowing tubes of gas; it is about truth, heritage and the people behind the glass—people such as Tony and Catherine Spink in Bolton. They are people whose livelihoods depend on honesty in our markets and fairness in our laws. Let us give them that protection. Let us light the way for the future of British neon, and let us ensure that the word “neon” once again stands for authenticity, artistry and excellence.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was an absolutely fascinating speech. I look forward to the response from the Minister.

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

I am sure that you look forward to every response from a Government Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) ended her speech by saying,

“Let us light the way for the future of British neon”.

I am grateful to her for securing this important debate and, consistent with her approach, I am also grateful for her thoughtful and rather illuminating speech—if you will forgive the pun, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not actually write that pun; somebody in my Department, to whom I am enormously grateful, wrote it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Sack them.

[Chris Bryant]

No, I am not sacking them. You cannot call for civil servants to be sacked from the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, otherwise people will call for you to be sacked.

As the Jamaican reggae artists Tenor Saw and Bob Marley have lyricised,

“Life is one big road with lots of signs”.

This debate has shone a light on not just neon signage itself, but the wider question of how we protect, support and promote the often overlooked corners of our creative economy. Let us be absolutely clear: as my hon. Friend said, neon is not simply about advertising, and it is not just a relic of a bygone era. It is artistry and craftsmanship; it is a part of our living heritage and of the living texture of our urban and rural landscapes. I remember for a while there was a neon sign on entering the Rhondda that used to say, “Two can dine for £1.99. Fine dining.” [Laughter.] I think it is slightly out of date.

From Glasgow to Blackpool and from the corner pub to the west end theatre marquee, there is neon. Behind each flicker of neon gas is a maker, a designer, a glass-bender and an engineer of light. These are not just tradespeople, but creative professionals sustaining a skillset passed down through generations. Many artists in the UK and across the world have taken advantage of what is, as my hon. Friend said, Great British invention. It was only in about 1912 that it passed to the United States of America and became part of its advertising hoardings. We think about neon adverts, but it is an essential art form, too. We have only to think of many of Tracey Emin’s neon works, such as “Fantastic to Feel Beautiful Again”, which is a beautiful piece, or—apologies for this, Madam Deputy Speaker; do not get overexcited —“Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Cover My Body In Love”, which is another great work.

The Liverpool artist Chila Kumari Singh Burman’s work often uses neon. I went to an extraordinarily wonderful exhibition of hers at the Imperial War Museum North, which had large amounts of neon, drawing on her family’s tradition of running a shop. Members may recall that a few years ago she covered Tate Britain during the winter period with lots of different neon signs. For that matter, people can go online—this is my advertising for the Tate—and buy one of her tiger or ice cream neon works for £950. For that matter, at Tate Modern there is Martin Creed’s work, “DON’T WORRY”. It is difficult not to sing, “Don’t worry”, is it not? A few years ago at Tate Britain, the Welsh artist Cerith Wyn Evans did an extraordinary piece, which I really remember, because it was such a contrast with the galleries it was in. It was 2 km of neon light. That was back in 2017.

The creative industries as a whole, as my hon. Friend will know, contribute £124 billion a year to the UK economy, and neon, as a niche but important part of that ecosystem, has a dual role in commerce and in our culture. Advertising is one of our key exports in the UK and an important part of our creative industries, too. We need just think of the Piccadilly Circus signs, God’s Own Junkyard, or the glow of a fish and chip shop on a rainy Tuesday night. These are not just signs, but signifiers of place, of character and of British eccentricity. They are things that imprint themselves in our memory as part of what we think of as our own home town.

I hear the call today for consumer transparency and greater support—the point was well made—whether through planning protections, trademarking or cultural preservation funding. Under existing legislation and guidance, there are provisions in place to protect unique aspects of our historic environment, including street furniture and signage. Indeed, the entrance range of the Walthamstow Stadium, with its fabulous neon sign, is grade II listed. Anyone can recommend a building, site, monument, designated landscape, battlefield or, indeed, sign for inclusion on the national heritage list for England, so long as they meet the eligibility requirements. I encourage people to do that.

I hope the House will allow me—apologies again for this—to cast a light on my Department’s work on living heritage. I encourage neon crafters to make a submission to the inventories of living heritage in the UK when we open the call for submissions later this year, following our incorporation of the convention last year. That is a fantastic opportunity for the neon craft community to advocate for their craft, raise awareness and be part of a wider conversation on living heritage.

Let me also address another point that my hon. Friend made, which was about sustainability. She is right that some people have incorrectly expressed concern about energy use by neon, when modern neon is far more efficient than its reputation suggests. When maintained, it outlasts LEDs, is recyclable and in some cases is even repairable.

On consumer transparency and the use of the term neon, I fully understand the concern that clearer definitions and protections could help prevent confusion for consumers and help preserve the value of handcrafted neon signage. We have only to go online for two or three minutes to find lots of different supposedly neon signs being advertised relatively cheaply, which are no more neon than they fly in the air. They are sometimes described as “LED neon signs”, which is a contradiction in terms. I fully take on board the point that my hon. Friend has made, and I thank her for bringing this matter to our attention as we engage with Departments across Whitehall on their trademark policy development. This is not solely a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

As I said earlier, protecting neon is not about nostalgia. It is about supporting livelihoods, unlocking tourism, and giving our public spaces character at a time when homogenisation threatens to reduce the character and unique identity of everything from our skylines to our high streets. The Government hear the case being made for neon signage, not as a gimmick or an indulgence but as an essential, flickering thread in the tapestry of British creativity. We hear the concern from artists, from heritage bodies and from communities who want to see colour, identity and local pride preserved. We are committed to working with industry, local government and the wider public to explore how best to secure the future of this unique form of creative expression. On this, we will not let the lights go out. As the Greek-born American neon artist Chryssa once said,

“I saw Times Square with its light and letters and I realized it was as beautiful and difficult to do as Japanese calligraphy.”

We should never let go of such artistry in our British traditions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Illuminating!

Question put and agreed to.

Creative Industries

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I have heard tell of a film studio in the hon. Member’s constituency, so I wondered whether he was going to refer to that. Obviously, the previous Government and this Government have been committed in different ways to ensuring that we expand the provision of film studio space in the country. We are almost up to the level of having more space than Hollywood, and we are keen to progress that. Again, if he wants to come into the Department and talk about the specifics of what we might be able to do in his constituency, I would be happy to do that. He is right that sometimes we have focused on the massive projects, but we cannot get many massive projects in the creative industries without starting with the small and medium-sized businesses, and that is where we need to go.

One thing that has stood in the way of film studios for quite some time is the re-evaluation of business rates. I am glad that we have got to a much more sensible position over the past 12 months on the matter. Likewise, planning applications have been phenomenally difficult in many cases. We were proud to put £25 million into the Crown Works studio in Gateshead, which I look forward to visiting soon.

One of the principal barriers to innovation in 2025 is that not enough investment is going into research and development in the creative industries, and I know the Select Committee has looked at that. It is why the Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology recommended that

“Public investment in R&D in the creative industries should reflect the size, economic contribution, and future growth potential of the sector.”

That is why we confirmed earlier this month that we will strengthen the investment from our national research funding agency—UK Research and Innovation—into creative research and development.

Another part of the equation is, of course, tax relief. One of the great catalysts for the strong growth of our creative industries has been targeted tax reliefs for different sectors, introduced by both the Conservative Government and this Labour Government. We built on those reliefs in our first 100 days in government, with an enhanced independent film tax credit to support home-grown talent and UK co-productions and an enhanced tax relief for visual effects from the start of this year. That tax relief sends a clear message to our directors, visual effect artists and actors: “Be courageous, take risks and reap the rewards. Your Government are behind you.” I hope to be able to say more on film and high-end television at the Select Committee tomorrow morning—I am sure the Committee has some difficult questions for me.

On skills, education and the workforce, we want to see more good-quality creative jobs and more creative businesses popping up across the country. But too often what I hear from young people is that they could no more dream of getting those jobs than going to the moon. That is not just a tragic waste of human potential; it is bad business. That is why Steven Knight, the creator of “Peaky Blinders”, who is working to bring a film school to Birmingham, is recruiting and training 20% of the workforce from local postcodes, and I applaud him. It is essential for investors to know that they do not have to incur the cost of shipping people in to work on a project when that talent exists everywhere, but the opportunity does not.

That is why we made it a core priority in our manifesto to improve access to the arts and music as part of our opportunity mission. We wasted no time in getting that work under way, with the Education Secretary launching an expert-led independent curriculum and assessment review within a month of the general election. On top of that, we provided a further £3 million to expand the creative careers programme, so that we can broaden and diversify the talent pipeline in the creative industries.

Only by restoring culture’s place in the classroom and beyond will we be able to get young people ready for the creative jobs of tomorrow. We set up Skills England to work with employers and to help give us a coherent national picture of where skills gaps exist and how they can be addressed through further qualifications and technical education. In its first report, Skills England highlighted the importance of the creative industries for both current and future opportunity and growth.

We also need to ensure that there are opportunities in the workplace. We know that apprenticeships can be incredible springboards into creative careers, but that relies on there being a levy that works in the interests of employers and apprentices. For years before the general election, I heard repeatedly from the creative industries how difficult it was to use the apprenticeship levy in their industry. If someone is making a film, it might be a six, seven or eight-month project, which was not enough to meet the previous criteria for the apprenticeship levy. That is why I am really proud that we are working with Skills England to transform the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy, to create opportunities and provide greater flexibility for employers and apprenticeships. We plan to bring forward changes so that shorter apprenticeships are available from August 2025, recognising the particular needs of the creative industries. A 12-month apprenticeship is no good for employers who need skills for projects that are shorter than that. We are knocking down that needless hurdle.

For sectors such as music, the grassroots is always where it all begins. We are therefore not only continuing to support Arts Council England’s supporting grassroots music fund, but working up a 12-point plan for music—it says 10-point plan here, but when I looked at it this morning, it was already a 12-point plan. The truth of the matter is that music is a vital part of our lives, whether it is classical music, opera, pop music or heavy metal, which some people like—I see the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), nodding in a heavy metal sort of way; he has to be careful at his age, although I think he is younger than I am. The point is that we all have our different tastes in music, but we know how important it is to people’s enjoyment of life and to their being able to express themselves.

There is also nothing as important as being able to go to a live music event. One thing we are working very hard on—I made a statement about it earlier this year—is trying to make sure that the secondary ticket market, which has behaved in a frankly duplicitous and often parasitical way towards the music industry, is brought to heel and actually operates in the interests of fans.

I also want to talk about exports. We have some remarkable export strengths in the creative industries. Publishing achieved year-on-year growth and is now worth £11.6 billion to our economy, with export income accounting for almost 60% of its revenue. We are the largest book exporter in the world, and we should be proud of it. However, we need more success stories like publishing, and we need to make sure that the problems that publishing is having with exporting books—for instance, to the European Union—are overcome.

If we are to have such success stories, we need to fix some of the issues that the last Government unfortunately failed to address, such as touring. If we want the next generation of Ed Sheerans, Dua Lipas, Adeles and Stormzys to stand any chance of breaking into new markets, they must be able to perform overseas without having to navigate a maze of rules and regulations. That is why we are engaging with the EU and EU member states to find an answer that improves arrangements for touring across the European continent, without seeing a return to free movement.

That equally applies to the art market. Artworks are being brought to the UK to be sold in the UK art market, where they might command the highest price, but they are facing great difficulties entering the country. That is the kind of thing we also need to sort out.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The Minister is giving a very substantial speech, but he has been on his feet for 30 minutes. Hopefully he will be coming to a conclusion at some point.

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid that I inherited this speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will try to shut up as soon as I possibly can. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I think I have united the House there. That was very unkind—I feel a bit upset now.

It will not have escaped hon. Members that the challenges I have outlined today are all interconnected. As I have said, we cannot have thriving creative businesses without creative talent with the right skills. We will not see strong export growth numbers if businesses are unable to access the finance they need to expand. The independent film tax relief will be worth nothing if we do not have a curriculum that values culture and fosters, champions and promotes creativity. That is why we are focused on the whole creative ecosystem—from the first spark of inspiration in the classroom, through the first leap into the unknown at a theatre or grassroots music venue, to getting the first foot on the ladder to take a local business national or a national business global. This Government recognise that it all matters, and through the partnership I have spoken about today, we hope to make sure that growth in those industries continues for many decades to come.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

As well as a rich industrial and political heritage, Newport has a vibrant community of creatives and creative industries, so it is good to have the opportunity to highlight them in Government time and, later on, to shamelessly plug some of the local bands that I like.

Creative businesses in Newport generate a not insignificant turnover of around £400 million annually. Those 555 businesses employ more than 5,000 people locally, and that does not even account for the number of talented freelancers. Many of these enterprises are microbusinesses—small but mighty, much like Newport—and together they form the lifeblood of our grassroots arts and culture scene and give future performers the space and opportunity to develop.

Newport is home to an extraordinary wealth of talent, from theatre practitioners and visual artists to community connectors—people who dedicate themselves to bringing arts and culture to life in our city. We have local champions such as John Hallam from Maindee Unlimited, Loren Henry of Urban Circle, George Harris of Tin Shed Theatre, and Juls Benson of Reality Theatre, among many others. For years, they have worked to ensure that access to the creative industries in Newport is inclusive. An example of that is the brilliant Operasonic, which is supporting a band formed by the city’s Roma community called Newport Boys.

It is not just about live performance. Thanks to our striking industrial and natural landscapes, and our distinctive architecture, Newport has become a veritable filming hotspot in the UK. For more than two decades, it has been a familiar backdrop for “Doctor Who”, and Newport was recently showcased in the new S4C series “Ar y Ffin”. Newport is prominently featured in ITV’s “Out There” and Netflix’s “Sex Education”. Supporting those productions are state-of-the-art studios such as Urban Myth and Studio Arth, both located in my constituency, where global streaming projects are being created all the time. The Minister mentioned the talent pipeline, and much work is being done to develop and find the many skills we need locally in this industry.

Any contribution about Newport’s creative industries would not be complete without celebrating our music scene, which has seen a remarkable renaissance. That fact was recently recognised by the NME. I was delighted to join Sam Dabb and the team at Le Pub to celebrate the building’s purchase, with help from the UK Government, by Music Venue Properties. That was set up by the Music Venue Trust, which launched its annual report here last week. For more than three decades, Le Pub has stood as the cornerstone of Newport’s music culture, and it is great that it has been safeguarded for future generations as a space to grow new bands. Bands that have emerged from Le Pub recently include the brilliant Bug Club, hailing from Monmouthshire, alongside Newport’s own Murder Club, The Rogues, Joe Kelly & the Royal Pharmacy, Failstate, Jack Perrett and many others. There is also a new generation of artists, such as a new band called Hairdye, who are getting much attention. Newport is fortunate to have many other grassroots venues, including McCann’s, The Cab and the volunteer-led Corn Exchange, all of which will be part of the upcoming Newport music trail, a free two-day festival in the city centre in March.

Newport is, indeed, a cultural powerhouse, but to ensure that it continues to thrive, we must ensure that this cultural renaissance in our city is not just celebrated, but supported. I am therefore pleased that the Government, along with the Welsh Government and Newport city council, recognise the importance of the creative industries as a driver of economic growth and social wellbeing. In the draft budget this year, the Welsh Government are committed to supporting the hospitality sector with 40% non-domestic rates relief. That builds on the £1 billion of support allocated to retail, hospitality and leisure rates relief schemes since 2020. We also should not forget the additional 25% rates relief that Newport council offers to help eligible small venues and businesses.

Increased funding opportunities to support grassroots organisations and venues will only help them flourish further. The £1 ticket levy for arena and big gig events to support small music venues will have a big impact, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to making that mandatory if the live events industry does not do it voluntarily. Working to tear down the barriers to touring will also be crucial for the continued success not just of British performers and their art, but of our talented sound engineers and the haulage industry. An update on that work was much welcome.

With the right investment and a Government who truly understand the untapped potential of our world-leading creative industries, we can continue to build on that success and secure Newport’s creative legacy for generations to come. I look forward to welcoming the Minister to Newport whenever he can come.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

We may be here for a long time if the Minister answers every question that I am going to ask over the next few minutes, but let us have a go.

We in the Select Committee are very excited, because tomorrow the Minister will be appearing before us for the final episode of a very long-running inquiry into film and high-end television. I do not want to give away too much—no spoilers, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I would like to share with the House evidence that we received recently. Everyone will have had a different TV highlight over Christmas, but two massive hits were undoubtedly “The Mirror and the Light” on the BBC and “Black Doves” on Netflix. Peter Kosminsky, the director of “The Mirror and the Light”, told us that every streamer turned down the option to take up the show, despite the awards, the critical success and the acclaim for that first series of “Wolf Hall”. In fact, the only possible way to make it was for the producer, the writer, the director and the leading star to give up a significant proportion of their fees. It is unimaginable—is it not?—but it is not unique.

The Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television, charmingly known as PACT, has warned that 15 green-lit dramas are stuck unmade because the financial contribution that a public service broadcaster can offer, together with sales advance and UK tax breaks, simply is not enough to compete with the current inflated cost environment. Jane Featherstone, the producer of “Black Doves” and other massive hits such as “Broadchurch” and “Chernobyl”, told our Committee that the PSBs were being “priced out” of making high-end drama, which means that British stories for British audiences are at risk, as are the training grounds for the next generation of talent. We talk so much about the importance of creative education, but if we do not have the jobs for those young people to come into when they leave school, we are selling the next generation a dream. I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State value the telling of British stories, so the Minister can expect us to press him on that tomorrow.

When it comes to British stories from across our isles, we cannot overlook the value of our PSBs and the challenges that they face owing to competition from international streamers and changing audience behaviour. The uniquely British flavour of PSB productions such as “Fleabag”, “Derry Girls” and “Peaky Blinders” makes them some of our most popular and enduring exports, but it is no exaggeration to say that they are facing an existential challenge. Over the coming months we will hear from the leadership of the BBC, Channel 4 and Ofcom about the BBC charter review, the implementation of the Media Act 2024, and the wider challenges that they face. We will also want to discuss advertising with them and with other broadcasters. The shift from broadcast to online advertising is not new, but we must ensure that broadcasters are not left disadvantaged by outdated competition rules.

I want to make sure that the creative industries are delivering for their employers and contractors. CIISA, the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority, under the brilliant stewardship of Jen Smith and Baroness Kennedy, is at a critical point as it concludes its consultation on standards today. It concerns me that while some parts of the creative industries make positive noises about CIISA, in reality they do not lean in, and other organisations —especially those with headquarters abroad—are reluctant to engage at all. I know that the Minister cares about this, but if we are to recruit and, critically, retain talented people, there must be no hiding place for bad behaviour.

I am delighted by the Minister’s commitment to our grassroots music venues levy, and for the signal that he will be willing to act if a voluntary solution is not working out. The establishment of the LIVE Trust is a step in the right direction, and I hope that more will be done to include artists and independent promoters in the conversations about where the money will go and how it is distributed. May I ask the Minister to give us an update in his closing speech?

Let me continue my whistlestop tour of the creative industries and the performing arts. Last week, the National Theatre launched its “Scene Change” report, which highlights the willingness of the performing arts to innovate in their business models. I am sure that the Minister will look carefully at its recommendations, but I want to pull out two key points. First, as he said, our creative industries generate more for our economy than aerospace, oil and gas and renewables combined, and they need a robust industrial strategy to match their firepower. Without investment, there is no innovation. The National Theatre, for example, is as much a totemic British export as BAE or Rolls-Royce. “National Theatre at Home” has brought productions to new audiences across the United Kingdom and, indeed, the world. However, few in the sector have the funds for such projects, and I hope that the Minister will consider the report’s recommendation of an innovation fund, which could drive growth. Secondly, UK Research and Innovation, which the Minister also mentioned, exists to foster research and innovation, yet the creative arts are wildly under-represented, given their gross valued added.

I know that the Minister enjoys a bit of theatrics, so while I was at the National Theatre, I wondered which of its productions reflected him best. There is “The Importance of Being Earnest”; one review of the current production noted

“just the right amount of delightful mischief.”

There is “Nye”, the story of a hugely influential Welsh politician taking policies through against enormous opposition. But then I realised that we needed to go back a bit further, to the smash hit “One Man, Two Guvnors”, because the Minister finds himself working for both the Science Secretary and the Culture Secretary. Our story begins as he tries to justify the Government’s proposals on artificial intelligence and copyright.

The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has claimed that I do not understand the idea of consultations, and the Minister has claimed that I do not understand the detail of this consultation. I am beginning to feel a bit gaslit by it all, but I know that the Science Secretary is not saying the same thing to the creative industries, because I am told that he is refusing to meet them at all. I wonder whether the Minister is telling the creative industries that they do not understand the detail—because everyone I have spoken to in the sector seems to understand the detail perfectly, and they do not like it.

This is not about pitting the creative industries against Al. This is not a luddite sector; the creative industries use Al to great effect, and are always at the forefront of embracing innovation. The Minister said so himself: he said that they never abide by the straitjacket of conformity. The aim is a system that is transparent, as he said, but with licensing arrangements that protect intellectual property. The Government’s consultation paper says there is a “lack of clarity” in the regime, but the people I speak to tell me that the situation is perfectly clear, and that the large Al developers cannot legally use it to their advantage. Instead, the Government’s proposals move the onus on to creators to protect their work, rather than Al developers having to seek permission to use it. This is known as the opt-out. We have the opt-in, the opt-out, the opt-in, the opt-out—it is the legislative equivalent of the hokey-cokey.

The fact that unscrupulous developers are not seeking permission from rights holders does not mean that we should bend the system in their favour. Our world-leading creative industries have made it clear that the European Union’s opt-out model, which the Government’s consultation favours, does not work. They say that there is no existing technical protection measure that allows rights holders to easily protect their content from scraping, and web bots take advantage of that unworkable system to copy protected works, bypassing inadequate technology and the unclear copyright exception. Put simply, the EU opt-out system creates an even greyer area.

I know the Minister does not agree with me on that, but may I ask him to agree with me on just two points? First, if the Government are determined to go down the opt-out route, any opt-out must be tightly defined and enforced, so that developers cannot wilfully disapply it or plead ignorance. Secondly, any technical solution that protects rights must be adequately future-proofed, so that creators and developers do not simply end up in an arms race to find new ways to stop those who are hoovering up copyrighted works.

May I also ask the Minister to address two questions? I have always said that AI should provide the solution to AI, and that is what we all hope will happen, but what if a suitable technical solution that protects rights is not found? Do we stick to the status quo, and keep the onus on AI developers to follow the law? It is notable that the creative industries are not represented on the Science and Technology Cabinet Committee. Can the Minister confirm that they will have a voice when the final decisions are made? If they are not, as he says, to be the cherry on the cake, they will need that seat at the table.

I do not want to end my speech on a pessimistic note. There is much to be optimistic about for our creative industries; they are the envy of the world on virtually every front. The Minister loves a song quotation, and it is almost as if the top three songs of all time, according to Rolling Stone magazine, could provide the backdrop for him and his role right now. Do you know what they are, Madam Deputy Speaker? “A Change is Gonna Come”, but the Minister needs to “Fight the Power” and give our creative industries what they deserve: “Respect”.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Follow that, Jo Platt!

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

And now for something completely different! With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement regarding our launch of a public consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence.

The United Kingdom has a proud tradition of creativity and technical innovation. From our film and television sectors to video games, publishing, music, design and fashion, our creative industries are a cornerstone of our economy and our creative identity. They bring £125 billion to the economy and employ over 2.3 million people. James Bond, the Beatles, Vivienne Westwood, Adele, “Vera”, Bridget Riley, “Tomb Raider”, the Sugababes, “Football Manager”, Paddington and Paul Smith are all part of an immensely valuable British industry.

The creative industries are central to our economic future, and we are determined to help them flourish. The same is true of artificial intelligence—both as an enabler of other industries, including the creative industries, and as a sector in its own right. The Government are determined to capitalise on the UK’s position of strength in the global AI sector and will soon publish the AI opportunities action plan, which will set out an ambitious road map to unlock AI’s transformative potential across our economy and public services.

Both the creative industries and AI sectors are at the heart of our industrial strategy, and they are also increasingly interlinked. AI is already being used across the creative industries, from music and film production to publishing, architecture and design; it has transformed post-production, for instance. As of September 2024, more than 38% of creative industries businesses said that they have used AI technologies, with nearly 50% using AI to improve their business operations.

Strong copyright laws have been the bedrock of the creative industries, but as things stand, the application of UK copyright law to the training of AI models is fiercely disputed. Rights holders, including musicians, record labels, artists and news publishers, are finding it difficult to control the use of their works to train AI models, and they want and need a greater ability to manage such activity and to be paid for it. Likewise, AI developers, including UK-based start-ups, are finding it difficult to navigate copyright law and complain that the legal uncertainty means that they are unable to train leading models in the UK.

The status quo cannot continue. It risks limiting investment, innovation and growth in the creative industries, the AI sector and the wider economy. Neither side can afford to wait for expensive litigation—either here or in the US—to clarify the law, not least because courts in different jurisdictions may come to different conclusions and individual cases may not provide clarity across the sector. Nor can we simply rely on voluntary co-operation. That is why we think the Government must take proactive and thoughtful action that works for all parties.

The consultation published yesterday sets out clearly that the Government’s objectives on this issue are threefold: to enhance rights holders’ control of their material and their ability to be paid for its use, to support wide access to high-quality material to drive the development of leading AI models in the UK, and to secure greater transparency from AI developers in order to build trust with creators, creative industries and consumers. In short, we want to provide legal certainty for all and to secure enhanced licensing of content.

There are three key aspects to our consultation. The first is increased transparency from AI developers. That includes the content that they have used in training their large language models, how they acquire it, and any content generated by their models. In other words, consumers should know whether a book or song has been generated by a person or by artificial intelligence, and whose content helped generate it in the first place. The second aspect is a new system of rights reservation, whereby rights holders can withhold their content from being used unless and until it has been licensed. The third is an exception to copyright law for text and data mining where rights holders have licensed their content or otherwise chosen not to reserve their rights. That would improve access to content by AI developers, while allowing rights holders to control how their content is used for AI training.

Those measures are contingent upon each other. Progressed together, we believe this package of measures could enhance the ability of rights holders to protect their material and seek payment for its use through increased licensing, while also enabling AI developers to train leading models in the UK in full compliance with UK law. It will, however, only work if there is a proper system of rights reservation in place. I urge everyone to read and respond to the consultation document and to examine the safeguards we are proposing for rights holders. I would especially urge both AI developers and rights holders to work with us to identify a simple, practical, proportionate and effective technical system of rights reservation, without which the whole package will not work.

We are conscious that the UK does not operate in a hermetically sealed bubble, and this provides its own challenges. If we were to adopt a too tight regime based on proactive explicit permission, the danger is that international developers would continue to train their models using UK content accessed overseas but may not be able to deploy them in the UK. As AI becomes increasingly powerful and widely adopted globally, this could significantly disadvantage sectors across our economy, including the creative industries, and sweep the rug from underneath British AI developers. That is why, as well taking this approach in the UK, we are committed to international engagement and recognise the importance of international alignment.

This consultation is a joint effort between the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Intellectual Property Office, and between the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), who has responsibility for AI, and me, with responsibility for the creative industries.

This is not an academic exercise. The consultation is absolutely clear that we will not implement these changes unless and until we are confident that we have a practical, practicable and effective plan that meets our objectives of enhancing rights holder control, providing legal certainty around AI firms’ access to content, and providing transparency for rights holders and AI developers of all sizes. My fellow Minister and I will be engaging directly with a wide range of people in an attempt to find practical and technical solutions to this question.

Many people have called this an existential question for our creative industries. They are right. We therefore see this consultation as a pivotal opportunity to ensure that sustained growth and innovation for the UK’s AI sector continues to benefit creators, businesses and consumers alike while preserving the values and principles that make our creative industries so unique. We believe that there is a potential win-win solution, and that the UK, with its strong traditions of copyright and technological innovation, is in a unique place to deliver it. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister, Dr Ben Spencer.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement.

Britain is a world leader in the creative industries, from music to art to literature to our free and independent media. I say as a shadow Science, Innovation and Technology Minister that, while we need science to live, the arts make life worth living. The UK also has a world leading tech sector. The invention of generative artificial intelligence provides many opportunities, but particularly for the creative industries the data mining behind AI models can breach copyright. That presents challenges around authenticity when they are used to mimic artists and creative works, and there is a lack of legal clarity around the status of computer-generated work. We must tackle and respond to those issues.

Britain’s creative industries employ nearly 2.4 million people and contribute £125 billion to our economy, but we must also recognise that we are part of a global technological ecosystem and if we fall behind in supporting our artificial intelligence industry it will move elsewhere. Let us be clear: the genie is out of the bottle and the world is scrabbling to respond to it. As always there is a balance to be struck to ensure we take the opportunity on offer to revolutionise working practices and to deliver productivity through technological innovation, so we welcome work and investigation in this area on both the role of regulation and the options available.

Given the delays in the Minister bringing this work forward, he must recognise that this is a complex area to regulate, especially given the international and domestic interconnectivities. Sadly, rather than taking an open position as an honest broker, it is clear today that the Government have already picked one side in this debate. The Minister’s preference for a data mining opt-out for the creative industries will place extra burdens on creators to protect their intellectual property. Given the magnitude of the impact of his proposals, why has he released this consultation now, just before the Christmas break, and why is it limited to only 10 weeks? So when I am benefiting from UK creative talent over the Christmas period, whether listening to the Sugababes or watching Daniel Craig as James Bond—Bond was blond—the creative sector will be responding to a consultation that the livelihoods of those who work in the sector depend on. Will the Minister extend the consultation? Can the Minister explain how the opt-out will ensure protection to creators? And in forming this position, how many times has he already met representatives from the technology and creative sectors both domestically and internationally?

The Minister should be well aware, following five months of falling business confidence, that one thing that businesses dislike is uncertainty, but this announcement of an opt-out represents nothing but uncertainty for the creative industries. Rather than prioritising their need to be seen to be doing something, the Government need to start learning to do things right.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call our very own James Bond, Minister Chris Bryant.

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Fortunately, I asked ChatGPT what the shadow Minister would ask me and it was pretty much right—although some of the questions from ChatGPT were rather more to the point. I will deal with the serious points he made.

First, the shadow Minister raised the point about mimicking artists. That is one of the things we are consulting on. There is a legitimate question about whether we should take further action in this country. Tennessee has acted: it has got its ELVIS Act—the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act. California and a couple of other states in the United States of America have acted on this already, and whether we should move in that direction is a perfectly legitimate question.

Likewise, the shadow Minister referred to computer-generated works. He will probably know that under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 there is provision that seems to guarantee the right for computer-generated art to be copyright-protected. That is not the case in most other countries, and it could be argued that developments in recent copyright law on the nature of originality would suggest that, unless a human being is directly involved in the creation of the work, there should not be copyright protection. We have suggested a direction of travel to get rid of section 9(3) of the Act.

The shadow Minister said that we have delayed bringing this forward, but I merely point out that for quite a long time the previous Government said that they would bring forward a voluntary system, bringing the two sides together. Nothing whatsoever came from that, so I am afraid that feels a bit of a cheat.

What I want to contest is the idea that we have sided with one or the other. There is a legitimate problem, which is that AI companies and the creative industries are at loggerheads in the courts in several different jurisdictions on several different points which are moot at the moment. We do not think that simply standing by the present situation will suffice because the danger is that in two or three years’ time all UK content will have been scraped by one or other AI developing company somewhere else in the world if there is no legal clarity in the UK. I would like to be able to bring all that home so that AI operators can work in this country with security under the law, using UK copyright that has been licensed and paid for, because that is another potential revenue stream for creators in this country.

The shadow Minister asks about extending the consultation. I am not going to extend the consultation. We want to crack on with this piece of work. Only two minutes earlier in his speech he said that we were delaying bringing it forward and then he said we should delay further. It is time that we seize hold of this. I certainly will meet with a large number of people. My fellow Minister my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North and I have met many different organisations and we will be providing a list because it will be in our transparency returns published soon, and the number must run to dozens if not hundreds. Of course, there are differing views, but I make it absolutely clear that the three measures we are talking about—the transparency on inputs and outputs that AI developers will have to provide, the provisions for creators to reserve their rights, and the exemption for data mining for commercial purposes—are contingent upon each other. We will not move forward with such a package unless there is a technical solution to the question of how people can reserve their rights.

At the weekend, I looked online to see what it would be like to try to reserve rights, by pretending to be various musicians and artists. At present, it is phenomenally difficult and complicated—other Members may have questions about this—and that must change. There must be a proper rights reservation system that is easy to use, practicable and enables creators, either individually or collectively, to assert and maintain control of their rights.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

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

The UK is in a unique position—second in the world in the creative industries, and in the top three for AI innovation—so getting the right solution to protect and support our intellectual property, while supporting and incentivising AI innovation, is uniquely important to our cultural and economic life.

I am a former regulator and chartered engineer, so I welcome the Minister’s decision to go with regulatory technology as the solution, and to challenge the tech sector to come up with technology to ensure we can have both the reservation of rights and the transparency of inputs to large language models, both of which are critical.

The tech sector too often spends less time protecting people and property than maximising profit, but the language of the consultation is a bit vague. The Minister talked about arriving at a plan rather than a solution, so will he make it absolutely clear that any text and data mining exemption is contingent on the technology being deliverable, implementable and workable, and that if the technology fails, the exemption fails?

[Chris Bryant]

I welcome the Chair of the Select Committee to her place. She is 100% right that we cannot have the text and data mining exemption for commercial purposes unless there is a proper rights reservation system in place. I do not know whether she has looked at rights reservation, but it is terribly complicated. People can use the robots exclusion protocol, but it is rather out of date and is avoided by many players in the market. It is very complicated and applies only to a person’s own website, whereas their creative input might not be on their personal website—it might be on somebody else’s.

I tried to create a Bridget Riley using an AI bot over the weekend. The bot had obviously trained itself on some Bridget Riley works, but it was a shockingly bad Bridget Riley—it was nowhere near. I wanted to ask whether it had used Bridget Riley’s work to learn how to make a Bridget Riley-like picture and, if so, whether Bridget Riley received any compensation. Bridget Riley could use another website, haveibeentrained.com, if she wanted, but it is phenomenally complicated. That is precisely what must change. The AI companies must come up with a technical solution, whether they produce music, text or whatever. Without that, we will not be able to progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It is always easier if the Minister looks at the Chair, so we can ensure that we are sticking to time limits.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The UK can and should be a global leader in AI innovation, and I welcome this consultation. Investment and support for technological innovation will be a crucial pillar of growing our economy and solving the problems of today and tomorrow. Likewise, our world-leading creative industries must remain a growth priority.

In my constituency, I see the invaluable contribution that the film industry makes to the local and national economy, driving growth while producing top-quality content. We might not have James Bond, but we have had “Robin Hood” and “Deadpool”, and “Wicked” was recently filmed just over the border.

The creative industries have been clear that failure to apply existing copyright laws to AI model training presents an existential threat. They are being asked to allow their output to be used to train models that could be in direct competition with them. We must get this balance right.

There is no uncertainty in existing law. UK law is totally clear that commercial organisations must license the data they use to train their large language models. The announcement that the Government favour a text and data mining exemption will be deeply concerning to the creative industries. The issue was thought to be settled under the previous Government, so what assessment have the Government made of the likely impact of their favoured option on the creative industries? The expectation seems to be that small businesses in the creative industry should welcome an opt-out system in exchange for vague commitments to transparency, so will the Minister lay out what successful, workable examples of an opt-out system he has looked at? Can he give us examples of where this approach has successfully protected creatives? Why has the option of an opt-in not been included in the consultation?

As has been said previously, the creative industry adds £125 billion a year in gross value to the economy and goes hand in hand with our digital economy. It is essential that the Government support AI innovation, but that cannot come at the cost of our world-leading creative industry.

Dynamic Ticket Pricing

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I am very fortunate to have been re-elected as the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but we do not have any members of the Committee yet. Any decisions about what the Committee will look at will very much be a group decision jointly taken, but this is certainly something I will be putting forward. I know the Minister has already announced some consultation of his own.

To return to dynamic pricing and the laws of supply and demand, mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), this is something that is used across different marketplaces. Uber employs a smart dynamic pricing mechanism that adjusts the cost of journeys in line with changing variables, such as traffic and current rider-to-driver demand. Hotels and airlines are another market that uses dynamic pricing, but they are very different. If people are stuck at Waterloo station, as I sometimes am, an Uber is not the only option of travel and, when people go on holiday, multiple airlines offer flights to the same city and different hotel options, but when it comes to live music, particularly in cases such as this one, there is one artist and one opportunity to buy a ticket.

The imperfections of the dynamic pricing mechanism were obvious to anybody who attempted to buy a ticket on this occasion, but whatever the rights and wrongs of its suitability for music ticketing and this market place, the most important issue is that fans were not warned about the use of dynamic pricing before they entered the digital queue. Those are the faults that led the Competition and Markets Authority to open its investigation into this debacle. It meant that people had no idea how much a ticket would cost when they logged in. Many fans ended up paying at least double the original listing price of £148, so four standing tickets could cost an eye-watering £1,400 once service and order processing fees were included. The CMA says that it will investigate whether fans were given “clear and timely information”.

Any free market economist would call this a classic case of information asymmetry. There was certainly a lack of clarity over how high ticket prices might eventually go, with the additional chaos of a time limit putting pressure on fans to make an imminent decision about whether they were going to buy.

Ticketmaster claims that the dynamic pricing mechanism is the best way to deter ticket touts, the logic being that any tout buying tickets in bulk would increase demand and therefore see his or her prices and margins slashed. The Guardian has already said that secondary ticketing platforms are advertising more than 4,500 tickets for this tour already, including from one tout who claims to have at least 33 tickets for Cardiff, Wembley and Murrayfield listed, for a combined price of over £26,000.

I am glad that this summer the Government announced a consultation on the secondary ticketing market, where tickets are sold in bulk by touts who often use bots to scout for tickets at face value and sell them well beyond the market value, but will the Minister set out the parameters and timescales for the work? When will it happen and what is it likely to include? He has now announced that the investigation will be widened to consider dynamic pricing and what happened in the Oasis situation, so can we have a reassurance that the eye will not be taken off the ball of the original consultation that he announced in the summer?

There are so many aspects at play. This method of resale is also the culprit for a large amount of money lost to fraud, with Lloyd’s estimating that £1 million was lost to scammers during Taylor Swift’s Eras tour alone. Will the Minister tell me whether the secondary market consultation will include conversations with digital search engines that are signposting customers into the hands of touts and not doing enough to get them direct to principal sales sites?

There is scope for an entire primary market review and for ticketing to be reviewed on a much wider scale. The Oasis episode has opened the eyes of fans to potential anti-competitiveness within the industry. As complaints about the ticketing process began to flood in, Oasis said it was their management and promoters who had agreed a dynamic pricing strategy with Ticketmaster. But, of course, their three tour promoters all have links to Live Nation, Ticketmaster’s parent company and, in effect, they are all the same party. So that party is making money hand over fist through the system, which keeps everything under the Live Nation umbrella.

For a typical tour, a Live Nation subsidiary promoter might take 10% of the face value of a ticket. A service charge of perhaps a quarter of that face value will then be applied, and some of that money will be going to Live Nation-owned Ticketmaster. The venue will take a cut at this stage, which, in all likelihood, will be a Live Nation-owned venue, too, as it owns 28 festivals and venues UK-wide. The process is repeated at resale, if people go through Ticketmaster at a higher cost than before, leaving Live Nation with an even greater cut.

The Minister does not need to be a public intellectual to see that there is a real perverse incentive for Ticketmaster to see tickets in the hands of touts. He will know that the US Department of Justice has slapped Live Nation with a lawsuit, citing anti-competitive conduct, while it is now well established that the company has a near monopoly in the UK.

Dynamic pricing is quite an effective way of rewarding a near-monopoly, with no upper limit on ticket prices, meaning a greater cut for the parent company. The great sadness of all this is not only that the system is punishing the fans—in this case, those Oasis fans for whom the music was so totemic, so life changing back in the ‘90s—but that, to add insult to injury, there is no trickle down to the live music ecosystem, like the grassroots music venues that Oasis first played in while honing their skills, the venues that made them, such the Boardwalk in Manchester and King Tut’s in Glasgow.

Although Oasis have since announced further tour dates, tickets to new dates will be sold at face value via invitation-only ballot. I cannot help feeling that the fans who paid through the nose via dynamic pricing are going to feel very hard done by.

I encourage the Minister to look at ways to amplify fans’ voices within the live music ecosystem. He might start by responding to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report into grassroots music, which I have already mentioned. It was published in May. I know that we have had the small matter of a general election since then, but I would like to know when the response is likely to be forthcoming and whether the Government are minded to accept its recommendations. The recommendations include one for a fan-led review of music—something like the fan-led review of football that was led by my still friend, my former hon. Friend, the former Member for Chatham and Aylesford, Tracey Crouch—to look at how the music pyramid functions and how the money trickles down from the big players to those small venues and fledgling songwriters and artists.

The recommendations included a targeted VAT cut, which to grassroots venues would have represented a final hour of salvation in a sector that is widely accepted to be in crisis, and a live music levy, which would take a small proportion of the service fee from the pockets of the big venues and bring them right down to the struggling businesses at the grassroots. What is most pertinent to me about all this is that, while many of the 28 venues and festivals in which Live Nation owns a stake are flourishing, grassroots music venues are closing at a rate of two a week.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that, of the 34 music venues in which Oasis played on their first tour back in 1994, only 11 are still open today. And those venues are so crucial. They are absolutely fundamental to incubate our world-renowned talent. They are the R&D department for the music industry. They are a massive feeder into something that is fundamental to the UK economy and crucial to our soft power around the world. In a ticketing market gone wrong, there might have been a gram of comfort to some of the fans paying through the nose for their ticket if they knew that, in paying it, some of the money was protecting grassroots music venues in their communities and germinating the Oasis of the future.

I know that, like me, the Minister wants nothing more than to see our musical talent continue to thrill fans both at home and around the world, but behind every great act is a chance performance at a low-capacity venue that is struggling to keep the lights on, that is at financial breaking point, and that is a hair’s breadth away from closing its doors.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

We would not want half-empty venues—despite looking around the Chamber—due to tickets being priced too high, nor venues and festivals that are not economically sustainable. What we should not accept, however—I am very clear about this, as are the Government —are practices that see fans of live events blindsided by price hikes, either because they were not provided with the right information up front or because that information was not provided clearly enough. Doing so might be in breach of existing consumer law, which requires businesses to be fair and transparent in their dealings with consumers. It is the responsibility of the CMA to investigate potential breaches of consumer law arising from or involving the use of dynamic pricing methods, and to take enforcement action where appropriate. I have already referred to its investigation in this case.

It is the responsibility of Government, however, to confront the wider policy questions around the use of dynamic pricing for tickets to live events. We have already said that we will look at this issue further to establish whether consumers are adequately protected under existing law, or whether more needs to be done. The hon. Member for Gosport asked whether this means that we are going to take our eye off the ball on the secondary ticketing market—it does not. We are very clear: we have a set of manifesto commitments, and we will bring out our consultation this autumn. Once we have completed that consultation, we expect to take the necessary action that we committed to in our general election manifesto. Since most of that action is in line with what the Select Committee was advocating before the general election, I hope we might still enjoy the Committee’s support for it.

The hon. Lady is right that we will also be looking at websites: that is part of the whole panoply of action. She also effectively referred to vertical integration within the ticketing system. Of course, that has to be part of our considerations, because it is another part of making sure that the market works for humanity—for fans, artists and the creative industries—rather than all of us having to operate as slaves of the market.

The Prime Minister has said that we are committed to putting fans at the heart of music and ending extortionate resales. As I have said, we will launch a consultation this autumn to work out how best we can do that. That consultation will look at tickets for live events, and a call for evidence on the topic of price transparency, including dynamic pricing, will be sent out. That will help us understand the needs of fans and the live events industry. To be absolutely clear with the House and the hon. Lady, that will be about tickets for live events, not the whole of dynamic pricing across all industries in the UK.

The hon. Lady asked when we will respond to the grassroots venues report from May. We have been getting our feet under the table as fast as we possibly can, and I am very eager to respond to that report in swift order. I take the responsibilities of Select Committees very seriously—I sat on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee from 2001 to 2005; it is one of the most important things I have done as a Member of Parliament—so we will respond as soon as we can. It will certainly be in the autumn, and I would like it to be as soon as possible after the Committee is fully formed.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I am not allowed to refer to what she tried to get as urgent questions, but I have now. We have a world-class live events sector in the UK, and I am absolutely determined that fans have every opportunity to experience it at first hand.

There is nothing better than someone standing in an audience—in a crowd, along with hundreds of other people—either experiencing an artist they have never seen before and suddenly realising, “My God, that’s just pierced right through to my heart”, or going to see somebody they have seen 50 times before, having listened to the album 75 times in the past week, and having that joyful moment. They will be different artists for every single one of us, but I want far more people in this country to be able to enjoy that opportunity. I want every child to have a creative education, and I want them to have the opportunities that so many others enjoy in my constituency and every other.

I acknowledge that dynamic pricing can help match supply with demand, resulting in both higher and lower prices, but when it is used as a business model it needs to be transparent and fair, and that is what we want to ensure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It was wonderful to hear from two musicians, and Sir Chris Bryant has given away his true old age.

Question put and agreed to.