Chris Bryant MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry, I am getting a bit lost. Does the Minister think, and does the Conservative party think, that the digital age of consent should rise from 13 to 16 or not?

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  No, I have not—my hon. Friend has not missed anything. Obviously, we want to respond as soon as possible, but we have 11,500 consultation responses to consider. Some issues have hardly been referred to in the public debate on this matter. One issue that Equity is understandably pursuing, and that we referred to in the consultation, is about personality rights, which exist in some states in the United States of America. That is quite complicated to legislate for, which is one of the reasons we have consulted on it. We have also consulted on the question—again, nobody has referred to this in the public debate—of whether a work that is generated by AI has any copyright attached to it. If so, who owns that copyright? It is slightly moot in British law. One could argue that British copyright law has always presumed that copyright applies only where a work is the expression of an individual, so it does not apply to AI-generated material, but there are other elements. Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 says that machine-generated material can have copyright attached to it, which is one of the other issues that we want to address. As I said earlier, one of the issues to which nobody has yet come up with an answer is how we will provide proper enforcement of whatever transparency requirements we propose. I am conscious that in discussions I have had with our European counterparts, including my Spanish counterpart and members of the European Commission, there has been some concern about precisely what they will do by virtue of transparency. This issue is made more complicated by the advent of DeepSeek—for a whole series of different reasons, which I am happy to explain at some other point—but we need to end up with a transparency system that is both effective and proportionate. Simply dumping a list of millions and millions of URLs that have been visited on the internet is neither effective nor proportionate, so we will have to come up with something.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Yes.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that I will not give way. On new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), we share the concern that children’s data in education must be safeguarded. We have already committed to instructing the Information Commissioner’s Office to produce a statutory code of practice on the use of children’s data by edtech services once the findings of their audits have been published. We believe that defining the scope of the code in legislation now or imposing a six-month deadline for its publication risks undermining that evidence-led process. Amendment 9, tabled by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), seeks to ensure that platforms adopt strong age-assurance mechanisms when designing their services under the new children’s higher protection matters duty in clause 81. Of course, we subscribe to that policy aim, but the clause already strengthens UK GDPR by requiring providers of information society services to take account of how children can best be protected and supported when they are designing their processing activities. The ICO’s age-appropriate design code will be updated to provide clear and robust guidance on how services can meet these obligations, including through proportionate risk-based age assurance, where appropriate. I will take the right hon. Member’s intervention if he wants—he asked first—but I am afraid I have to be very careful because I have a lot of questions to answer.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is enticing me. I hope he will be nicer to me than the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) was earlier.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, but I said that in my speech, and I have said it several times in several debates previously.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It was great to meet this morning, although I am sorry it was so late and so close to Report stage; I wish it had been earlier. We were serious in the meeting this morning: we will do everything we possibly can to make sure that coroners understand both their powers and their duties in this regard, and how they should be operating with families and the prosecuting authorities as well if necessary. We will also do everything we can to ensure that the technical companies embrace the point that they need to look after the families of those who have lost loved ones when they are young.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to come to the right hon. Member’s amendment in a moment. The study is being led by Dr Amy Orben of Cambridge University, and it is supported by scientists from nine of the UK’s premier universities, all with established expertise in this field. The study will report to the Government this month on the existing evidence base, ongoing research and recommendations for future research that will establish any causal links between smartphones, social media and children’s wellbeing. The Government will publish the report along with the planned next steps to improve the evidence base in this area to support policy making. Considering the extra work we are doing, I hope Members will not press their amendments.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I want to knock on the head the idea that any Government Minister thinks that the creative industries are Luddites. As I said in the debate in Westminster Hall—I know that the hon. Lady was not able to be there—many creative industries use all sorts of technical innovations every single day of the week. They are not Luddites at all; they are the greatest innovators in the country.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I model myself in all things on the right hon. Gentleman, apart from the fact that I left the Tory party many years ago, and it is about time that he came over to the Labour Benches.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  We are opposing the amendment and are not intending to introduce similar legislation. As I said, data accuracy is important. That is equally true for any data used in a digital verification service. That is why the Government are already engaged in an appropriate and balanced range of work on data standards and data accuracy. We are already developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex, via the Data Standards Authority. Following a review, the Office for Statistics Regulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity last year, and all Government Departments are now considering how best to address the recommendations of the Sullivan review, which we published. That is the first reason why we will not be supporting this new clause or the amendment today. Simply, we believe the concerns regarding the way in which public authorities process sex and gender data should be considered holistically, taking into account the effects of the Supreme Court ruling and the specific and particular requirements of public authorities. By contrast, the new clause and the amendment would undermine the work the Government are already doing. Giving the Secretary of State a new regulatory rule would undermine the existing processes that ensure compliance with the UK’s data protection. Secondly, the new clause is misplaced because the Bill does not alter the evidence which can be relied upon to prove sex or gender. Indeed, it does not seek to alter any of the content of data used by digital verification services. Instead, the Bill enables people to do digitally what they can presently do physically, and it is for organisations to consider what specific information they need to verify in their particular circumstances. Any inconsistency between what they can do digitally and what they can do physically would obviously sow further division. Thirdly, the new clause is unnecessary, because it is very unlikely that digital verification services would be used in many, if not all, of the cases specifically raised by or with hon. Members, such as within the NHS to gain access to single-sex wards or for screening or to enter other female-only spaces. We expect digital verification services to be used primarily to prove things such as one’s right to work, or one’s age, address or professional or educational qualifications, which are not matters where sex or gender is relevant at all. Fourthly, the new clause goes significantly further than the findings of the Supreme Court. Finally, the proposals have the potential to interfere with the right to respect for private and family life under the Human Rights Act by requiring public authorities to record sex as biological sex in all cases regardless of whether it is justified or proportionate in that given circumstance. In addition, the amendment does not take account of the fact that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 gives those with gender recognition certificates a level of privacy and control over who has access to information about their gender history. As for amendment 39, it will create further uncertainty as it appears to prevent use of clause 45 in all cases involving sex. As I have set out, while I understand the reason for tabling these amendments, I fear they would create legal confusion, uncertainty and inconsistency. I also note that they were not part of the previous Government’s version of this Bill, in which in nearly all respects this part of the Bill was identical to ours. Given the narrow scope of digital verification service measures, the need to consider this area holistically to ensure alignment with existing legislation, and upcoming EHRC guidance and the breadth of work already being carried out, I hope the new clause and amendments will be withdrawn. There was one other amendment referring to digital verification services: the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 7. I completely share their concerns about digital inclusion, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). We have published our own digital inclusion action plan, but such obligations could be particularly challenging for businesses currently operating solely in the digital sphere—for example, online banks. Taking a blanket approach in the way proposed would not be proportionate, so I urge that the amendment be withdrawn. On scientific research, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah) tabled amendments 37 and 38. Amendment 37 adds further conditions to the definition of scientific research. I understand her concern and we want to prevent misuse. However, the Bill does not expand the meaning of scientific research and already contains safeguards, such as in clause 86. Moreover, the amendment replicates wording from two external documents—including the Frascati document—neither of which were intended to be legally binding or to define scientific research. I am very happy to continue having these conversations with my hon. Friend, but I urge her not to press her the amendment. On access to NHS data, which my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) raised, let me just answer his direct question about the sale of NHS data. The Secretary of State for Health has said categorically that the NHS is not for sale and that patients’ data is not for sale—end of story. I hope we can put that one to bed. On ethnicity data, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) made valid points that we intend to pursue. Public bodies usually collect ethnicity data in line with the Office for National Statistics’ harmonised standards. The ONS is currently reviewing that and I am sure she will want to feed into that process. I am afraid that I have not had time to refer again to AI and copyright, but this country is a—

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

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

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Yes.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think the amendments do offer that, because I do not think they work. We need to legislate in the round, as I say, and not piecemeal. I point out to the hon. Member that there is something of a two-edged sword here. I have been repeatedly told—and I understand the point—that there is no legal uncertainty as to the copyright status of works that are being scraped. At the same time, people are saying they want legislative change. Those two things cannot be true at the same time. I am determined to get us to a better place on this, as I will perhaps explain in a couple of moments. I think there is an intention to push new clause 2 to a vote later, which I urge hon. Members not to do, although I do not always get my way. New clause 2 basically says that people should comply with the law. I mean, it is a simple fact: people should comply with the law. We cannot legislate to tell people that they should comply with the law; the law is the law. If none of these amendments is passed today, the law will remain as it is today and copyright law in the UK will be robust and clear. For the absolute avoidance of doubt, some people have talked to me about text and data mining exceptions, which, as Members will know, exist, for instance, in the European Union. There is a text and data mining exception already in UK law. It was introduced in 2014 via a statutory instrument, which added section 29A to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However, it is an exception for the sole purpose of non-commercial research. I think that that is absolutely clear in law, and I do not think it needs any clarifying.

• 6 May 2025 · Neon Signage · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 6 May 2025 · Neon Signage · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Parthenon Marbles: British Museum Act 1963 · Hansard source

  More

  I will, but it will limit the amount of time I have to respond to the questions.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Parthenon Marbles: British Museum Act 1963 · Hansard source

  More

  That is the use of irony, which is also, of course, another fundamentally Greek concept. I want to say at the outset that the marbles are an extraordinarily significant and important part of Greek and—I would argue—western artistic and architectural understanding. Nobody should ever diminish their importance. Indeed, it is upsetting to think of previous moments when the Acropolis was used as an arsenal, and a big explosion ended up destroying large parts of it. That was many centuries ago. The marbles were built between 447 BC and 438 BC by Phidias, who was one of the greatest of all Greek artists and sculptors. He also designed and built the great statue of Zeus at Olympia, which was one of the seven great wonders of the world, along with the hanging gardens of Babylon and so on. Many of us who have been to see, both here and in Athens, all the different elements of the marbles know how extraordinary they are, although I worry that we do not quite see them in the brilliance that people would have seen them originally. We know now, from lots of research that has been conducted, that they would have been painted or tinted in some way, and they would really have stuck out. The battle of the Centaurs and the Lapiths, and the frieze with the Panathenaic procession, would have looked very different from how we experience them today. This is a debate that has gone on for 200 years, although I think the first direct bid from the Greek Government to the UK Government was back in 1983, and it was turned down in 1984. I should make some things very clear. First, the Parthenon marbles—or the Elgin marbles, whatever we want to call them—are not the property of the UK Government. That is sometimes misunderstood, because in different countries, parts of the national patrimony are actually under the direct ownership of the Government. We do not have that structure in the UK. From the outset, the British Museum was set up as an independent body. Its trustees are given fiduciary responsibilities under the British Museum Act 1963 now—it was originally under previous Acts before that—and they have to adhere by them. If they do not, they will find themselves in court. That is one of the aspects of this debate that we have to bear in careful consideration. One of the questions that has been raised fairly regularly is whether it is legally possible for there to be an indefinite loan. I want to be clear about that issue, because I noted that an article in The Daily Telegraph— I think it followed a conversation that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire had with the paper—talked about an indefinite loan. Let me be absolutely clear that the British Museum Act 1963 states in section 3, on the keeping and inspection of collections: “Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Trustees of the British Museum to keep the objects comprised in the collections of the Museum within the authorised repositories of the Museum, except in so far as they may consider it expedient to remove them temporarily for any purpose connected with the administration of the Museum and the care of its collections.” It is possible for loans to be enabled through an open individual export licence. They are granted by Government, but can be granted only for up to three years. Obviously, the working assumption of anything that is temporary—a temporary licence— is that it is guaranteed that the items are returning. That puts paid under existing law to any idea of an indefinite or permanent loan. I have read articles where people in Greece say that they are not interested in a loan anyway, because a loan implies that the marbles still belong to the British Museum rather than to Greece. The important point that I am trying to clarify—because I think there has been some misunderstanding—is that under existing law, it would be impossible for there to be a permanent or indefinite loan. The trustees would be required, in seeking a licence to export, to show that they were absolutely certain that the items were returning. I do not think that would be easy if they had arranged a permanent or indefinite loan—the point being that we would have to change the law. The immediate question that the hon. Member may ask is whether we are intending to change the law. We have no intention to change the law. I will respond to some of the hon. Member’s other questions in writing. He asked about conversations or communications with the Greek Government on this issue since last July. I have met several Ministers, including Culture Ministers and Tourism Ministers, at various different times. The only occasion on which this issue was mentioned was when the Tourism Minister came to see me on 4 November last year, and she very briefly raised the matter. We mostly talked about tourism, but there was a brief mention of the Parthenon sculptures. I will check if there have been any other communications from the Greek Government since last July, but I am not sure there have been. I may be wrong, so I will write to the hon. Member. There are provisions in the 1963 Act for temporary loans, and my understanding is that the chairman of the British Museum has been in some discussions. We have not been party to those discussions, but he has briefly outlined some of the issues that have arisen, both to me and to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I am not aware of any further developments in that area in recent months. If a suggestion of a temporary loan were to come from the British Museum, there is a process for considering that under existing law, but that would— Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

• 30 Apr 2025 · Parthenon Marbles: British Museum Act 1963 · Hansard source

  More

  Kalimera, Mr Vickers. It is very good to have this debate and I commend the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for bringing it to the House. Interestingly, it is the first one on this issue in this Parliament, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about it. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that UK relations with Greece are extremely warm and tender, and have been for many centuries in many regards. Perhaps Lord Byron is best known in the UK for his poetry, and for being “mad, bad and dangerous to know”, but in Greece, he is considered to be quite a hero. That is why I am delighted that we are in the process of having the statue of Lord Byron moved to Hyde Park, where it will have a more prominent display. I know that the Greek Government have been supportive of that. For that matter, I have been to one production of Oedipus in the last few months, and there have been two—albeit rather updated—versions here. I think we all know that Greek culture is a really important part of our foundational understanding of what it is to be a modern democracy. Indeed, the word “democracy” comes from two Greek words, and “telephone”, “oligarchy” and so many other parts of our language are determined by their Greek origins. The hon. Gentleman was also absolutely right to point to the many millions of British people who go to Greece every year. I think one in four British people goes to Spain every year and one in six British people goes to Greece. That is why it is so important that in the conversations I have had, particularly with my Greek counterparts, both as Tourism Minister and as Culture Minister, we have often focused on those issues more than anything else. We want to enhance the relationship. This is nothing to do with being a member of the European Union or not being a member of the European Union. I was really delighted only a couple of weeks ago to be invited as a Culture Minister—I think it is the first time this has happened since Brexit—to the informal meeting of Culture Ministers in Warsaw. There are so many areas in which our cultural relationships are intrinsically linked with Greece, not least in our discussions about Ukraine and security in the eastern Balkans. There are so many areas in culture and security where our geopolitical relationship with Greece is absolutely vital. That is nothing to do with whether we are a member of the European Union. That is why we want to press the reset button on our relationship with the EU.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Parthenon Marbles: British Museum Act 1963 · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman had let me get on to that subject, we would have got there earlier, but he got to make his point—I think he divided the speech he would otherwise have made into two interventions. That is not something that I ever did when I was—

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  Ms McVey, I am sure that if you were not in the Chair, you would be participating in this debate, because I know that you have an interest in this area not only as a Member of Parliament, but personally. I am not sure whether there is a recording of your performance in “The Vagina Monologues” years ago, but there are many other recordings of you around, and I am sure you would want to enforce your copyright in relation to them as well. Today is not only the 48th birthday of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) and Shakespeare’s 461st birthday, but Turner’s 250th birthday. I suppose we could all join in singing “Happy Birthday” since, interestingly enough, it came out of copyright in 2015 because Warner Chappell lost a lawsuit over whether it maintained the copyright. The fact that people had to pay for it is one of the reasons that it rarely appeared in films and instead people ended up singing “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow”—or “For She’s a Jolly Good Fellow”—which always seemed rather odd. I will not go through all the individual contributions to the debate, if that is all right with Members, because I want to deal directly with the specific issues as much as I can. My hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on securing the debate, talked about a landing point, and that is what I will try to talk about today. There are some things that I think we all agree on. First, an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work is a fundamental principle not just of the Labour party, but of the whole of British society in how we order ourselves. Another hon. Member said that creators deserve to be paid. I completely and utterly agree, and so do the Government. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to the performers’ rights framework. He is quite right: that does need some review, and we are looking at it. Interestingly enough, in one of the very early Westminster Hall debates I took part in, way back on 12 June 2002—the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who is sitting across the Chamber today, led the debate that day—I said that we need to look at the performers’ rights framework. I completely agree that creators need to be remunerated. Secondly, it is patently wrong to use pirated material to train large language models. I have to be careful, because—I declare my own interest as an author and member of the Society of Authors—it has been noted in several newspapers that my own work was scraped in the use of the Library Genesis dataset by Meta Platforms Inc. Such use is patently wrong and I do not think anybody disagrees with that. Thirdly, we should never characterise the creative industries as luddites. That is simply and patently untrue. I recently went to Ninja Theory, a video games company in Cambridge. It uses AI all day, every day, as an integral part of making sure that any game it presents is at the cutting edge of modern gaming. The same could be said of so many creative industries, not just about their use of AI but about their use of innovation. I want to knock this on the head: nobody in Government is saying that the creative industries are luddites. It is perfectly legitimate for people to have concerns about their future remunerative stream, and we acknowledge that. It is not just video games; musicians and people in so many other parts of the creative industries use AI. Indeed, we should not forget that a large chunk of the creative industries is tech companies that are developing AI. As several hon. Members have noted, those companies have their own copyright concerns—otherwise, how will they make a living into the future?—but the irony of some complaining about others stealing their work is not lost on anybody. Fourthly, the creative industries are already engaging with artificial intelligence. Many of them are engaged in licensing already, and have been from the very beginning. That is not just true for newspapers, many of which have had an easier time delivering that if they have been behind a paywall; a whole series of different licences have now been arranged. I went to the London book fair and spoke to several publishers, all of whom were interested in bringing forward licensing with AI companies and want to do so with all the AI platforms, for the simple reason that, as some of the academic publishers put it, they want AI to be the best version of AI that it can be. A fundamental principle of a pipe is that what comes out of it depends on what is put into it, and the quality of responses produced by AI will depend on the quality of information that has been put into it. Many of the UK’s big academic publishers are trying to license and get remuneration for their work because they want to make sure that AI provides good, modern answers based on solid information. Fifthly, transparency is vital but not simple, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said. Several hon. Members referred to the European Union, which theoretically has transparency provisions in its legislation, but has yet to come up with a system that is both proportionate, and effective and usable. Frankly, there is no point in somebody dumping a list of millions or billions of URLs that have been scraped and looked at on some kind of website. Whether that was done on a monthly or weekly basis, it would hardly be usable, or a proper, effective means of transparency. We need to get transparency, and the enforcement of transparency, right. That is why we have consulted on this area. There is a great deal more work that we need to do. I would like to do some of it with allies in other countries who are struggling with this too, but we need to do it with the creative industries and with tech. There must be somebody out there who could make a commercial living out of creating an app that could help us solve the transparency issue, but it is vital that we do so. We need to make sure that there is transparency, because otherwise how can anybody know whether their works have been scraped or not?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  I am very reluctant to give way, if only because I have quite a lot of things to get through. I am really sorry. We will have another debate on this issue very soon, I am sure. Sixthly, several Members referred to people wanting a “legal peace of mind”. I am not reiterating the line about whether or not there is legal certainty; that is not the point I am making. Many individual creators have been in touch with me directly—I am sure that they have been in touch with other hon. Members—to say, “I don’t know where I stand now under the existing law. I understand how Getty Images can go to court and enforce their rights, sometimes on behalf of themselves but also on behalf of the people they represent, but how do I do that for myself when I’ve just posted some of my works online, because I’m advertising my works? I don’t want to disappear from the internet, so the robots.txt system doesn’t work.” That is a really important area where we need to do work. We have a framework of civil enforcement of copyright in the UK. It is robust and it meets the Berne convention issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North referred to, but it is still easier for those who have lawyers and cash to use it. That is why we have collecting societies, which can be more effective in many areas, but the different segments of the creative industries that we are talking about have to be dealt with differently, because a musician, an artist, a photographer, somebody who writes or somebody whose words or voice are being used are all treated differently, or their rights are enforced differently at present, and we need to make sure that there is that legal peace of mind for all those people into the future. My hon. Friend said that a technical solution for rights reservation does not yet exist and he is absolutely right. I think a couple of other Members made that point, and I know that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which is admirably chaired, has referred to some of these matters, including in a letter to Secretaries of State. But why do we not make it happen? I am determined to make it happen. Surely, it cannot be beyond the wit of the clever people who are developing all this technology to develop something. If we could get to a place where it was very easy for any individual, or everybody—

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  I only have 45 seconds left, so I am afraid that I cannot; I am sorry. If we were able to deliver that over the next 12 to 18 months in the UK, then we genuinely would be leading the world and we would be answering the problems of transparency and provenance, and making sure that people were genuinely remunerated. That is one of the things I am determined to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is no longer in his place, said that we must listen to the creative industries before any legislation is introduced. He is 100% correct. I absolutely commit that that is what we will do. Somebody else said that technology is not good or bad; I think they were almost quoting “Hamlet”. I will make the point that artificial intelligence was made for humanity by humanity, not humanity made for artificial intelligence, and we need to make sure that we get the balance right. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North started the debate by saying—because he had to—that we have “considered” the impact of AI on intellectual property. We have not adequately considered it yet. We have to consider it more. We were not intending to legislate in the data Bill, and there is no clause in it, on opt-out. There is no such clause. There is no need to take it out, because it does not exist. I am determined to get us to a place where people are properly remunerated, where they are able to enforce their rights, and where AI can flourish in this country and be used by the creative industries and the creative industries are not left by the wayside. In short, to quote the Bible, we will not sell our birthright for a mess of pottage.