Caroline Dinenage MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2025 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister says, the Online Safety Act has passed into law and is being implemented, but parents in my Gosport constituency are still desperately worried about the scale of the inappropriate content that very young children can stumble across in the online world. Can she reassure us? When will they begin to practically see the changes that the Online Safety Act promised, and when will the big online providers really start having to do what they say they are doing to keep our children safe online?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank the Secretary of State for sending our Committee a letter on Friday evening setting out the Government’s intentions for AI and copyright. Reflecting what the Chair of the Liaison Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), said, both the nature of the letter and the method with which it was received were almost symbolic of how this whole process has been conducted from beginning to end. It was fairly haphazard and chaotic, and it was not entirely clear what the Secretary of State or the Minister intend to happen next, but I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to have a chat to talk us through it. Specifically, the Secretary of State and the Minister set out their amendments to the Bill and a plan to set up this parliamentary working group, and we would like to know a lot more about that. I understand exactly what the Government are trying to do: they are trying to placate peers and bring the Data (Use and Access) Bill to a conclusion, as the Minister says. The problem is that they are still not engaging with the fundamental existential issue, which is the concerns expressed by people across the creative industries. The Government’s amendment would expedite the economic impact assessment of the options in the AI copyright consultation. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee jointly wrote about that in February. Another amendment would expand the scope of the report to include training outside the UK and enforcement, which obviously should have happened from the start. The amendments are all welcome, but they miss the point of the creative industries’ concern that their work and intellectual property are being exploited wholesale, without permission, without payment and without practical means of recourse and redress. I note that the Minister told the House on 14 May: “I do not think that what is on the amendment paper today would deliver anything now.” —[ Official Report , 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 417.] The Government giving themselves nine months rather than 12 to conclude what we already know—that their favoured consultation option is completely unworkable—is much less likely to deliver quickly the kind of transparency and enforcement for creators than the amendments proposed in the other place. The Secretary of State’s letter also mentions that the Government intend to set up a parliamentary working group to ensure that “Parliament has a voice directly into DSIT throughout this process”. The big fear is that this working group will simply be a channel through which the Government will report back on their own engagement with AI developers and rights holders. The Government instead need to be listening to the concerns of Parliament and industry stakeholders. Maybe then they will realise that this stakeholder engagement exercise between rights holders and AI developers has been tried before, as I said earlier, including in the last Parliament. It was scrutinised at the time by the Committee I chair, and each time things have got nowhere. Talks have collapsed because the status quo suits rogue developers acting in bad faith. They think they have nothing to lose by looting the work and value of our creators and our rights holders. If the Government press on with this working group, we will of course engage and do what we can to support, but let us call it what it is: a distraction technique to divert attention away from the fact that the Government have got themselves into a terrible pickle over this legislation. They started a consultation on AI and copyright when they already had stated a preferred outcome, and they have been cloth-eared to the legitimate concerns of the world-leading creative industries for month after month. They have been virtually dragged kicking and screaming to this position now, where they bring forward a couple of tiny amendments. They have been gaslighting Members of all parties and at both ends of this building who have attempted to draw attention to the situation. They have been somehow pitting our world-leading creative industries against AI, almost presenting them as luddites who are allergic to innovation and technology, when actually these are some of the most groundbreaking and innovative sectors out there. They are using AI every single day to produce world-beating pieces of creative content. The very nature of how the Government have conducted this legislation pits our creative industries against AI, and that is deeply unfair. It is all not good enough. This is simply a thinly veiled attempt to kick the can down the road—and if kicking the can down the road were an Olympic sport, the Minister would have to add “sport” to his portfolio. If he thinks that any of us are fooled by this, or that it will quieten those who want to stand up for our world-leading creative industries and against the existential threat that they face, he has another think coming.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clause 59, in my name, which considers the impact of our planning system on our creative and cultural industries and infrastructure. These spaces are the foundation of our world-beating creative industries and are also very important for our local communities. They are the engine of an industry which is growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. They are the R&D labs of a sector that is bigger than our automotive, aerospace and life sciences industries combined. Yet the creatives industries are under threat, including from our disruptive planning system and onerous licensing regime. My Culture, Media and Sport Committee has heard that live music venues will be back to shutting at the rate of two a week by the end of the year. That is in addition to electronic music venues and clubs, which have been shutting at the rate of three a week. My amendment seeks to help prevent those closures by putting a duty on planning decision makers to apply the agent of change principles, which have existed since the national planning policy framework in 2018. They require developers to ensure that their developments do not disrupt existing businesses in future, as well as places of worship, schools, transport infrastructure and so on. First, the new clause would be good for venues. Of the 86 grassroots music venues that closed in 2024, one in four shut for operational reasons, including noise abatement orders, neighbour disputes and interventions by the local councils. In the previous Parliament, the Committee I chair held a roundtable in Manchester at the Night and Day Café, an iconic venue. We were there to meet representatives of live music venues from across the north, yet the operators could not attend their own roundtable because they were instead attending a court hearing with Manchester city council to settle a three-year noise abatement dispute—a costly and pointless legal dispute at that, as it started due to a single complaint by a tenant who had moved out long before the issue was resolved. Secondly, the new clause would be good for developers and new neighbours. Consistent application of the agent of change principle will de-risk and speed up planning and development. It will ensure that the needs of an existing cultural venue are considered from the start and save developers from late-stage objections and lengthy, expensive legal disputes down the line. It will require developers and decision makers to think about the presence of existing venues and will benefit future tenants and homeowners, who should be less impacted overall. Finally, the new clause would help local authorities. It is councils that have the duties to detect statutory nuisance and investigate noise complaints; it is councils that serve noise abatement orders; and it is councils that get dragged into expensive and often pointless bun fights with local venues, as the Night and Day Café example illustrates. Encouraging councils to consider at the planning stage how developers and venues can find a nice equilibrium in their interests can only help to save them time and money, which is surely more efficient than settling matters in court. The new clause has widespread support. It takes forward the recommendation of the CMS Committee in the previous Parliament and is supported by the whole live music sector, from the operators of our smallest clubs, pubs and venues to the biggest arenas and stadiums. It will benefit the breadth of our cultural infrastructure, from our historic theatres to our pulsating nightclubs. It is built on evidence given by LIVE, UK Music Creative UK, the Music Venue Trust, the Night Time Industries Association and the National Arenas Association. The new clause is not about venues versus developers; instead, it is about ensuring we have the balance right between building enough good homes and making sure the places we are building keep the things that make life worth living. Everyone in Westminster and our constituencies agrees that our high streets have been in decline, so it is vital that we protect the places that are special to us, our constituents and our communities—the places that provide a platform for our creators and our world-beating creative industries, where we can make memories, celebrate and have fun. I hope the Government will support my new clause and, if not today, commit to making this law as soon as possible. Live music is in crisis. The Government need to listen.

• 22 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House may be aware that cheerleading is one of the fastest-growing sports in the UK, and that it achieves the remarkable feat of keeping young girls engaged in sport at an age when so many disengage from school sports. She might not know, however, that two of the best cheerleading teams in the country are in Gosport. In fact, both Storm Athletics and Jessie Leigh Dance and Cheer Academy came back from the world summit in Florida early this month with gold medals and first-place trophies. I would love to see many more young people get involved in the sport, which has now been recognised as such by Sport England, but funding to support more disadvantaged youngsters to get involved cannot be applied for yet. Will the Leader of the House lead the cheer for cheerleading as a debate here in Parliament? [ Interruption . ]

• 22 May 2025 · UK-India Cultural Co-operation Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  Whether it is Bollywood, Hollywood or Borehamwood, I am sure the Minister will agree that our British cultural and creative industries are our global economic superpower. While the Secretary of State is AWOL today, rumours abound that the whole Department for Culture, Media and Sport is for the chop. The Minister must see that this sends a terrible message to those sectors about how little their Government value the power of those industries. Will he take this opportunity to put that rumour to bed, and if he cannot, will he take this chance to put on record that it is a horrible idea?

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for that reassurance. I did take part in a Westminster Hall debate on this matter a couple of weeks ago, but one of his colleagues was responding. I made the same point then. Quite often in the media or more generally, AI seems to be pitted against our creative industries, which should not be the case, because we know that our creative industries embrace technology virtually more than any other sector. They want to use AI responsibly. They do not want to be replaced by it. The question before us is how lawmakers can ensure that AI is used ethically without this large-scale theft of IP. We are today discussing amendments that go somewhere towards providing an answer to that question.

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

  More

  I rise to support new clauses 2 to 5 in the name of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins); to pay tribute to Baroness Kidron, who has driven forward these amendments in the other place; and to speak in favour of new clause 20 in the name of the official Opposition. I am beginning to sound a bit like a broken record on this matter, but our creative industries are such a phenomenal UK success story. They are our economic superpower and are worth more than automotive, aerospace and life sciences added together, comprising almost 10% of UK registered businesses and creating nearly 2.5 million jobs. More than that, our creative industries have so much intrinsic value; they underpin our culture and our sense of community. Intellectual property showcases our nation around the world and supports our tourism sector. As a form of soft power, there is simply nothing like it—yet these social and economic benefits are all being put at risk by the suggested wholesale transfer of copyright to AI companies. The choice presented to us always seems, wittingly or unwittingly, to pit our innovative AI sector against our world-class creative industries and, indeed, our media sector. It is worth noting that news media is often overlooked in these debates, but newspapers, magazines and news websites license print and content online. In turn, that helps to support high-quality and independent journalism, which is so vital to underpinning our democratic life. That is essential considering recent news that the global average press freedom score has fallen to an all-time low. I want to push back against the false choice that we always seem to be presented with that, somehow, our creative industries are Luddites and are not in favour of AI. I have seen time and again how our creators have been characterised by big tech and its lobbyists as somehow resistant to technological progress, which is of course nonsensical.

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

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a very good observation, but the fact is that so much content has already been scraped. Crawlers are all over the intellectual property of so many of our creators, writers and publishers—so much so that we are almost in a position where we are shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. Nevertheless, we need to do what we can legislatively to get to a better place on this issue. New clause 2 would simply require anyone operating web crawlers for training and developing AI models to comply with copyright law. It is self-evident and incontrovertible that AI developers looking to deploy their systems in the UK should comply with UK law, but they often claim that copyright is not very clear. I would argue that it is perfectly clear; it is just that sometimes they do not like it. It is a failure to abide by the law that is creating lawsuits around the world. The new clause would require all those marketing their AI models in the UK to abide by our gold-standard copyright regime, which is the basis that underpins our thriving creative industries. New clause 3 would require web crawler operations and AI developers to disclose the who, what, why, and when crawlers are being used. It also requires them to use different crawlers for different purposes and to ensure that rights holders are not punished for blocking them. A joint hearing of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee heard how publishers are being targeted by thousands of web crawlers with the intention of scraping content to sell to AI developers. We heard that many, if not most, web crawlers are not abiding by current opt-out protocols—robots.txt, for example. To put it another way, some developers of large language models are buying data scraped by third-party tech companies, in contravention of robots.txt protocols, to evade accusations of foul play. All this does is undermine existing licensing and divert revenues that should be returning to our creative industries and news media sector. New clause 3 would provide transparency over who is scraping copyrighted works and give creators the ability to assert and enforce their rights. New clause 4 would require AI developers to be transparent about what data is going into their AI models. Transparency is fundamental to this debate. It is what we should all be focusing on. We are already behind the drag curve on this. California has introduced transparency requirements, and no one can say that the developers are fleeing silicon valley just yet. New clause 20, tabled by the official Opposition, also addresses transparency. It would protect the AI sector from legal action by enabling both sides to come to the table and get a fair deal. A core part of this new clause is the requirement on the Secretary of State to commit to a plan to help support creators where their copyright has been used in AI by requiring a degree of transparency. New clause 5 would provide the means by which we could enforce the rules. It would give the Information Commissioner the power to investigate, assess and sanction bad actors. It would also entitle rights holders to recover damages for any losses suffered, and to injunctive relief. Part of the reason why rights holders are so concerned is that the vast majority of creators do not have deep enough pockets to take on AI developers. How can they take on billion-dollar big tech companies when those companies have the best lawyers that money can buy, who can bog cases down in legislation and red tape? Rights holders need a way of enforcing their rights that is accessible, practical and fair. The Government’s AI and copyright consultation says that it wants to ensure “a clear legal basis for AI training with copyright material”. That is what the new clauses that I have spoken to would deliver. Together they refute the tech sector’s claims of legal uncertainty, while providing transparency and enforcement capabilities for creators. Ultimately, transparency is the main barrier to greater collaboration between AI developers and creators. Notwithstanding some of the unambitious Government amendments, the Opposition’s amendments would provide the long-overdue redress to protect our creative industries by requiring transparency and a widening of the scope of those who are subject to copyright laws. The amendments would protect our professional creators and journalists, preserve the pipeline of young people looking to make a career in these sectors themselves, and cement the UK as a genuine creative industries superpower, maintaining our advantage in the field of monetising intellectual property. One day we may make a commercial advantage out of the fact that we are the place where companies can set up ethical AI companies—we could be the envy of the world.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right. English football thrives because the ecosystem runs from the grassroots to the top of the elite. Our job is to ensure that it continues to thrive, and that every aspect of that ecosystem is protected and supported. Some irresponsible club owners continue to play fast and loose with club finances and assets. Far too many clubs have been on the brink of collapse, and that is why the regulator must have a role in protecting English football. However, the regulator will need to bring together all voices in that complex ecosystem for it to work properly. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, is looking forward to our pre-appointment hearing with David Kogan, the preferred candidate, next week. It has been a long journey to get here, as I am sure the Secretary of State appreciates, having scheduled and then postponed hearings more than once, as Ministers have struggled to pick a candidate. The chair of the football regulator will be utterly critical to ensuring that the regulator performs its role well. They will steer the ship. They will set the temperature for football, going forward. They will have to come in on the front foot and broker strong relationships with stakeholders across football to get full buy-in. I have already spoken about some of the nay-sayers and detractors. The chair will need to build faith and demonstrate a good understanding of the dynamic football ecosystem to have the clout that they will need. However, they need to ensure they do not come with a load of industry baggage. It is a really difficult position to be in. At the same time, to be effective, they must demonstrate regulatory experience. Ultimately, the chair will have to demonstrate that they can be objective, fair and, crucially, independent of Government, the leagues and individual football clubs. It is a very difficult job to recruit for. Indeed, UEFA has raised concerns and threatened sanctions over the prospect of Government interference. That is why I am surprised that the Government have proposed a candidate who is so close to the Labour party, and who has donated money to the Chancellor and others. It raises concerns about whether the regulator can truly be seen as independent, given their close ties to members of the Government. I expect that the Committee will want to explore that in detail when we hear from Mr Kogan next week. He will need to demonstrate that he intends the regulator to be operationally 100% independent from political interference. I struggle to see how that will happen, but my mind is open, because the Select Committee’s job is to hold a pre-appointment hearing with this potential regulator. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the former chair of the BBC, clearly a talented, capable and very smart man, was undone by the impression that he gave of lacking independence from Government. Like the BBC, very many people out there are willing this body to fail, and I do not want to see that happen. The worst-case scenario for everybody is if the regulator is undermined in its infancy. Even before the chair is in place, there have been some concerning signs about the Government’s approach to the independent football regulator. We know that many clubs in the premier league in particular have expressed misgivings and in some cases very strong opposition to the regulator. Despite what the Secretary of State has said—she has spoken very strongly on this—there are some lingering doubts. The whole process has been plagued by leaks and delays. Members have seen and heard the rumours that the regulator was poised to be thrown out on to the latest bonfire of quangos even before it had started. When discussing the so-called blockers, it seems telling that the Government chose to single out the Gardens Trust, Sport England and the Theatres Trust, which will no longer be consulted over planning. When considering AI and copyright, the Government seem to be siding with big tech over creative industries. Members will forgive me for beginning to feel like the sectors we represent on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee are not valued by the Secretary of State’s Department. I look forward to hearing next week from the proposed regulator and to seeing the Bill progress through the House. I think the Bill can improve the resilience of clubs and encourage sensible financial decisions. I would like clarity on how the regulator will operate alongside the cost control measures that it will have no oversight of, such as premier league profit and sustainability rules, which we have recently seen clubs such as Chelsea manipulate to their own advantage and which will arguably undermine the regulator. I would be grateful if the Minister came back to me on that. I also want cast-iron assurances that the Bill will prevent the sort of painful, appalling situation that has been experienced by Reading FC with its owner, Dai Yongge. Otherwise, we will all be wasting our time. It is imperative that this Bill safeguards English football, which is central to our communities and to the national fabric of our country. Football is a unifier: it brings people together for the love of the game, from the grassroots to the top of the elite clubs, and it is the envy of the world. All the other countries in the world would love to have our football leagues. We must secure its future for generations to come.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I start my comments by speaking not as the Chair of the Select Committee, but as a football fan—in particular, with apologies to the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), as a Portsmouth FC fan. I understand very well what a football club means to a community, a local way of life and the fans, and what they will do to protect it. In the five years that followed Portsmouth’s fantastic FA cup victory in 2008, we really went through the wringer. The club boardroom seemed to have a revolving door. We had a succession of owners, each worse than the last. The club entered administration twice, and it had a 10-point deduction on two occasions. Pompey suffered three relegations in four seasons. I saw what that did to the city of my birth and to the fans, who feel as strongly about the club as I do. The club was pulled from the brink of oblivion by the largest fan-led buy-out in history—fans put their money where their mouth is. They had to, because the club was at risk of extinction. The Pompey Supporters Trust was formed. Some 2,300 Pompey fans invested their own money and became shareholders, raising around £2.5 million. Remarkably, under that fan-led ownership model, the Pompey Supporters Trust was able to declare the club debt-free in September 2014, just 18 months after taking over. Not all clubs are so lucky. Time and again we have heard in the Chamber stories of clubs falling into the hands of unscrupulous owners who have little regard or care for the club history, or what it means to the local community. They do not listen to the fans, who we all know are the blood that runs through the veins of our football clubs up and down the country. It was that, alongside the spectre of the European super league, that the previous Government had in mind when they commissioned the fan-led review, captained so brilliantly by my friend Dame Tracey Crouch. It was pivotal in the genesis of this Bill. I hope that this rebooted Bill will protect English football and keep clubs at the beating heart of their communities, just as much as its previous iteration did. Some of the Government’s changes to the legislation echo the previous Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recommendations. First, on enhanced fan engagement, we know that English football fans are some of the most passionate in the world. Their voices must be heard. For too long, fans have been left in the dark about decisions on ticket pricing, home shirt colour changes and home ground relocation. I welcome the Bill’s commitment on that. I also welcome the removal of the requirement for the regulator to consider Government foreign and trade policy when deciding whether to approve club takeovers. That should ensure the regulator’s operational independence from Government—a subject to which I will return. There has been controversy around aspects of the Bill, and particularly on the inclusion of parachute payments in the financial distribution mechanism, which has inevitably sparked hostility towards the Bill. However, in a room of 10 people there would be 10 different opinions on how the parachute payments should work. The legislation will never please everybody. Some people oppose the Bill entirely, and others have voiced dissent for myriad reasons; there is growing criticism of the Bill this time around. The sheer number of amendments tabled in the other place was a sign of that discontent. It will be crucial to ensure that the legislation is right, and we have only one chance to do so. I suggest we take a moment to remind ourselves of the findings of the fan-led review, and of why the idea of a regulator was conceived in the first place. It was conceived because self-regulation simply is not working, although it was given many chances over many years. The leagues have not been able to reach a deal on financial distribution themselves. We should not forget that, left to their own devices, six greedy clubs planned to break away to form the European super league, risking English football itself.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As the Select Committee looks into school and community sports, it has learned that the previous Government’s opening school facilities fund helped deliver sport to 300,000 people outside of school hours, seeing more girls, more disadvantaged pupils and more of those with special educational needs taking part. That fund ended on Monday, and I have already heard from two schools in my constituency that they will be scaling back their community provision. The Government talk a lot about the importance of communities and supporting young people, but this flies in the face of that, does it not?

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is almost as if the hon. Member had read what I wrote on my bit of paper. It is miraculous. I want to know her lottery numbers for next week. She is exactly right. My own Ukrainian family —and I call them family, because they are now part of my family—have made lives for themselves in this country, and they have become an asset to our community. In the event of a sustainable peace deal, Ukraine will of course want and need its brightest and best to return to rebuild the country, but so many of them simply do not have anything to go back to, such is the devastation that has been wrought by Russia in destroying 167,000 civilian buildings. UNESCO says that almost 500 cultural sites have also been lost as a result of Russia’s attempt to erase Ukrainian heritage, and so many of the communities that Ukrainians have fled just will not be the same. They will not have anything to go back to, and they will miss the familiar landmarks, meeting places and, most importantly and most sadly, the people they wanted to go back to.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Online Safety Act: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this vital debate. When he introduced the online safety White Paper in 2019, it was because we could not rely on big tech to regulate what was hosted on their platforms; it simply wasn’t working. Under the previous Government, we saw the tragic death of Molly Russell in 2017 and the complete failure of tech firms to adequately police illegal content on their sites, let alone the lawful but awful content that was being fed to our children from dawn till dusk. Here we are, six years later, to discuss how the Online Safety Act is being implemented. In the meantime, virtually every Minister who has held the baton for this issue, including myself for a couple of years, has used this piece of legislation as almost a silver bullet for every harm that is encountered in the online world. I have often said that if ever there was a piece of legislation for which the phrase, “We mustn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” was invented, it is this one. We now need to hit the ground running and ensure that the legislation is implemented fast and effectively, in line with the sentiment that gave rise to it, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam suggested. Every day that Ofcom does not enforce its age assurance requirements for porn providers and illegal harms codes is a day that young children across the country are at serious risk of having their childhood stolen. The Online Safety Act was a complicated and groundbreaking piece of legislation. No other Government in the world at the time had attempted to regulate the internet so effectively. I was pleased that when the Bill came back from the House of Lords, it was not just the size of the platforms that was taken into account when deciding the category of service, but the level of risk they represented, which is also really important. It is important to recognise that other countries and the EU have legislated while we have refined, and now we need to act. I am glad that since the Act was passed in October 2023, Ofcom has worked at pace to bring forward codes on areas such as children’s safety duties, illegal harms and age assurance, which will have a massive and tangible impact. Ofcom intends to consult on further proposals to strengthen the codes this spring, and it is really important that that focuses on the issues we are seeing, such as hash-matching for terrorist and intimate image abuse content. That is particularly important considering the emergence of deepfakes as the new front in the war against women and girls—99% of pornographic images and deepfakes are of women. In the light of this increasingly agile, polarising and inventive online world, I am concerned by reports in the media that the Government have decided to put the drive to keep protections up to date with tech developments on ice. There are reports in The Telegraph that Elon Musk is pushing for the Act to be watered down as part of a bargain to avoid trade tariffs. We are all looking for reassurance that, after so many years of work on this legislation by so many people, the Government will not water down or somehow filter its protections. The Government have acknowledged that there has been an increase in suicides among young people, with suicide-related internet use found in 26% of deaths in under-20s. They made a manifesto commitment to build on this Act, and they must not row back on that. We cannot give up the fight to make the digital world a more pleasant and user-friendly place. We must never forget that if internet companies were doing what they say they are to implement their own terms and conditions, this legislation would not even be necessary, and the Government need to hold them to account.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  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”.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk about our world-leading creative industries. I listened very carefully to everything the Minister said, and there was a lot of it. I love his undoubted passion for these sectors, and I love the understanding he has for them and the really strong rhetoric he puts into his support for them. I just hope and pray that it is contagious, and that he has the energy to ensure that it delivers a real, meaningful and robust commitment from the Government that turns into action on behalf of these sectors. There is so much we can be proud of. In the past couple of weeks we have seen Oscar nominations for Felicity Jones, Cynthia Erivo, Ralph Fiennes and everyone’s favourite, “Wallace and Gromit”. I am sure the Minister was not impervious to the brat summer that we all went through last year, reflected in Charli XCX’s five Brit award nominations. This year, we will have the inaugural South by Southwest London event and the World Design Congress, which will be taking place here for the first time in more than 50 years. Our creative industries are remarkable and they have an immense soft power value. I welcome the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office working together to increase the UK’s influence abroad. As ever, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is a trailblazer, working with the Foreign Affairs Committee and the International Development Committee last year to look at the BBC World Service and its future. Ministers can expect to see the results very soon. The launch of the Soft Power Council, as a collaboration between DCMS and the FCDO, has been welcomed by the creative industries. I say welcomed, but I should say tentatively welcomed. Alongside warm words, the sector also needs to see the Government walk the walk if they are really to harness the global super power of our creative industries, whether by cutting red tape, establishing bilateral cultural agreements that enable our creatives to tour the world, or looking at how we pitch Government intervention to ensure the world continues to invest here. With that in mind, I am concerned that the breadth of the creative industries is under-represented on the council. Fashion, design, video games and, apart from music, most of the performing arts are missing, despite their immense popularity and international influence. I wonder whether the Minister could look at that.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the hon. Lady would also recognise that there will be sites in her constituency and beyond that were saved during the pandemic by the actions of the then Government. Some £1.57 billion in the culture recovery fund protected cultural venues up and down the country from what was potentially an existential crisis.

• 14 Jan 2025 · UK Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Among our greatest UK exports are our culture and our creative industries, so I am keen to hear what conversations the Foreign Secretary has had with international counterparts—not only to improve the opportunity for British artists to tour, particularly post Brexit, but to take advantage of the appetite for bilateral cultural agreements, which has been articulated by a number of our overseas counterparts.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Grassroots Sport · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister knows that grassroots sports provide enormous health, economic, welfare and community benefits. That is why today, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is launching an inquiry that we are calling “Game On” into community, grassroots and school sports, and the interventions needed to improve them. What conversations is the Minister having with her counterpart in the Department for Education about how to work collaboratively to build a lifelong love and passion for sport, given the benefits for young people’s health and wellbeing?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Online Safety: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has called a debate on a really important issue. Could she set out why she thinks that now is a really important time to discuss this vital topic?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Online Safety: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who made really powerful and impactful comments, as have all those who have spoken today. I join her tribute to the bereaved families who have done such incredible work to campaign on this vital issue. I should, before anything else, direct everybody to the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who was the architect—the genesis—behind the Online Safety Act. I was one of the many Ministers who took over that baton for a couple of years and pulled the Act together. As the hon. Member for Darlington said, only when we meet families who have been deeply impacted by online dangers and online harms does the impact of this really land with us. For me, meeting Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly took her own life in 2017 as a result of the content that she had seen online, underlined how incredibly disastrous for young and vulnerable people the harms of the internet can be. As the hon. Lady said, it is not just about the sites that are hosting inappropriate content; it is about the algorithms that take someone’s fears and anxieties and put them into an echo chamber where they are normalised and reinforced, which is the most dangerous part of this. Unfortunately, it is the algorithms that social media companies prize above everything else; they are the most jealously guarded parts of their organisations. Molly was one example resulting from that, but there are so many other examples of suicide, self-harm, anxiety, eating disorders and body image issues that come out of that world. A year on from the Online Safety Act, it is interesting to see how it is fully implemented, particularly against the backdrop of the speed at which technology is evolving. It is frightening because, virtually every week in our constituencies, we see examples of the harms that are out there. In my constituency, just in the last couple of weeks, junior-age children were using the online world to bully and harass each other. That is something that used to stay within the school gates. Bullying still happened—I am so elderly, and it happened when I was at school—but it was something that was left behind at the school gates; it did not follow you home. Also, 27% of children have seen pornography by the age of 11, which brings a very toxic view of sex and relationships. The Online Safety Act will hopefully encourage providers to do what they say they are doing when it comes to protecting children online, but the Minister has a huge responsibility to make sure that that happens, and to hold not just them but Ofcom to account to make sure that it is robustly implementing the guidelines that it is setting up. There are some amazing champions of that—Baroness Kidron has made incredible strides in the other place—but we need to make sure that Ofcom has not only the powers but the capacity. It has a huge amount under its jurisdiction and there is a huge amount of pressure. I know that the Minister will work very hard to ensure that it is held to account and equipped with what it needs.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Online Safety: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 12 Nov 2024 · Tackling Image-based Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) for tabling such an important debate, and she made some really powerful points. I declare an interest: being very elderly, at one stage I was the Minister for Women and Equalities, and I was responsible for bringing forward the Revenge Porn Helpline. When that legislation came through, I was hopeful that that vital resource would be something temporary, and that one day it would be abolished because we did not need it any more. In actual fact, quite the opposite is true: it is busier than ever. As the hon. Member for Bolton North East said, it is catching some terrible perpetrators of the most horrific online abuse. I was also the Minister for Digital and Culture who held the baton for a couple of years on the Online Safety Act 2023. I hope that legislation will offer more protection for the victims of this humiliating crime, which, as we know, disproportionately affects women. But technology moves so fast. I am concerned that, despite the protections in the Act and the Revenge Porn Helpline, the emergence of deepfakes in particular has opened up a new front in the war on women—I say that because 99% of pornographic images and deepfakes are of women. Literally tens of millions of deepfake images are being produced every year, most of them sexual, as the hon. Member for Bolton North East said. The fact that the use of nudification apps and the creation of ultra-realistic deepfake porn for private use is still legal, and worse, becoming more popular, is a war on women’s autonomy. It is a war on our dignity, and a war on our identity. The creation of these unpleasant sexual or nude deepfakes serves to push us out of those spaces and to undermine and silence us, both online and offline. We must do everything we can to stand against it. I am sure the Minister agrees that we owe a debt to my noble Friend Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge for her work to legislate in this area. She encountered some hate of her own when she was appointed to the other place—she was too young and too female—but her very presence there indicates exactly why we need young women in both Houses to stand up against these injustices and bring them to the fore. I hope the Minister will do everything in her power to see my noble Friend’s fantastic Bill become law.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. I would love to see something done to exempt the childcare and adult social care sectors in particular from the policy. The Budget also threatens many organisations that are central to the regeneration of our communities. I welcome the fact that the cliff edge for business rate relief for hospitality, leisure and retail has been reduced, but what the Chancellor gave with one hand she took away with the other, because hospitality venues can now expect to see their costs increase by £3 billion. In my constituency, that will potentially cripple 146 businesses, which employ around 2,000 people. While Ministers talk about the value of our creative industries, tourism and hospitality, they are ignoring their fragile state. The chief executive officer of the Sound and Music charity has said that the measures will impose an extra £7 million in additional taxes on the grassroots live music sector. The Music Venue Trust estimates that, without additional support, 10% of remaining venues will see their doors close. That is up to 120 venues, 4,000 jobs and 25,000 performances opportunities all lost. As well as being a Budget of broken promises, I suspect that this will become known as a Budget of unintended consequences. The decisions that the Chancellor has taken will have real, tangible impacts on the community and those across the country. Not only that, but we are saddling future generations with billions of pounds of debt to pay for it.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Pub and Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for raising this important debate. We can see from the number of people here how much this touches every single one of us. In my constituency, local venues, pubs and restaurants are seeing a triple whammy of pressure with increased wage costs, increased energy costs and the significant rise in business rates as rates relief comes to an end. That is having a massive impact. Nationally, these venues are closing at a rate of 50 a month. I am reminded of work by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee earlier this year looking at grassroots music venues, because of course many pubs and restaurants are live music venues as well. They are also the R&D department of our globally successful music industry—they are vital to it—and they are closing at the rate of two a week. Two things the Committee advocated in our report were, first, a levy to go between the big arenas to the small, independent venues and, secondly, a time-limited and very targeted VAT cut. I would like to make the argument for such a cut for small independent hospitality venues. I do not want to take the argument purely into numbers, because these venues are so important in the way they make us feel—they can regenerate communities and can address social isolation and loneliness—but they are vital for our local economy and for jobs. In the Gosport constituency alone, these venues employ 2,000 people across 146 venues. They are vital. The knock-on effect of venue closure can be devastating. A time-limited and very targeted VAT cut could be a lifeline for some of the venues that are struggling and still have not got back up to speed and back to pre-pandemic opening hours.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Multi-sport Grassroots Facilities · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will know that grassroots sports venues play a key role in improving the nation’s health. The UK will host the T20 women’s world cup in 2026, and cricket will join the Olympic family of sports in 2028. The previous Government committed a £35 million investment into 16 grassroots cricket hubs and cricket domes. Will the Minister commit this Government to fulfilling that promise?