Chris Bryant MP: speeches 2025

704 published records · newest first.

Speeches

7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source
More
No, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) could come over here; I am not going back over there. The point I was going to make is that I am fully cognisant of my duties. I think the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the artificial intelligence copyright issues that we will be addressing fairly shortly. I like the fact that I am in both Departments, because it means I can bring the knowledge of both sectors to bear on each other. If we are lucky, and if we work hard at it, I hope that I will be able to persuade him that we can come to a win-win solution. As he knows, this is not easy. When I had my first meeting with him after I was appointed in the post, he said, “This is not an easy area to resolve.” I hope I am not breaking a confidence—but he is smiling. I have a large number of topics to cover, and I am conscious that many Members will think this is the data Bill, when we will actually be dealing with an awful lot of subjects this afternoon that do not feel as if they have anything to do with the measures in the original version brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman and previously. I hope that Members will bear with me. I intend to address the Government’s amendments as follows: first, AI and copyright; secondly, deepfakes; thirdly, the national underground assets register; and then smart data and other minor and technical amendments. I will start with AI and intellectual property. As Members know, it was never the Government’s intention to legislate on that issue at all in this Bill. It is a complex and important issue, which is why we have consulted on a package of measures. That consultation had more than 11,500 responses, which we are still considering. Several hon. Members have said to me, “Will you remove the opt-out clause in the Bill?” I need to make it absolutely clear that no such opt-out clause is in the Bill. We never laid one in the Bill, so there is not an opt-out clause to remove. As Members will also know, the Lords inserted a set of amendments on AI and copyright, which we removed in Committee. They reappear on the amendment paper today as new clauses 2 to 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). A similar measure has been tabled as new clause 14 by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). We oppose all these new clauses for several reasons. First, they pre-empt the results of the consultation. It must surely be better to legislate on this complex subject in the round rather than piecemeal. The amendments are also unworkable. New clause 5, for instance, would make the Information Commissioner the regulator of transparency requirements, but the Information Commissioner’s Office has neither the skills nor the resources to perform that function. Obviously, transparency requirements without an effective enforcement mechanism are worse than useless, which means the other clauses on transparency are also unworkable in this context. The new clauses also fail to address some of the most important questions in this area. They effectively legislate piecemeal rather than in the round. Whenever Parliament has done that in the past, it has rued the day, and I think the same is true today.
7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source
More
The right hon. Member makes a fair point.
7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source
More
I should have said earlier that, as the shadow Minister knows, in Committee we changed the clause on “soliciting” to one on “requesting” such an image, because in certain circumstances soliciting may require the exchange of money. That is why we now have the requesting offence.
7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source
More
As ever, it is good to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. If I do not manage to get to any of the individual issues that have been raised, and to which people want answers, I am afraid that is because of a shortness of time, and I will seek to write to them. I thank the officials who helped to put the Bill together, particularly Simon Weakley—not least because he not only did this Bill, but all the previous versions in the previous Parliament. He deserves a long-service medal, if not something more important. I will start with the issues around new clauses 1, 11, 12 and 13, and amendment 9. The Government completely share the concern about the vulnerability of young people online, which lots of Members have referred to. However, the age of 13 was set in the Data Protection Act 2018—I remember, because I was a Member at the time. It reflects what was considered at the time to be the right balance between enabling young people to participate online and ensuring that their data is protected. Some change to protecting children online is already in train. As of last month, Ofcom finalised the child safety codes, a key pillar of the Online Safety Act. Guidance published at the same time started a three-month period during which all in-scope services likely to be accessed by children will be required to assess the risk of harm their services pose to them. From July, the Act will require platforms to implement measures to protect children from harm, and this is the point at which we expect child users to see a tangible, positive difference to their online experiences. I wish it had been possible for all this to happen earlier— I wish the Act had been in a different year—but it is the Act it is. The new provisions include highly effective age checks to prevent children encountering the most harmful content, and adjusting algorithms to reduce the exposure to harmful content. Services will face tough enforcement from Ofcom if they fail to comply. The Act very much sets the foundation for protecting children online. The Government continue to consider further options in pursuit of protecting children online, which is why the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology commissioned a feasibility study to understand how best to investigate the impact of smartphones and social media on children’s wellbeing. This will form an important part of our evidence base.
7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source
More
Personally, I am in favour of doing something about personality rights, but it is one of the things that is in the consultation, to which will we respond. It is one of the things for which we will need to legislate in the round.
7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source
More
That is not intentional. It is exactly the same level of granularity that we will go into in our reporting.
7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source
More
I thought that that might engender something.
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.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →