Chris Bryant MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I thought there was a reason. Coming out matters for our personal pride and our collective pride, so that every boy and girl growing up does not internalise hatred, scorn and shame as used to be the case but learns cheerful happiness and opportunity, and so that every family can take pride in their LGBT child, sister, cousin or aunt. From the first bricks thrown at Stonewall to this month’s marches, Pride is a movement rooted in resistance and the refusal to be silenced, sidelined or shamed. It is about visibility in the face of erasure—and, talking of Erasure, it is about a little respect. There is one final reason that we need to celebrate Pride. The safest place in the 20th century for gay men was Germany in 1930, where men danced together and loved one another with impunity. But, within a decade, the Nazis were carting them off to Dachau and demanding they inform on others. When the war was over—perhaps equally shockingly—nobody wanted to memorialise them; we were erased, and erased from history. Our hard-won freedoms are never won in perpetuity; we need to secure them again and again in every generation. Progress is never inevitable; it must be defended, deepened and delivered to every generation. Today, we speak against a backdrop of heightened tension. In the last decade, we have seen the consensus around LGBT+ rights begin to fray, we have seen public debate grow increasingly toxic and we have seen trans people in particular subjected to fear, misinformation and ridicule. Pastors in the United States today are calling for the death penalty for homosexuals. Jonathan Shelley in Arlington said that “we should hate Pride, not celebrate it”. On the shooting of LGBT people in the Pulse nightclub in 2016, Donnie Romero, who is also a pastor in Arlington, said that those who were killed were “all perverts…they’re the scum of the Earth and the Earth is a better place now”. That is what we are still facing today. That is why the Government will not tolerate about a rolling back of rights, nor a politics of division that pits one group against another. That is why we are delivering a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. Those so-called therapies are nothing less than abuse. They do not work, they cause deep, lasting harm, and their continued existence is a stain on any society that claims to be inclusive. Draft legislation will be published in this Session, informed by wide-ranging engagement and guided by the need to protect, not punish—to prevent harm, not criminalise care. We are also working with the Home Office to equalise all hate crime strands. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who raised the matter last week. No one should face abuse, violence or discrimination because of who they are or who they love, yet across the country LGBT people—especially trans people—are being targeted with growing intensity. In too many cases, the law does not yet offer equal protection. That is not justice; the Government will act. We are also improving access to fertility services for lesbian and bisexual women. As of November, same-sex couples are no longer subject to unnecessary additional screening costs for IVF, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently reviewing its fertility guidelines, which will help to ensure more equitable access to NHS-funded treatment, regardless of sexuality or relationship status. This Government recognise that building a family is a human aspiration, not anyone’s privilege. We are also strengthening healthcare services for trans people. We are launching a review of gender identity services to ensure they meet modern standards of equality, safety and accessibility. That includes reducing waiting times, expanding service capacity and improving mental health support throughout the transition journey. We are investing in housing solutions for young LGBT+ people at risk of homelessness, too. Far too many are pushed out of their homes or fall through the cracks in mainstream services. We will soon establish an inter-ministerial taskforce on this, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, to co-ordinate efforts across all Departments. Our commitment to dignity and equality does not end at our borders. Right now, 63 countries criminalise same-sex activity, and in 13 of those countries the death penalty can be applied. At least 49 countries actively target trans and gender-diverse people with discriminatory laws. In many of those countries, shamefully, that is a direct legacy of British colonial rule: legislation that we imposed continues to harm people. We cannot undo the past, but we must take responsibility for the future, which is why the UK is a proud member of the Equal Rights Coalition, why we have invested over £40 million to support global LGBT rights, and why our diplomatic missions work every day behind the scenes to support local advocates, challenge repressive laws and offer hope to those facing persecution. If there were any Reform Members in the Chamber, I would point out that that sometimes means putting up a Pride flag. We are seeing a backlash, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) said, but we are also seeing breakthroughs. This year, Thailand became the first south-east Asian country to legalise same-sex marriage—hurrah! In Namibia and Dominica, consensual same-sex acts were decriminalised. In India, the Supreme Court is reviewing discriminatory blood donation policies. There is light in this tunnel. I want to address the recent Supreme Court ruling, because I know it matters to a large number of people. It was, of course, a significant legal judgment, and one that has understandably prompted discussion and—in some cases—fear. Let me be absolutely clear: the rights and protections for trans people under the Equality Act 2010 remain firmly in place. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment still applies. Discrimination, harassment or victimisation of trans people is unlawful and will remain so under this Government. The ruling has offered important clarity for service providers—particularly those offering single-sex spaces—and we respect the Court’s decision. We reject any attempts to weaponise the ruling to roll back the hard-won dignity and inclusion of trans people. This is not and must never become a zero-sum debate. We can protect single-sex spaces based on clear, lawful criteria while also protecting the fundamental rights and dignity of trans people who—let us not forget—are among the most marginalised and misunderstood in our society.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I am really grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point, and it is good that it is a point of agreement across the whole House. There was a time when large numbers of people in this House would have thought that having gay men, lesbians or trans people in the armed forces was anathema, and I am so glad that we have changed. The shields on the wall up there are dedicated to Members of Parliament who were killed in the second world war, and at least five, if not six, of them were gay men who gave their lives in defence of this country. Bravery is available to people regardless of their sexuality or their identity. The right hon. Gentleman is also absolutely right to refer to Terence. His report was an essential part of changing the landscape in this country and making sure that compensation was available to the individuals who were affected. [ Official Report , 30 June 2025; Vol. 770, c. 1WC.] (Correction) We should acknowledge the fundamental truth that trans people have always been at the forefront of our movement. From Marsha P. Johnson in New York to Mark Ashton here in the UK, trans people and gender non-conforming people have led protests, shaped policy and built community, often with little recognition or safety in return. At Stonewall, at section 28 protests, in the founding of support services and HIV charities, and at the heart of every movement that pushed us forward, trans people were there and they led. We owe them a debt of gratitude, so to treat them now as a threat to the very movement they helped build is wrong. We will not forget their role, and we will not leave them behind. Trans people deserve safety, dignity and the same freedom to live their lives as anyone else, and under this Government they will have it. On 29 August 1924, Edward Carpenter had his 80th birthday. He had famously campaigned for our rights and lived with his lover, George Merrill. Indeed, he was probably the model for E. M. Forster’s novel “Maurice”, which I think was published only after E. M. Forster’s death. Carpenter was a brave campaigner at a time when it was impossible to be brave. Men were still being imprisoned with hard labour for homosexuality in 1924, when he came to his 80th birthday, so it was a phenomenal act of bravery when every single member of the Labour Cabinet—there was a Labour Government in 1924—signed a letter to Carpenter wishing him a happy birthday. That kind of magnanimity should be the hallmark of our politics today. We are not yet the country that we could be, but in all we do in our hospitals and our schools, in our laws and our language, in our foreign policy and our public services, this Government will uphold one principle: a little respect for all. Let that be the legacy of this House.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on in a moment to some of the problems that I think we have, but when I was first elected as a Member of Parliament, there were still many laws in this country that drastically affected the rights of LGBTQ people in this country, and it is because of political parties that we changed the law. We should not discard the democratic process; it is absolutely essential to being able to secure our rights. We need to remember that in this country we used to hang men for having sex together and imprison them just for meeting or sending each other a love note. This is a serious business, but we also need to celebrate. I remember that on one of the Pride marches I went on, we shouted all the way, “We’re here, we’re queer and we’ve not gone shopping!” We chanted it all the way down Oxford Street, which is ironic in itself. We have to celebrate, because not every LGBT story is a tragedy, and I wish the film and television industry would learn this. We are extraordinarily normal. That is a terrible word, really, but we are phenomenally normal. We bleed when we are cut and we laugh when we are tickled, and we can defy every stereotype going. I hate to break it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but not all gay men like musicals—I don’t understand that, but I have met a few—and apparently not all lesbians enjoy tennis or smoke cigars. [ Interruption. ] I do not know what is going on behind me.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I said it would be in this Session of Parliament, not this Parliament.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I have finished.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  And the things you do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker—anyway. I beg to move, That this House has considered Pride Month. I should start by declaring an interest in this Pride debate. The Daily Mail once referred to me as an “ex-gay vicar”. I am an ex-vicar, but the other stuff is coming along quite nicely. In fact, I am a practising homosexual—one day I will be quite good at it. People ask me, “Why on earth do you need a Pride Month? Do you really need LGBT History Month? What’s the point of Pride marches and Pride flags? Hasn’t the world changed? Haven’t you already got same-sex marriage and adoption, gays in the police and the military, and laws that protect people from discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation or gender reassignment? What more do you want?” That is what I hear all the time, even from really well-meaning, liberal souls. But we have always needed Pride. We needed it when people lazily assumed that a short haircut meant that you were a lesbian or a lisp meant that you were gay. We needed it when people laughed at Larry Grayson and John Inman but forced them to hide their sexuality. We needed it when people said that we should be harassed, arrested and locked up for loving who we wanted. We needed it when the police wore rubber gloves to arrest us, just in case we gave them AIDS. We needed it when we were called queer, faggot and arse bandit at school. We needed it when we were sneered at, spat at, punched, kicked and beaten up. And we need Pride now—when kids are still bullied because they are camp or butch; when families still throw their LGBT children out of the home; when many are so worn down by abuse that they take their own lives; when so many are so terrified of coming out that they live lives of terrible, crushing loneliness; when people are abused for wanting to transition; when our cousins in Hungary are denied the right to demonstrate; when the state police in many countries deliberately entrap homosexuals; when trans people are treated as less than human; and when homosexuality is still illegal in 63 countries, including 38 that apply those rules to women, and including more than half the Commonwealth. Yes, we still need Pride.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Gentleman is giving way to me, but, yes, I said that it would be in this Session of Parliament, which is a pretty clear timeline.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 49F and proposes, in lieu of the Lords Amendment, amendment (a) to Commons amendment 45, amendments (b), (c) and (d) to Commons amendment 46 and amendment (e) to the Bill. I fear it is an inevitable aspect of ping-pong that there is a degree of repetitiveness about our proceedings. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), said last week that it reminded him of the film “Groundhog Day”, but that refers to the Pennsylvania Dutch superstition that if a groundhog emerges from its burrow on 2 February and sees its own shadow, it will retreat to its den and winter will go on for six more weeks. Well, I can see my shadow and I just hope that ping-pong is not going to continue for another six weeks. Last week, I covered some misconceptions about the contents of the Bill and what we are trying to achieve separately in relation to artificial intelligence and copyright. I fear that some of those misconceptions persist. The Guardian carried the following sentence this weekend: “The AI Bill, which proposes allowing‬ tech companies to use copyrighted material, has suffered‬ a fifth defeat in the Lords.” That was repeated by one of the presenters on the “Today” programme, who stated that the Bill allows AI companies to use copyright material. I am glad the “Today” programme has apologised and corrected‬ the record. Let me reiterate: this is not an AI Bill and it does not propose changing copyright in any regard whatsoever. If the Bill goes forward in the way proposed by the Government, there will be no diminution in the robustness of the UK copyright regime. Sometimes I want to say, in the words of Richard II, “you have mistook us all this while.” ‬‬

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

  More

  With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a few comments, because it is important to respond to some of the questions that have been asked. Two of my hon. Friends referred to the report that the BFI published yesterday. I warmly commend it to all Members, not least because it makes points that others have made about AI, but also because it makes the point that if films and high-end television in the UK are to be successful in the future, we cannot have this critical shortfall in AI education, which is entirely piecemeal at the moment. We know about that in the Department, and it is one of the things that we want to change. Several Members have asked who will be involved in the various different groups. I want to draw on all the expertise in both Houses to ensure that we can find the right answers. I do not want to undermine anything that the Select Committees might do, jointly or separately, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), I am keen for all the parts of the creative industries to engage in this process. The difficulty is that we might end up with a very large roundtable, and people might have to bear with us when it comes to how we structure that.

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

  More

  We have said from the very beginning that transparency is absolutely key to our ability to deliver the package that we would like to put together, and I do not resile from that, but it is only one part of the jigsaw that we need to join up. I point out to the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) that some of the items on the amendment paper are things that the two Select Committees asked us to do. She is normally more generous to me, and to others, than she has been today. She has clearly forgotten that the last Government introduced plans that would have produced a text and data mining exemption for commercial exploitation of copyrighted materials without any additional protections for the creative industries. That seems to have slipped her mind. We have moved a great deal since the introduction of the Bill. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—who is sitting beside me—and I have moved. We have listened to their lordships, and, more importantly, we have listened to what the creative industries have had to say. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me whether I had ever known anything like this situation. Other bills have gone to five rounds of ping-pong, but in the past the row has always been about what is in the Bill, not what is not in the Bill. This is not an AI Bill, and it will not change the copyright regime in this country. I want that regime to be as robust as it ever has been, so that those in the creative industries can be remunerated and earn a living, as they deserve to. That is precisely what we intend to achieve, but we want to get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. That is why I need the House to vote with us this afternoon, and I hope that their lordships will agree with us tomorrow. Question put .

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

  More

  I thought that might happen.

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

  More

  Even to you.

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

  More

  Okay, although my hon. Friend was not here earlier.

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

  More

  I completely agree with the last point that my hon. Friend makes. Scrutiny of Government legislation through the proper processes in either this House or the other House—or through Select Committees, for that matter, which do it in a slightly different way—is one thing, and the business of developing policy is another. I completely apologise for the inadvertent sending of the email to the wrong address and all the rest of it. We are simply trying to engage as many Members in this House and the other House as we possibly can, on a matter that clearly matters to a great number of Members of Parliament because of their constituents. That includes my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who I know has a very large creative community in her own constituency. We want to involve as many people as we possibly can. We may be moving faster on occasions than people want, but sometimes the demand is that we move faster. I apologise for the inadvertent discourtesy, but we are simply trying to engage as many people in the future debate as we possibly can.

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

  More

  I am about to come to that—my hon. Friend has a faster timeline than I have. There is of course expertise in Parliament, which is why I commit today that the Government will convene a series of meetings to keep interested parliamentarians informed on progress on this important issue, so that we can benefit from their input as we develop our thinking before any formal proposals are brought back to Parliament. The working group meetings will include a cross-party group of Members, made up of MPs and peers. We hope that the group can act as an informal sounding board, but it is not intended to replicate or replace the normal scrutiny role of established bodies, such as Select Committees. I see that the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), is in her dutiful place as usual; I would not dream of seeking to tell her Committee what to do or how to conduct its business, but we would none the less like to be able to draw on its members and their expertise.

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

  More

  Before I do, I will say that because my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is the Chair of the Liaison Committee, I wonder if it would be useful if she and I met in the next few days with the Chairs of the two most relevant Committees to discuss precisely what shape all that should take and what would be useful and informative, rather than doing anything that might undermine the process.

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

  More

  In the end, the single most important compromise will be between the AI sector and the creative industries sector. That is the bit that we need to negotiate over the next few months. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the idea of simply putting one part of the jigsaw into this Bill. The truth is that if we are going to get to a proper compromise solution, it will require all the bits of the jigsaw to be put together into a comprehensive picture. That means that we need to go through a proper process. The last time we discussed these things, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) referred to the noble Lord Peter Mandelson and amendments that he thought were tabled to deal with Napster in the Digital Economy Act 2010. Because I had some spare time over the weekend, I read all the debates on that Act in 2010, and we went through a process to get to that Act: we produced a White Paper and then legislation, which went through both Houses. It was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Mandelson and in the House of Commons by Ben Bradshaw. In fact, most of that Act was so controversial that in the end, it was never implemented by the Government who took over in 2010, and large chunks of the Act were taken out when it collided with the 2010 general election. I am not sure that things were quite as the hon. Gentleman thought at the time, but the key point is that we need to go through a proper process of bringing forward conciliation in this area. That means introducing legislation once we have considered the responses to the consultation, bringing forward our economic impact assessments, considering all the different aspects that really matter to the creative industries and the tech companies, and then considering legislation. I want to do that as fast as we possibly can, because I want to get to a solution for all of this problem. The Government have tabled amendments to put these commitments in the Bill. The amendments were initially tabled in the other place, but they were not voted on by peers, who instead insisted on the amendment that we disagreed to last Tuesday—in fact, as I understand it, the amendments were not moved. They show our commitment to ensuring considered and effective solutions, as I have outlined, and demonstrate that we have unequivocally heard the concerns about timing and accountability. We need to do one other piece of work. The House already knows that we will bring together working groups to consider transparency and technical solutions. They will have AI and creative industry representatives on them and will be extra-parliamentary.

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

  More

  I see that I am getting a slight nod from the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee about the prospect of our meeting to sort out a way forward on that. I will say a few words about ping-pong. Some peers have suggested that different rules apply because the Bill started in the Lords. That is simply not true. Double insistence would kill the Bill wherever the Bill had started, and I take people at their word when they say that they do not want to kill the Bill. It has important measures that will enable digital verification services, the national underground asset register and smart data schemes to grow the economy; that will save NHS time; that will make vital amendments to our policing laws; and that will support the completion of the EU’s adequacy review. Its provisions have the support of all parties in both Houses, which is why I urge this House to accept our amendments in lieu and urge the Lords not to insist on their amendment but to agree with us. It is worth pointing out that if their lordships do persist, they are not just delaying and imperilling a Bill that all parties agree is an important and necessary piece of legislation; they are imperilling something of much greater significance and importance economically: our data adequacy with the European Union. The successful renewal of our EU adequacy decisions is predicated on us having settled law as soon as possible, and we will not have that until the Bill gains Royal Assent. I cannot overemphasise how important this is, and I am absolutely mystified as to why the Liberal Democrats—of all parties—would want to imperil that. I am equally mystified by the position of the Conservative party. They tabled amendments in the Commons Committee and Report stages that are almost exactly mirrored by what we have already added to the Bill and are adding today. I very much hope therefore that the Conservative party will agree to our motion. It is not as if it disagrees with any of the measures in the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness Kidron, who said in the Lords, “I want to make it absolutely clear that, whatever transpires today, I will accept the choice the Government make.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 755.] It was a point she reiterated later in the debate when she said, “if we” —that is, the Lords— “choose to vote on this and successfully pass it, I will accept anything that the Commons does… I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 773.] The noble Baroness is right. In the end, only one House is elected; only one House constitutes the Government of the day; and, especially where a Bill was adumbrated in a general election as this one was, the unelected House treads carefully. That is all the more important when the governing party has barely a fifth of the members of the other House. We have listened to the other House and taken action. There may be disagreements about the measures we have taken, but it would be wrong to say that we have not listened. It is time for the Houses to agree that the Bill must go forward. I will say one final word about creativity. We live in an exceptional age. When our parents were young, they were lucky if their family had a television or a record player. They might occasionally go to a gig, concert or play. If they did have a television, they had a choice of just two or three channels. By contrast, today we are surrounded by human creativity in a way that no other generation was. Technology has brought us multiple channels where we can pick and choose whatever we want, whenever we want to see it. We watch more drama than ever. We can listen to our own choice of music on the train, on the bus or in the car. We can play games online with friends on the other side of the world. More books are published than ever. We can read or listen to them. Almost twice as many people went to the theatre last year as went to a premier league match. There are many challenges, all of which we need to address, including that of the interaction of AI with human creativity, but creativity is a quintessence of our humanity. It requires human-to-human connection, and I do not think for a single instant that that will change.

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

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not going to do that. He also knows that the enforcement of copyright law is not a matter for Government because it is not the Government who enforce it. I have the enforcement regulations in my hand. Chapter VI of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 makes it very clear that infringement is actionable by copyright owners. In common with many bits of the law and with statute law in the UK, enforcement is not normally by Government. It is by either the prosecuting authorities or by people taking a civil action. Those are the measures that exist in copyright law today and we are not changing them in a single regard. Having said all that, I acknowledge the strong feelings expressed in both Houses about the need to protect the intellectual property rights of 2.4 million people who work in the creative industries in this country, including the significant proportion of the creative industries represented by the tech industries, which this week are celebrating London Tech Week. It must be said that their lordships have been persistent, so much so that they remind me of a poem by Robert Browning, “A Toccata of Galuppi’s”, about the 18th century Venetian composer Baldassare Galuppi. It uses several musical terms, such as the dominant, and includes the line: “Hark, the dominant’s persistence till it must be answered to!” The Lords have been persistent, which is why we have not just listened to them; we have heard them, and we are answering them. Although the Bill, which was drafted largely by the previous Government, did not originally refer to the matter of copyright at all, that is why at a previous stage we tabled specific requirements on the Government to produce an economic impact assessment of the options available to us and to report on key issues, including transparency, technical solutions, access to data and copyright licensing within 12 months. In response to their lordships, we are going several steps further. First, we are adding two further reporting requirements on approaches to models trained overseas and on how transparency and other requirements should be enforced. Secondly, in response to the call for us to work faster—meeting the point just made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith)—we will deliver the economic impact assessment and reports within nine months, rather than 12 months. Thirdly, we are introducing a new requirement that the Secretary of State make a progress statement to Parliament about the documents within six months of Royal Assent.

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

  More

  I feel told off, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you very much. I have been told off for talking too long, for talking too short, for going too fast and for going too slow. My point is that we are already committed to creating two working groups that will look at transparency and at technical solutions to the problems that we face. Both of them will have members of the creative industries and members of tech and AI companies engaged in them. In addition, we want to have a separate group of Members of this House and the other House who are engaged with and have an interest in the subject to help us to develop these policy areas. I think it is best to keep those separate, and that is the plan. As we know, the Secretary of State has already written to the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees, but I hope that what I have just said is helpful.

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

  More

  I have spoken to Ministers in Northern Ireland, and they have already laid that legislative consent motion. My understanding is that that process will be fully done in time for Royal Assent, so he need not worry. We have sorted that one out, too. I promised the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), that I was about to come on to the precise details of the amendment, so I will address that. First, as Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, my noble colleague, said in the Lords yesterday, “the Government’s report on the use of copyright work in the development of AI systems will address two additional areas, specifically highlighted by the noble Baroness’s original amendment”— the one that we are now considering— “how to deal with models trained overseas; and how rules should be enforced and by whom.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 481.] We will do subsection (1) of the new clause as part of our report and economic impact assessment. In other words, we have already committed to do half of what is in the amendment, and I would therefore argue that that half is unnecessary. The second part of the new clause is problematic, and I think it would be problematic for any Government. It requires the Government to produce a draft Bill on copyright and AI according to a specific timetable. It lays out elements that that Bill must include and determines how it should be considered by this House. I cannot think of any Bill in our history that has included such a clause, for very good reason. A central plank of parliamentary sovereignty is that no Parliament can bind its successor. That does not just mean from one Parliament to another; it means that one Session of Parliament cannot bind a future Session. However, the Kidron amendment says that, for instance, the draft Bill “must make provision for enforcement”. What happens if it does not do so, or if the measures it includes for enforcement are not sufficient in some people’s minds? Where would that be adjudicated? How would it be decided?

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

  More

  Oh, all right.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49F. I am tempted to start with a quote from “Macbeth”— “When shall we three meet again?”— because I notice there is a similar cast to our previous debates, but let me start by dispelling some misconceptions. We are not, contrary to what some have stated, changing UK copyright laws to the detriment of the creative industries. If the Government’s Bill is adopted, not a single word of copyright law will have changed in the United Kingdom. It will be as robust as it ever was. In fact, we have said repeatedly that creators should share in the value of this new technology, and we support artificial intelligence developers paying for the content that they use. We want to see more licensing of and proper remuneration for UK content. We are not undermining copyright owners’ control over their work. We have said from the beginning that we want intellectual property owners to have more control over the use of their works. Some said in the House of Lords yesterday that we have not listened to them or to the creative industries, but that is simply not true. We have heard loud and clear the message from the creative industries and from others. That is why we put reporting commitments on the face of the Bill at a previous round, and we have committed to adding two further reporting requirements on approaches to models trained overseas and on enforcement. We have committed to delivering reports and impact assessments within nine rather than 12 months, and the Bill will require the Secretary of State to make a progress statement to Parliament about the impact assessment and reports within six months of Royal Assent. It is also why the Secretary of State, who is sitting by me now, stated clearly that although we went into the consultation with a preferred option, we have heard the reaction to that. We want to consider the consultation responses in full, and—to quote him precisely— “When we went into the consultation, I believed that opting out could have offered an opportunity to bring both sides together, but I now accept that that is not the case.” —[ Official Report , 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1233.] As I have said, the Government have listened at every stage. As I have explained to the House previously, the Bill was never intended to be about artificial intelligence, intellectual property and copyright. What we have is a Bill that will harness data for economic growth, improve public services and support modern digital government. We want to get the legislation on the statute book as fast as we possibly can.

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

  More

  Of course, I understand the demand for us to act as swiftly as we possibly can, and that is our intention. One could argue that introducing a draft Bill, which would then be considered in various different places and presumably would be followed by a Bill, would delay things rather than speed them up. In addition—this is a really important constitutional point—as I said earlier, I am not aware of a single Bill in the past that has required a future Bill to be produced and specified things that must be in it.