Drumcree

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Chris Bryant

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Drumcree.

I should first alert Members to the fact that the decision that I will lay out in this statement is subject to legal challenge. I respect the court’s role and will not anticipate its conclusions. I wanted to update the House as soon as possible, but I hope that hon. Members will understand that this may limit some of what I can say. I also note that this afternoon the Court of Appeal, sitting in Belfast, refused leave to appeal to the Garvaghy Road residents coalition. The court therefore confirmed the Parades Commission’s determination as it was made at the time on 25 September, as did I. My exercise of powers under section 11 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, however, considered the situation as it stood on Friday 9 October.

The repeated stand-offs at Drumcree in the 1990s saw disorder, violence and horrific deaths, and they represent a particularly painful chapter in Northern Ireland’s history. At the heart of the matter is the return route of the Orange Order Portadown district’s parade from Drumcree church. Members of the Orange Order attach great importance to completing their route down the mainly nationalist Garvaghy Road, while residents of the road have long opposed its passage through their community.

For 28 years the independent Parades Commission had determined that the route should not pass down the Garvaghy Road, but on 25 September a Parades Commission determination allowed for 35 members of Portadown lodge to walk along the Garvaghy Road without the accompaniment of music on Sunday 27 September. To some, this was a legal victory that recognised the religious, cultural and personal significance of this procession. To others, it was a profound shock and a reopening of wounds they long thought closed.

On Saturday 26 September, following a challenge brought on behalf of the residents, a temporary injunction was granted, then appealed and overturned, before permission to seek judicial review was refused in the early hours of Sunday 27 September. The parade, lawfully determined, was due to take place at 8 am that same morning. However, the Orange Order was unable to complete that route due to an unlawful, unnotified protest by residents of the Garvaghy Road and their supporters, who blocked the road. For much of the two weeks since, Drumcree has once again been the scene of a stand-off. This is a deeply emotive and hurtful issue for many of those who have been involved in this dispute, either now or in the past.

I have spent the past fortnight in extensive conversations with all affected parties, trying to get a mutually acceptable agreement between the two sides. I hosted several rounds of negotiations at Hillsborough castle over five days and maintained frequent contact with those involved, including Members of this House. During those discussions, we explored multiple options for ending the impasse. These included options such as the Portadown Lodge completing one final march along the Garvaghy Road on the condition that it would not apply to march that route again, and an option that would have seen Portadown Lodge accept that it had won the right to march but agree not to exercise that right. Other options included the residents accepting that the lodge had had established the legal right and would not challenge other parts of the route. Unfortunately, we could not secure agreement.

I want to thank the members of the Portadown Lodge for their time and constructive engagement. Their commitment to upholding the law and their co-operation with the police has been absolutely vital in maintaining calm and order. Having received a determination permitting them to march after 28 years, I recognise that they will feel bitter disappointment at its prohibition. I also want to thank members of the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition for their engagement. They made clear to me the profound anxiety this dispute has brought, relighting painful memories. I deeply regret that we were not able to reach a compromise on a way forward. Although I was still keen to establish a local agreement, I did not want to see the stand-off continue into another weekend, with the consequent risk of protests spreading to other parts of Northern Ireland and the further deterioration of community relations. I therefore intensively considered all options for bringing this dispute to an end.

On Friday 9 October, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland made an application to me under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. As required by law, I reviewed the initial determination made by the Parades Commission relating to the application made by the Portadown district for 27 September 2026. I consulted the Chief Constable and the Parades Commission. The Chief Constable advised me that it would not be possible to enable the procession to happen without a major intervention, which would carry

“an unacceptable risk of serious injury, disorder and a wider contagion affect across Northern Ireland.”

The Parades Commission also advised me that while ultimately a matter for the courts to determine, the Commission was of the view that in the light of this current assessment by the Chief Constable, the original determination does not now have enduring legal effect. As a result, given that the circumstances under which that decision was made have now changed considerably and in the interests of wider public interest and safety, I came to the conclusion that the procession should not go ahead as it was originally determined.

I did not take that decision lightly. I had tried to get a locally agreed solution and, as the Court of Appeal has held today, the Portadown district had a lawful determination from the Parades Commission allowing the procession. I have also not criticised the original determination made by the Parades Commission in good faith and based on the information it had at the time. Indeed, as part of my decision on Friday, I confirmed that original determination, which has also been upheld as lawful by the court, as anybody who criticises the Parades Commission should bear in mind. However, I must acknowledge that the situation has changed considerably, which is why I used my powers under section 11 of the Act to prohibit the procession.

Respect for the rule of law is fundamental to our society. I am grateful to those who have behaved peacefully and legally, and sought to ease tensions in their respective communities. It is right to say that the Orange Order obtained a legal right to parade, but I agree with the Chief Constable, who has said

“upholding of the Parades Commission determination does not come at any cost.”

Upholding the law also entails judiciously preventing serious disorder, and that is why I am glad that, despite the manifest tension, events have passed peacefully in Portadown. That is in itself a significant achievement.

I thank the PSNI officers who have carried the burden of policing this difficult situation. However, nobody is able to grant themselves immunity from the law, and those who have acted unlawfully must face the consequences of their actions. It is not for me to determine how the police exercise their duties, but I am glad that the PSNI operation in relation to unlawful protesting on the Garvaghy Road is under way.

I am grateful to all those who have engaged with me in good faith and to those within this House who have worked diligently to reduce tensions. I particularly thank those who have sought to moderate their language. It is easy to stir up a grievance, but it is much harder to calm it down. I appeal now to everyone to help reduce tensions, and for all political and community leaders to consider carefully the effect of their words. I urge people to let the courts do their work, and to co-operate fully with the police and the Parades Commission.

The community in Portadown has been on the sharp end of intense attention for a number of weeks. It will take time to rebuild relations. Sometimes leadership is extremely difficult, but it is vital that at this time the political parties in Northern Ireland offer stability. That can be a challenge when loud voices dominate. However, in my conversations with both sides and with political leaders from different parties and traditions, I have met many extraordinary people of good faith who want to rebuild trust and co-operation based on mutual respect. I hope all Members will want to share in that ambition. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful to my predecessor, to whom I pay tribute, for his kind words. We need to do several things. This moment has shown that the veneer of peace is sometimes remarkably thin, and we need to strengthen the relationship between different communities. One of the things I found most moving was when people said to me how cross-community organisations in Portadown had been completely discombobulated and thrown up into confusion over these last two weeks. That is one of the reasons why I wanted us to be able to get to a successful conclusion that works for everybody.

My right hon. Friend is right about the parades. I note that some people who, a few weeks ago, were passionately opposed to the Parades Commission are now passionately in support of it, and vice versa. The truth is that we had problems earlier on this year, and that is why I have set up an inquiry, led by Justice O’Hara, who has been warmly supported by everybody in that process. We need to ensure that the Parades Commission works for the future, and I hope that everybody in this House at least would want to urge people to work closely with the police, rather than undermine them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Chris Bryant

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)]

I too pass on my condolences to the Prime Minister on the death of his father. I am enormously grateful to the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, who texted me a few moments ago to pass on her heartfelt sympathy as well. I am sure that all hon. Members will want to share in that.

With permission, I will make a statement on the Robert Hamill inquiry report, which is published today. I start by paying tribute to the extraordinary grace and honour that Robert Hamill’s family have shown in the 29 years since he was murdered. It is hard enough to grieve the death of a loved one; it is even harder to grieve a loved one who was violently assaulted and brutally murdered; it is even worse to grieve a loved one without clear and coherent answers about the circumstances of their death for years and years. Many victims of the troubles have told me of the pain that gnaws away at them because they have no answers. Today will be particularly difficult for Robert’s family, so I send them my heartfelt sympathy and, I am sure, the sympathy of the whole House.

The facts are bleak. At about 1.20 am on Sunday 27 April 1997, a 25-year-old Catholic man, Robert Hamill, a father of three, left a dance at St Patrick’s hall on Thomas Street, Portadown, and walked with others towards the junction with High Street and Market Street, where Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were in a parked RUC Land Rover. There, a group of Protestants attacked Robert and left him with such injuries to the head that he never recovered consciousness, and he died in hospital 11 days later on 8 May 1997.

The inquiry is clear:

“Robert Hamill suffered head trauma either shortly after that violence broke out or a little later when…Protestant youths kicked him while he was on the ground. The trauma included axonal injury, in particular in the brain stem. We find that those injuries directly caused his death.”

The inquiry refers to there being at least three blows to the head and states:

“Robert Hamill’s death was murder, because those who assaulted him must have at least intended to cause serious injury to him.”

The people who attacked Robert did not know him. Robert had done nothing to provoke such a vicious and violent attack. He was killed simply for being who he was. To put it bluntly, he was killed solely because he was Catholic. I cannot imagine the pain felt by his family and his companions that day, who were clearly outnumbered as they watched him lying on the pavement.

The intervening years have been plagued by delay. Following the Weston Park talks in 2001, the retired Canadian judge Justice Peter Cory examined six cases and recommended that a public inquiry be launched into Robert’s death, which was then established in November 2004, chaired by Justice Sir Edwin Jowitt. He completed his work in 2011, but the Government committed not to publish the report until ongoing criminal proceedings had been exhausted. These ended on 14 June 2024 with the conviction of former RUC officer Robert Atkinson for his role in failing to properly investigate the incident and for perverting the course of justice. Given the passage of time and Sir Edwin’s health, a new chair was appointed: Sir John Evans, a member of the panel.

I am pleased that Sir John’s report is finally published today, but I fully acknowledge the significant delay, which is through no fault of the inquiry. That delay— 15 years from completion to publication—is far too long and has no doubt caused family members additional frustration and anguish. I truly regret that.

The inquiry’s terms of reference did not include attributing responsibility for Robert’s murder, but addresses two areas of public concern regarding the conduct of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: first, whether the officers in the Land Rover were in any way responsible for Robert Hamill’s death; and, secondly, whether the subsequent investigation into his murder was inhibited by any wrongful act or omission on the part of the RUC.

The inquiry finds that although RUC Land Rover crew parked near to the outbreak of violence were distracted talking to two members of the public, this did not facilitate Robert Hamill’s death. It also finds that the officers in the Land Rover were not guilty of any wrongful act or omission in relation to the death of Robert Hamill. This last point was not the unanimous view of the inquiry panel, as the former chair Sir Edwin Jowitt expressed a dissenting view that the officers were guilty of omission by not keeping watch. The report also finds that the officers did not in any way condone or collude with the attackers.

However, on the second area of public concern, the inquiry findings are disturbing. They conclude that RUC officers were guilty of wrongful omissions and that those omissions arose both at the scene and during the initial investigation between 27 April 1997 and 7 May 1997. Those omissions included, first, a failure to carry out an initial debriefing, both at the scene and immediately upon return to the police station, with multiple officers finishing their shifts or going on to other duties without recording what had happened. This had a serious and significant impact on the murder investigation, and these omissions were negligent. Secondly, there was a failure to carry out a full debriefing of all officers who had been at the scene once it became clear that Robert Hamill’s injuries were life-threatening. This omission was negligent. Thirdly, there was a wrongful omission by two officers to supply relevant information in relation to an individual they had seen at the scene. This inhibited and obstructed the investigation and was, in the case of one officer, negligent, and in the case of the other, deliberate.

The inquiry finds that one RUC officer, Robert Atkinson, is guilty of a wrongful act for making a telephone call to the home of Allister Hanvey, who was present the night of the incident, which resulted in that individual destroying or putting beyond the reach of the police the clothes he had been wearing that night. That deliberately obstructed the investigation. In September and October 1997, Mr Atkinson subsequently conspired to cover up the tip-off telephone call at an important point in the murder investigation. The conspiracy amounted to an obstruction of the murder investigation and was deliberate. That conduct resulted in the conviction of Mr Atkinson in 2024 for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Jon Boutcher, will want to reflect on the report’s findings, and I do not want to pre-empt any comment that he may make. I note that policing and justice are now devolved responsibilities, but these events happened under the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I merely say that it is especially disturbing that Mr Atkinson carried an RUC badge for years when he had so evidently and heinously failed in his duty and acted as a criminal.

The report says that there was a “catalogue of failures” by the RUC. It is difficult not to agree. The inquiry was empowered to make recommendations. Although it makes none for the Northern Ireland Office or the Government, I will make a couple of broader points. First, today is a landmark moment, and I am proud to be the Secretary of State who can finally share the report with the House, but it is also a reminder to all of us of the long shadow of the troubles and its deep and lasting effect on the people of Northern Ireland and beyond. We must never forget that many other families still wait and yearn for answers about how their loved ones were killed.

My second point is that the peace that was ushered in by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement the year after Robert’s death was an extraordinary achievement. Power sharing is difficult, but we should never take that peace for granted. After all, Robert’s death happened against the background of deep sectarian division. Nobody wants to return to that. That is why, to seek a more harmonious way forward, we must always double down on compromise and rise above our immediate instincts.

I thank the current and former chairs of the inquiry, Sir John Evans and the late Sir Edwin Jowitt, the Reverend Baroness Kathleen Richardson and all those who played a part in its delivery, including Paul Murphy—now Lord Murphy—who commissioned the report. I will lay a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses, and it will be published in full online.

This will be a difficult day for Robert Hamill’s family. He would have been coming up to his 55th birthday in December—he was younger than me. He might have become a grandfather or a great uncle by now, but he was murdered just for being a Catholic. We all pay our heartfelt respects to him and his family.

I end by noting one of the final paragraphs of the report:

“The murder file is still open and to this day no one has been convicted of causing Robert Hamill’s death.”

I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

First, I warmly commend my right hon. Friend. If I can be as nice, sage, honourable, decent and gentlemanly as he in this role, I will have performed a decent task. He is absolutely right. There is another thing that is absolutely shocking here: there has never been an inquest. In fact, this is the first time that it has been declared that it was murder. That, of itself, is truly shocking. This is not the only case in Northern Ireland where no answers have been provided for individuals. He is absolutely right: the behaviour of Mr Atkinson would shock in a drama, but it is in fact the truth that he deliberately perverted the course of justice. I should say that the inquiry is keen to make the point that deliberate actions are much more blameworthy than casual omissions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I have regularly and repeatedly met industry downstream and producers—I did so again yesterday—as has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), the Minister for Industry, who is sitting by my side. We have striven at every point to ensure that where possible we are including only those categories of steel that are manufactured in the UK. One of the reasons we changed the quotas in what we announced last week from the original suggestions made in March was that Speciality Steel is not up and running and therefore it is not able to supply some of the categories that my hon. Friend spoke about. In many areas, the quota is larger than existing trade levels. Yesterday afternoon, a variety of MPs came to meet me and officials to talk this through, and I am happy for my hon. Friend to meet my officials if he has specific concerns for constituency businesses.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Chris Bryant

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank all colleagues for their engagement on the Bill. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Voltaire said, “A small book is a great evil”, but this small Bill will do a great deal of good. It will ensure that the Government can continue to support British industry and British exporters.

Some £14.5 billion of UK Export Finance support last year is supporting up to 70,000 jobs, including across key industrial sectors such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and automotives. Through existing provisions in the Industrial Development Act 1982, the British Business Bank’s northern powerhouse investment fund II has directly invested £115 million into over 300 small businesses. Similarly in the midlands, the midlands engine investment fund II has launched a £400 million fund to drive sustainable economic growth by supporting innovation and creating local opportunity for new and growing businesses.

The Bill ensures that the Government can continue their investment into the British businesses that are the backbone of this economy, and I would like to thank the officials in my Department, in particular James Copeland, Cal Stewart, Ellie Buck and Andrew Fernandez, and of course the whole of my private office, who have helped me take it to this point. In tandem with our new trade strategy, it will ensure that more businesses than ever before will be empowered to export, with the financial firepower of Government behind them. In combination with the modern industrial strategy, this Government have ensured that the UK remains one of the strongest, most attractive and innovative economies in the world, both now and in the future, so it is with great pleasure that I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Chris Bryant

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I will talk about human rights in a moment, but if the hon. Gentleman can come up with a better way of finding a 0.14% increase in GDP, I would be very happy to hear it. Frankly, the idea that we would just turn our backs on one of the biggest economies and largest democracies in the world, and not say yes to a trade deal, is for the birds.

There is a whole series of human rights issues that we always want to raise with our trade partners, and we do so. When we are negotiating a free trade agreement, they are not necessarily a central part of it, but in this deal, for the first time ever, we have clauses on a whole range of human rights-related issues. The hon. Gentleman could easily point out that these are not legally enforceable, but they are an opportunity—both at the first review, which will come at entry into force, and on future occasions, which are laid out in the free trade agreement—for us to talk through these issues. Human rights issues are primarily the responsibility of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, through which we raise issues relating to Kashmir, particular individuals, labour laws and so on.

I am aware that non-tariff barriers are being removed through improved customs processes, reductions in technical barriers to trade, increased facilitation of digital trade, supportive intellectual property commitments and greater collaboration on new technologies. This will all help to make trade quicker, cheaper and easier.

On services, which are obviously very important for us as a services superpower, market access is locked in, including ensuring that UK companies are treated on an equal footing with Indian companies. The deal includes India’s first ever financial services and telecoms chapters. The free trade agreement is expected to boost services exports by £1.6 billion. On procurement, which again is very important for the UK, brand-new access to India’s federal procurement market will be locked in, guaranteeing access to approximately 40,000 tenders per year, worth at least £38 billion per annum, and exclusive treatment for UK companies. For the first time, UK companies will have access to India’s procurement portal.

I hope the colleagues will agree that CETA is a good deal for the UK, but I want to respond to a couple of points made in the Business and Trade Committee’s report. First, the deal will only be of any use if it is actually used by UK companies. We know that it will not always be plain sailing, thanks to varying rules in different states and provinces—that point was made in evidence to the Committee—the staging of tariff liberalisation will need explaining, and non-tariff barriers can be just as important as tariff barriers.

As the first Minister for trade policy and for exports, I am keen to ensure that businesses have all the support they need to exploit this deal. That is why we are protecting the Department for Business and Trade team in India, and why we have already engaged with more than 5,000 UK businesses on how to exploit CETA, through guidance, events and roadshows. As I said earlier, this is not just about Scotch whisky; it is also about Fever-Tree ginger ale to go with it and its Indian tonic water. We have also provided specific support to the UK cosmetics industry to exploit the cut in cosmetics tariffs, which will benefit companies such as Charlotte Tilbury and Dr.PAWPAW. As the Committee suggests, once we get to entry into force, we will monitor the operation of CETA’s provisions, including through the regular reviews built into the agreement.

This is also not the full stop in our developing relationship with India. Vision 2035, agreed with India alongside the free trade agreement, sets out a shared framework for deeper co-operation across technology, defence, climate and strategic exports, reinforcing the long-term direction of the bilateral partnership. We will also try to resolve other market access issues not solved in the free trade agreement—for example, legal services, recognition of qualifications and other specific state-level barriers. The UK is open to continuing negotiations for a bilateral investment treaty, as long as it works for UK businesses.

As I have said, this is a trade agreement, but I want to assure Members that it also promotes British values. We have secured India’s first ever chapters on anti-corruption, consumer protections, labour rights, the environment, gender and development, and the agreement includes the strongest environmental commitments that India has ever made in an FTA. Our key commitments and red lines have been maintained throughout, including protecting the NHS; ensuring that our immigration system is not affected; carving out defence and protecting our export controls; excluding sensitive agricultural sectors, including pork, chicken, eggs and milled rice; maintaining our food standards and animal welfare levels; and keeping the carbon border adjustment mechanism out of the deal.

Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery, so I am glad that the European Union has now reached political agreement on its own FTA with India, for which it seems the UK deal was used as a baseline, but the UK retains first mover advantage. I am hopeful that we will get to entry into force before the end of the summer, so that UK businesses can start exploiting the reduced tariffs this year, while the EU will still take some time to achieve ratification, and only the UK has secured access to India’s £38 billion federal procurement market.

Let me make one final point. The UK is a trading nation: we rely on free and fair trade, and we believe that global trade needs a set of rules. The World Trade Organisation will meet in Cameroon in the next few weeks. We believe that it needs upholding and reforming so that it can tackle the challenges of today, including electronic commerce, unfair subsidies, dumping and secure supply chains with agility and dependability. However, we also believe that trade agreements such as these, along with our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, help to secure our prosperity and enhance our international standing. We are still pursuing new or enhanced deals with the Gulf Co-operation Council, Türkiye, Switzerland and Greenland, and we are completing the text of our economic prosperity deal with the United States of America and our deal with the European Union. I commend this deal to the House, and I congratulate the former Ministers who secured it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I was not going to make the point that the hon. Member went on to make—that his Government signed up to lots of similar arrangements—but I was going to respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). It is important that we make it clear that under the double contributions convention, a detached Indian worker and their employer in the UK would need to pay into the Indian provident fund. On top of that, they will need to pay £3,105 in NHS surcharges, and up to £769 in visa fees. On top of that, the employer would pay an immigration skills charge of £3,000, and £525 to issue a certificate of sponsorship, so I do not think that the numbers add up in the way that the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley was suggesting.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State has already spoken for longer than the Minister, which must be something of a record. I appreciate that there have been a lot of interventions on the shadow Secretary of State from Government Front Benchers, but perhaps he can draw his remarks to a close. The Minister will have ample time to make his points in the wind-up.

Hospitality Sector

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and perhaps encourage all Members to ensure that they stay on topic and in scope this afternoon?

[Chris Bryant]

They don’t like it up ’em, do they, Madam Deputy Speaker?

The shadow Business Secretary then said,

“We think they’re the right plans because those plans make our economy competitive.”

The problem with the argument that he has made today is that he has not learned a single thing since that mini-Budget. He still wants us to tax less and spend more at the same time. Yes, of course he wants to reverse the national insurance increase, but does he point to where the money should come from? No, of course he doesn’t. He likes the additional spending on the NHS, he approves of our spending on prisons, he supports more spending on policing, and he clamours for more spending on defence—and, no doubt, on trains, telecoms, universities and schools—but he does not want to pay for it, which is why it is as plain as a pikestaff that he has not changed a bit. He would re-run the Truss mini-Budget in the twinkling of an eye. It was doolally economics when Truss introduced it and it is doolally economics today. I give you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister for doolally economics. Let me deal with two specific points that he made.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Chris Bryant

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am not making an criticism of any individual Member of the House of Lords. I listened to the debate, and it was clear that people felt passionately and were arguing entirely in good faith. I fully understand that. As I have said, however, this a Bill that was not intended to include elements relating to AI and copyright. In the last Parliament it was supported by the Conservative party and by us on the Opposition Benches, and was referred to by both sides during our general election campaigns. Neither of us said that we were going to include anything about copyright in the Bill, but that is what is now holding up Royal Assent. There are economic benefits that would flow from the Bill, but they will of course be delayed if we further delay Royal Assent.

Let me end by saying that, as I think I have said several times, I fully understand the concerns expressed by people in the creative industries about artificial intelligence. Many use it already, but they are understandably concerned about where it will go, and they fear for their jobs. It is true that, for many, the strikes in the US had an even more cataclysmic effect on their careers, but I would just add one corrective to those fears. There is a moment at the end of “The Winter’s Tale” when Paulina takes Leontes to see a statue of his wife, who he thinks died of grief when he falsely accused of her adultery many years earlier. We all know when we watch it in the theatre that the statue is actually the actress playing Hermione; it is not a statue at all. Yet the moment when Leontes touches the statue and says, “O, she’s warm!”, still shocks us and brings tears to our eyes. Why? Because it is human to human. Yes, of course it is artifice laid upon artifice, but it is humanity face to face that really moves us. The Government have heard the concerns expressed by this House and the other place, and we have set out our plans to address them. I believe the Bill must be allowed to run its course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Chris Bryant

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Hang on! Madam Deputy Speaker, we will have to set up a queuing system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The Minister is very popular.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure that it is popularity, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The important point is that we need to look at this in the round, rather than piecemeal. I do not think that what is on the amendment paper today would deliver anything now. Indeed, it does not purport to; it instead purports to give something in six, nine or 12 months’ time, or sometime in the future.

Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Chris Bryant

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about ticketing in the live events sector.

In the words of the musical “Hamilton”, there is nothing quite like being

“in the room where it happens”.

I would hazard a guess that every single one of us here can remember the first time we went to a live event. My first rugby international was Wales versus Scotland at Murrayfield aged 12—the food was terrible. My first live gig was U2’s “The Joshua Tree” at Wembley arena. These moments of shared passion are part of what makes us the people we are. As Gloria Gaynor said,

“There’s nothing to compare to live music, there just isn’t anything.”

No wonder live events are so highly prized.

But for far too long, ticket touts have leached off fans’ passion. In the past, it was spivs in long raincoats at the gates. Nowadays it is a trade made all the more pernicious by the internet, which enables modern-day touts, hiding behind multiple false identities, to hoover up tickets and sell them at vastly inflated prices. It is indefensible. It trades off other people’s hopes and does not return a single penny to the artists, the performers, the venue, the industry or the sport. We said we would tackle this, and that is precisely what we are doing.

On Friday, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a consultation on the resale of live event tickets and a separate call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector. It is not a consultation on whether to act; it is a consultation on precisely how we should act. The UK has a world-leading live events sector. Our artists, festivals and venues bring joy to audiences across the country. Last year, the sector employed over 200,000 people, contributing to local economies up and down the country, from stage technicians and sound engineers to venue staff and promoters. Every event—whether a major stadium event or an intimate gig at a grassroots venue—injects life into local communities and economies, supporting small businesses and generating significant revenue for our towns and cities. It is musicians, performers and athletes who make the events what they are and who create the value that sits behind them, not the ticket touts.

Live events are a catalyst for creativity, too, where artists have a platform to hone their craft and relate directly to audiences, as well as to earn a living. Live performances create unforgettable shared experiences that transcend cultural and social boundaries, uniting communities up and down the country and shaping our national identity. However, too many fans are missing out on opportunities to experience those live events. Put simply, the ticketing market is not working for fans.

The Government recognise that a well-functioning ticket resale market can play an important role—for instance, allowing those who cannot attend an event to give someone else the opportunity to go in their place. But far too often tickets are listed on the resale market at extortionate prices, many multiples of the face value. Just one example: standing tickets for Charli XCX’s current UK tour were originally priced at £54, but they have been listed on ticket resale sites for as much as £400. That is enough, as she herself would put it, to

“Shock you like defibrillators”.

So-called scalping is the work of organised touts, who systematically buy up tickets in bulk on the primary market then resell them to fans at hugely inflated prices. The Government are committed to putting fans back at the heart of live events and clamping down on unfair exploitative practices. In doing so, we want fairness for fans and an economically successful live events sector. We made a manifesto commitment to act on this issue, and that is precisely what we will do.

That is why we have launched a consultation as the first major step towards delivering on this ambition. We want to act in an effective and responsible way, ensuring that any new protections work for fans and the live events sector. The consultation outlines a range of potential options to address ongoing problems. We are revisiting the recommendations from the Competition and Market Authority’s 2021 report on secondary ticketing that were not taken forward by the previous Government. They include a licensing regime for resale platforms, new limits on the number of tickets that individual resellers can list, and new requirements for platforms to ensure the accuracy of information about tickets listed for sale on their websites.

We are also keen to tackle scalping—that is to say for-profit resales of tickets above face value. That is why we are considering a statutory price cap on ticket resales, as seen in many other countries. Its purpose would be to break the business model of organised touts by prohibiting resale at vastly inflated prices. In the consultation, we ask how a price cap should be designed and implemented, so as to deliver a genuine sea change in the ticketing landscape to the benefit of fans and the live events sector, and whether it should be face value only, or plus 10%, 20% or 30%.

There is one other aspect—we might call it “the Oasis moment”—on which we are seeking evidence. The live events sector has adopted new approaches to selling tickets in recent years, including the use of new pricing strategies, and technologies such as dynamic pricing. I want to be absolutely clear: not all dynamic pricing is harmful. Fans often take advantage of early-bird tickets and last-minute price reductions—that is absolutely fine and we have no intention of stopping it. The key thing is that fans are treated fairly and openly, with timely, transparent and accurate information presented ahead of sales.

To better understand these changes and the challenges faced by fans, we are publishing a call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector. The consultation and call for evidence will be open for 12 weeks. We strongly encourage all interested stakeholders—fans, artists and performers, ticketing platforms and the wider live events sector—to respond. Once the consultation is complete, we will decide on next steps, but the House should be no doubt that we intend to act.

We have a world-class live events sector in the UK, but we do not have a secondary ticket market to match. In the words of T. Rex:

“It’s a rip-off

Such a rip-off”.

To the fans, the performers and the touts, let me be crystal clear: we will clamp down on unfair practices in the secondary market. The question is not whether but how we improve protections for fans. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I agree that my hon. Friend has campaigned on the subject for 15 years, because I have heard nearly every speech she has made on it, and she has been absolutely magnificent over the years. I pay tribute to her. Many artists in this country will be grateful for her work because so often they are caught in a completely invidious situation as they see tickets going for preposterous prices. I looked earlier at StubHub, which is selling Dua Lipa tickets for Wembley on 20 June with a face value of £81.45 for £2,417. For Jimmy Carr at Milton Keynes in two days’ time, Viagogo has tickets with a face value of £60 for £202. That is the problem that we must deal with.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about supranational issues; this problem does not just apply in the UK. It is difficult for us to prevent these people from selling tickets for Olivia Rodrigo concerts in Mexico, but we can ensure that measures do apply for Olivia Rodrigo concerts in the UK. She is also absolutely right about enforcement. That is why we are looking at whether there should be a licensing regime and, if so, precisely how that should work. She has made this point in many speeches—I will reiterate it for her: we have hardly seen any prosecutions whatever under the complex set of rules that there are at the moment, and that is one of the things that we have to fix.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I add my thanks to the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It is good to have the Government’s next steps to try to support fans, performers and others working in the live events industry laid out in the announcement. We know the huge value of live events in this country, which make a great contribution to our economic as well as our cultural wellbeing, and it is right that the Government are taking action. Too many fans across the country have fallen prey to sharp practices and touts ripping them off, and the Liberal Democrats are supportive of taking action.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for the implementation of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations to crack down on ticket resale. Those recommendations should be leading the Government forward on this issue. Measures such as capping ticket resales are important. Can the Minister provide greater clarity on the Government’s intentions in that regard? Will he suggest what cap on ticket resales the Government would favour at the moment and what new powers of enforcement they will give to trading standards and the CMA? Beyond those measures, will the Government consider being more ambitious by, for example, giving consumers more control by requiring ticket companies to provide accurate information on price increases or answering Liberal Democrat calls to review the use of transaction fees?

I want to be clear that we welcome the Government’s looking at the queuing systems used by ticket sellers in both the primary and resale markets and considering measures that could address the current situation, which, as the Minister described, too often feels unfair and arbitrary to those fans on the end of it. Hearing the voices of fans in this discussion is undoubtedly important, so we really welcome the consultation, but fans also want to know that the Government will get on and act to solve these problems. To conclude, may I ask the Minister to inform the House about when fans will start to see some changes being implemented?

[Chris Bryant]

I welcome the hon. Member to his post and welcome the Lib Dems’ support for what we are proposing. There are just a couple of things. He referred to accurate information, which it could certainly be argued is already legislated for but not well enforced. Indeed, when I looked at some of these sites earlier today, it was interesting to see that sometimes the face value was findable, but not at the same time as the price to be paid. We would think it should be mandatory for somebody to be able to see both at the same time, to see whether they are going to be ripped off. I personally do not subscribe to the line that if somebody is prepared to pay £2,417 for a Dua Lipa ticket, so be it. It seems to me that that is effectively the line from Eurythmics:

“Some of them want to be abused”;

I do not think that we should adopt that policy at all.

On the point that the hon. Member made about transaction fees, I think that I am right in saying that section 230 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 would already apply to what he is arguing for. If I have got that wrong, I will send him a note.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I note that at one point—it may have been at a particular event—you said that your favourite song was “Girls Just Want to Have Fun” by Cyndi Lauper. She performed at the Royal Albert Hall last year, and I am not sure whether you were there.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I commend the Minister for his astonishing memory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I commend my hon. Friend on her private Member’s Bill. I told her that we were going to be acting fairly soon so her Bill might not be necessary. She did not believe me, and she ploughed on, but we are intent on acting.

My hon. Friend is quite right about dynamic pricing. I have been involved in a small arts festival in Treorchy in my constituency where we offer early-bird tickets. That is a form of dynamic pricing that I think works for everybody, and we certainly do not want to prohibit that.

My hon. Friend is quite right: much as I like my opposite number, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), I find it quite easy to resist him. When I think of the previous Government, I keep thinking of this line from Pink:

“What about all the plans that ended in disaster?”

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I disagree. I saw the right hon. Gentleman nodding earlier when I was talking about not wanting to pull the rug from under the feet of UK AI adopters. The UK is in a very specific position. We have probably the best copyright laws of any country because of the specific way in which they developed. It is partly thanks to Hogarth, Dickens and many others over the years that we have ended up with strong copyright legislation. We also have a strong body of intellectual property in this country, which is enormously valuable, potentially, to AI operators. We stand in a very specific position. There is an argument that AI can be trained elsewhere, in another jurisdiction, but the moment it is brought into the UK, it still falls under UK legislation.

The right hon. Gentleman is also right about this. I did not consult Taylor Swift, but I did ask an AI company to come up with a song in the manner of Adele.

“Oh, I still feel you deep in my soul,

Even though you left me out here on my own.

The love we had it’s slipping through my hands,

But I can’t forget, I still don’t understand.

You’re gone, but your memory’s all I see,

And in the silence, it’s you haunting me”—

Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] It is sort of Adele, but it is not Adele. Does Adele know that her material has been used? Does her record label know that her lyrics have been used to create that? It is sort of in the territory, but it is not right. I think we can get this right in the UK and provide leadership to the world. That is what we should strive for.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will just make the point that I can see that this is very technical and complicated. It might require long answers, but I am not sure it required that level of input from not-Adele.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I don’t think I am allowed to sing at the Dispatch Box.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The Minister would be well advised not to sing at the Dispatch Box, but I thank him for his comprehensive responses this afternoon.