UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” notes:

“The privilege of freedom of speech in debate…allows us to conduct our debates without fear of outside interference. But it is a freedom which should be exercised responsibly, in the public interest and taking into account the interests of others outside this House.”

Additionally, paragraph 21.21 of “Erskine May” states:

“Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.”

The rules of behaviour further note:

“There is no hard and fast list of unparliamentary words. Whether something said is a breach of order depends on the context…Any abusive or insulting language used in debate will be required to be withdrawn immediately.”

I remind members of the public that they are here to observe proceedings, not to participate or comment. Demonstrations of approval or disapproval are not permitted and any interruption of proceedings will result in removal from the Public Gallery.

The debate is very oversubscribed and there will be limited time. If a Member’s name is not on my list to speak, they will not be called. I still expect anyone who is on my list to bob, and any interventions will be minimal, in response and in asking. I hope I have made myself perfectly clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Thank you for your point of order and for notifying me of it in advance, but decisions relating to the publication of e-petitions and the scheduling of e-petition debates properly sit with the Petitions Committee. If you have not already done so, I encourage you to make direct contact with the Chair of that Committee regarding your concerns. I reiterate that, as Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers regularly remind Members in the main Chamber, there is a need for “good temper and moderation” in parliamentary language, as set out in “Erskine May” paragraph 21.21. The same rules and courtesies apply in Westminster Hall, and you can be assured that I will exercise all my authority to make sure they are complied with.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for his point of order. As he will discover during the course of my contribution, I have a great degree of sympathy with his remarks. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. While I will take interventions later in my speech, I would be grateful if I could develop some of my key points before doing so.

The petition was created by Andy Kalil and signed by over 118,000 people. I begin by making it explicit that I do not support the petition; indeed, I believe that it raises profound concerns, not because it seeks scrutiny of politics or lobbying but because of the way in which it frames those concerns and the sinister narratives upon which it draws. The debate raises important questions not simply about foreign influence or political advocacy but about the boundaries between legitimate political criticism and conspiracy theories that have historically fuelled antisemitism.

Let me also say at the outset that I recognise that many of the people who signed the petition, including the 194 in my constituency, may have done so in good faith. Many will have believed that they were supporting transparency in public life or expressing concern about the events in the middle east. I do not question their motives; however, Parliament has a responsibility not only to consider what is being said but to understand the historical and political context in which it is being said. We have a duty to recognise when language and ideas echo prejudices that have caused immense harm throughout history.

The petition calls for a public inquiry into what it describes as

“pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy”.

That wording matters. The petition does not call for a review of lobbying regulations generally. It does not seek greater transparency about foreign influence from all states; indeed, it cynically overlooks the fact that there are campaigns and lobbies operating in the UK in support of almost all countries in the world. It does not ask for a broad examination of how political advocacy works in the United Kingdom. Instead, it singles out one country and, more importantly, invokes a long-standing allegation that people who support that country exercise hidden or improper influence over our democratic institutions.

That false accusation has a very long and very troubling history. For centuries, at the heart of antisemitism has been the claim that Jews exercise secret control over Governments, political systems, financial institutions, the media or public life. Those ideas have appeared in countless forms throughout history. They have been repackaged and modernised for different generations, but the core allegation remains remarkably consistent: that Jews acting collectively and covertly manipulate political events from behind the scenes.

The most notorious example was the fraudulent document known as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, which purported to reveal a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. Although repeatedly exposed as a forgery, its pernicious influence was immense. It fuelled antisemitic movements across Europe and beyond, and helped to create an environment in which discrimination, persecution and violence flourished.

Today, such ideas are often expressed through different language, but the ill intent of its practitioners and its harmful consequences for Jews and wider society are all too familiar. Rather than speaking explicitly about Jews, some speak about Zionists, the lobby, hidden influence networks or pro-Israel control. The packaging has changed, but it is no less insidious in its implication.

Like many of my colleagues, I have been accosted while walking outside Parliament by so-called peace activists handing out mock banknotes with “Bank of Zionism” written on them—an insinuation of Jewish control of our politics and economy. It is unmistakably racist, but that is exactly the sort of harmful activity and rhetoric that has become commonplace—the sort of message that today’s petition stems from.

That is why concerns have been raised by so many across the political spectrum about the framing of the petition. This is not an attempt to prevent criticism of Israel or shield any Government from scrutiny. The Government of Israel, like every Government in the world, can and should be subject to criticism. Their policies can be challenged. Their decisions can be debated. Their actions can be scrutinised robustly and vigorously. Indeed, that is entirely consistent with democratic debate.

It should be noted that extensive parliamentary time has been spent debating Israel. In the year following Hamas’s horrific terror rampage of 7 October 2023, MPs made an astonishing 4,369 contributions in the Chamber relating to Israel. Consider for a second that that is more than double the number of mentions of the national health service, at 1,895. In the same period, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was mentioned 1,449 times, while the appalling suffering unleashed by the war in Sudan warranted only a paltry 225 mentions. The same disproportionate focus on Israel within this place continues to this day.

Presented with those facts, it is undeniable that anyone who claims the existence of a lobby seeking to silence dissent is nothing less than delusional. A reasonable case can be made that the very opposite is true: Israel has been uniquely singled out. Holding Israel to standards that are not applied to any other country is an unmistakable breach of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, as the former UK special envoy for post-Holocaust issues, Lord Pickles, has warned.

The IHRA definition also as potentially antisemitic identifies allegations concerning Jewish control of Governments, institutions and public life, as well as accusations of dual loyalty directed towards Jewish citizens. The grossly disproportionate focus on Israel, and the hardline language that that has all too often entailed, means, I regret to say, that this mother of all Parliaments has played a dangerous role in the explosion of antisemitism in this country. It is a painful truth, but Lord Austin was right to say so last week in the other place.

As part of my preparation for the debate, I spoke to academics from the Royal United Services Institute who have considered the extent of foreign influence in the United Kingdom. The clearest and most substantiated concerns identified by successive Governments, parliamentary Committees and security services relate to hostile state activities from countries such as Russia and China. That makes it all the more striking that the petition singles out Israel, and frames its concern in language that echoes long-standing conspiracy theories about hidden influence.

There is a clear difference between criticising a Government and advancing allegations that supporters of that Government exercise covert influence over democratic institutions. The concern is about not simply what the petition says but what it implies. When political outcomes are routinely attributed to hidden influence rather than democratic choice, trust in democratic institutions is eroded. Conspiracy theories weaken our democracy, encourage suspicion and promote division. That is true regardless of who the alleged conspirators are, but when those allegations reinforce one of the oldest prejudices in human history, the consequences are particularly serious.

We should also remember that conspiracy theories do not exist in a vacuum. History teaches us that conspiracy theories portraying Jews as powerful, manipulative and disloyal have often preceded discrimination, exclusion and violence. That is not a theoretical concern. At a time when antisemitism is rising across many parts of society, we must be especially careful not to lend legitimacy to narratives that reinforce such ideas.

The context matters. The Jewish community in Britain has experienced a sustained increase in antisemitic incidents in recent years. Many British Jews report feeling less secure than they have for decades, and synagogues, schools and community institutions continue to require significant security measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. The clock displays are broken, but we are working on fixing them. I will notify Members by coughing just before their three minutes are up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tahir Ali]

Although I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments, this debate is about lobby groups, and especially the Israeli Government.

Pro-Israeli lobby groups have paid hundreds of thousands in political donations in the UK. The amount of evidence, which I will refrain from sharing due to limited time, is countless. If we believe in democracy, we must demand scrutiny; if we value our sovereignty, we must demand accountability; and if we believe in British independence, we must ensure that no foreign state, whether Israel, China, Russia, Iran, India or any other country, is permitted undue influence over our institutions. I urge the Government to strengthen the lobbying regulations, improve the disclosure requirements and review the relationships between foreign Governments and parliamentary bodies. British policy must be determined by British interests, British law and British democratic accountability.

In January 2025, Lord Austin was reappointed as the UK trade envoy to Israel. Last October, it was revealed that Government officials had urged Ministers to allow him to pursue a visit in May 2025, yet that came after the Foreign Secretary’s announcement in the same month that the UK would suspend free trade agreement talks with Israel in response to its blockade of Gaza and its attacks on hospitals. Despite the Government saying that the trade envoy would not meet any representatives of—

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Iqbal Mohamed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed]

On a point of order, Mrs Harris. The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) referred to my remarks in answering a question. Maybe I was not very clear, but he mischaracterised my remarks as referring to all Jews or Jewish donors. My remarks clearly referred to pro-Israeli donors, whoever they are. To clarify, it is those who support the illegal actions of Israel or—

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I think that your clarification has been made. Thank you very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I agree with the Minister that lobbying and donations across Parliament from any source must be investigated and that the rules must be reinforced. But on the specific point around Israel, Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel and other friends of Israel groups—

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Mr Frith]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to an earlier answer I gave about misassociation, whether unintentional, explicit, deliberate or wilful. It is possible to be in Labour Friends of Israel without being a Labour friend of the Israeli Government’s actions on a particular day, and it is the duty of allies and friends to point out where we disagree. If we were debating certain behaviours of the Israeli Government, I am sure that a mix of views would be expressed in the House, including on a strong common theme. But that is not this debate, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to pull back from wilfully or unintentionally using tropes.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister answer the question?

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Minister.

[Mr Frith]

Thank you, Mrs Harris.

The Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review into lobbying. We have commissioned and are now responding to the Rycroft review of political finance rules, with immediate steps taken to cap total political donations from British citizens abroad and to put a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations. These measures are a first step, and the Government will have more to say.

The Government will always take legitimate concerns over foreign influence and interference in our politics and democracy very seriously, but I do not believe that the premise of this debate is to focus on those concerns. Criticism of Governments and policies is democratic, but the use of double standards in relation to Israel and conspiracy theories and tropes about the influence of Jews and the Jewish state take us into ugly, inciteful and deeply unhealthy territory. I urge Members to join me in rejecting this framing and rejecting the petition.

Science and Discovery Centres

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I will start the Front-Bench contributions at 3.28 pm, and I will impose an unofficial five-minute limit to start.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. If Members continue to exceed five minutes, I will have to impose a formal time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on securing this debate and bringing parliamentary attention back to a subject that has not been properly considered for some years: the role of science and discovery centres within our tech and science ecosystem, the pressures they face, and the contribution they continue to make.

I enjoyed hearing about the hon. Member’s connection to the Centre for Alternative Technology, which clearly has such personal resonance given his father’s link, as a founding member in the 1970s. I knew the hon. Member was a teacher, but I did not realise he was a drama teacher, which perhaps explains why he is so fantastic at carrying his voice in this Chamber and speaking with such incredible passion.

I confess that I had not appreciated how extensive the network of SDCs is. The Eden Project, which I visited again last year, is just one of the 28 science and discovery centres spread across every part of the UK, and it is a perfect example of what these institutions do so well. It is a major visitor attraction, it is deeply rooted in its local economy, and it has scientific discovery and public engagement at the heart of its mission. These centres are not arms of the state; they are independent, agile and largely self-sustaining organisations, generating income through admissions, partnerships and commercial activity.

Many SDCs were established around the turn of the millennium. Indeed, my first visit to the Eden Project was back in 2000, on my very first girls’ holiday. We did not, as Essex girls, choose Marbella; we chose Cornwall and Devon—very rock and roll. But the Eden Project really embodies the optimism of that moment. It is an old claypit, turned into a very future-focused and futuristic-looking plant wonderland with a scientific mission at its core.

While there were early Millennium Commission grants and support, that funding rightly came to an end, and these centres have now operated for many years without routine public subsidy. That independence has been a strength, allowing them to innovate and respond quickly to new scientific developments and to retain the trust of the communities they serve. But there was always an understanding that the materials in the buildings designed for the SDCs would require renewal after around 25 years, which is now. Many centres have now reached that point and face major capital projects at exactly the same time in a far more difficult operating environment.

SDCs are a distinctive part of our national infrastructure. They are the only places where cutting-edge science, public engagement and development of essential STEM skills come together under a single roof. Collectively, they reach more than 5 million people every year, and they have engaged with over a third of UK schools in the past two years alone.

The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) talked with beautiful passion about the role of science in his own life, having been fired up by an early visit to a planetarium. It was the same for the hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan). We also heard from the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) about his connection to the Look Out; as he was speaking, I thought back to the time I was hit by a Segway in Bracknell forest, and I started to get PTSD.

As SDCs rely on their own income rather than public subsidy, they have been particularly exposed to recent shocks, such as the pandemic and the energy price surge after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Although Government support schemes helped many organisations through that period, SDCs fell between several stools. They were not eligible for cultural recovery funding, and they did not have national lottery support either. They survived those challenges, but they did not anticipate facing simultaneous capital renewal pressures alongside the impact of the 2024 Budget.

We have all spoken to hospitality businesses in our constituencies about the sharply rising costs, particularly when it comes to employing people, given the national insurance and business rates issues coming through. Those pressures are now pushing some of these science and discovery centres towards a tipping point. Two of the largest in the UK have announced significant redundancies. One set of accounts explicitly cites the inflationary impact of the Budget and increased national insurance costs, and 75 jobs have already gone at one centre. Some centres have warned that, without intervention, closures within the next 12 to 18 months are a real possibility.

All of this matters because the mission of science and discovery centres is to make science, technology, engineering and maths more accessible, engaging and relevant to people from all backgrounds. They provide trusted spaces where the public can explore new technologies to understand their applications and build confidence in engaging with them—a recent example is a project to demystify AI. The hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) mentioned how these centres play a critical role in the skills pipeline.

Glasgow Science Centre’s learning labs programme has worked with thousands of teachers and reached over 100,000 pupils. That shows how these centres complement formal education and help young people to see themselves as future scientists, engineers and innovators. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) talked about the importance of SDCs in challenging anti-science narratives. I congratulate him on his recent nuptials—I am sure Le Petit Château had a very lively night over the new year.

Ministers have recognised all these strengths. The Secretary of State herself has spoken in this Chamber about the National Space Centre, which is in her own city of Leicester, and the role it plays in future jobs and prosperity. The constituency of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is one of her Ministers, neighbours the amazing Dynamic Earth SDC. I know his constituency is not close to Montgomeryshire, but I am sure he does not want to take on and disappoint the Welsh mafia, if I may say that, in this Chamber by not backing SDCs very fully.

That touches the heart of the problem. These centres need a Department to recognise them, engage with them and champion them, and DSIT is their obvious home. These centres were born of a Government-led vision to create trusted environments for public engagement with science and tech, and they have built strong partnerships with universities, industry and local communities. They are ready to support national missions, but they need the Government to show them that ownership.

I have a number of fairly straightforward questions for the Minister, which are reflective of the very disciplined briefing behind the scenes by the Association for Science and Discovery Centres. I would be grateful if he could let us know whether DSIT will formally accept responsibility for the sector and act as its champion across Government. Will Ministers meet SDC representatives as a matter of urgency? Will the Department consider whether underspends can be directed towards the £20 million that the SDCs believe is essential for capital upgrades, which they are confident they can match-fund through partnerships? Will Ministers engage directly with DCMS colleagues on opening up access to national lottery funding for science and discovery centres? Finally, will the Minister make representations to the Treasury about the wider impact of current tax and business rates policy on SDCs, which runs directly counter to what the Government say they wish to promote when it comes to science and technology?

SDCs are a quiet success story. They are independent, entrepreneurial and deeply embedded in communities. They support public understanding of science, they develop future skills and they are inspirational to future generations. They are not asking to be taken over or paid for, and they know what to do when it comes to continuing their great work long into the future, but they need help with short-term challenges that are not of their own making. They are asking to be recognised, engaged with and enabled to continue doing what they already do well for the benefit of science, society and the economy.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

As a senior member of the Welsh mafia, I am presumably the Godmother.

I now call the Minister, and I remind him to make sure he leaves time at the end for the Member in charge to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Witherden]

I thank all the speakers in today’s debate. There were some lovely speeches. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) speak about his work on tsetse flies in New Zealand, which emphasises the global contribution that our science centres make. I was extremely relieved to hear that his favourite magazine in his youth was the New Scientist.

My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) spoke at length about the chemical industry. Our two constituencies have a very close link: Glyndŵr, the other half of my constituency, was home to the biggest chemical plant in the world in the 1920s and was the biggest producer of the chemical phenyl. Just as in the last two centuries science and technology were the driver of the industrial revolution and growth and development of this country, I hope that in this century it will be the cleaner science and technology that drives the green industrial revolution.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) spoke passionately about Aberdeen’s science centre. I was very glad to hear that it had kept the defecating sheep. That is great news. Learning about the digestive system is incredibly important. Like her, I live in dread of boundary changes because the CAT sits very close to Ceredigion and Dwyfor Meirionnydd.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) is another Member who has had a fantastic science career, with a great passion for the pedagogical aspect of science centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) was not the only Member to speak about the concerning rise in what we might call anti-science and anti-facts. One of the things that inspired me to get into politics was when the former Member for Surrey Heath famously said he thought people had “had enough of experts”—the antithesis of what I think. If I hurt my back, I want to speak to an expert in back injuries. I will take experts, thank you very much. I was glad to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) still regularly visits and supports his local science centre and never forgot visiting as a child.

Turning to the two Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) and for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), politics can be quite a cynical game, but it is so lovely when there is cross-party consensus on a topic, so I really enjoyed hearing both those speakers. I can reassure the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster that I am most certainly not a member of the Welsh mafia.

I thank the Minister for coming here today. He spoke very reassuringly, and I look forward to meeting him. For too long, the issue of science centres has been treated like a bride left at the altar by the groom. No one is representing it, and no Departments are taking it on, so I hope that DSIT does. I look forward to working with him on that in the near future.

Finally, as well as thanking all the visitors in the Gallery, some of whom have travelled a very long way to come here to be with us today, I also want to thank you, Mrs Harris, for your excellent work in the Chair. As always, it gives me great pleasure that this debate has been a very Wales-centric affair. Diolch.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

In the spirit of sharing and showing how shallow I am, my favourite magazine is Vogue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of Science and Discovery Centres on national science and technology priorities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The question I am asking myself is: why on earth is the hon. Gentleman perpetuating daft rumours? Honestly, the Department is not going to be abolished; it would be absolute madness. This Department touches the lives of nearly everybody in the country, every single day of the week, whether through sport—football, rugby, cricket, tennis—broadcasting, or our wonderful creative industries. So many different aspects of what we do touch everybody’s lives. I cannot see any way in which the Department will be abolished.

The hon. Gentleman’s question was about EU touring. If he talks to all the liberal-leaning Governments in Europe, I talk to all the socialist-leaning Governments in Europe, and the Tories speak to, well, their colleagues in Europe—for that matter, Reform could speak to some of the barmpots in Europe—then we might manage to secure EU touring.

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

7. What discussions she has had with the Premier League on the distribution of funding to lower league football clubs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

The Government recognise the importance of distribution to the health of English football, and have engaged extensively with football authorities, including the Premier League, to encourage industry to come to an agreement that works for the football pyramid. If industry is not able to solve the issue, we, of course, have the Football Governance Bill, which gives the independent football regulator the power to ensure that such an agreement is made.

[Carolyn Harris]

English Football League clubs like my local team, Swansea City, are struggling. In fact, according to the accounts for EFL championship clubs covering the season ending May 2024, all but four clubs were making a loss, with an average loss of £17.5 million for the period. What more can we do to speed up a deal between the Premier League and lower-league clubs to ensure that funds are fairly distributed, and to help so many local teams survive?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Continued delays to a potential new distribution deal serve no one, and we understand the uncertainty and instability that they can cause many clubs, including Swansea City. We are backing the football regulator, which is what I encourage Members to do. The Government are keeping our manifesto commitment.

Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of AI on intellectual property.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms McVey. I am grateful to all colleagues who have joined us here today. None of us will wish to prevent the inevitable, exciting power of change. This is not about resisting that change, but about shaping it, determining what comes next, for what and for whom. The debate grows louder and louder, and more important by the day. Today, I hope that we can begin to mark a landing zone of shared positions.

Our creative industries, with their might and strength, remain deeply alarmed. Copyright is the foundation of their creations, our UK industry and livelihoods, across music, films, books, news, investigations, coding, games, paintings and much more. The Government have made strong commitments to our creative industries, but their upcoming industrial strategy for growth will fall well short of the priority placed on those industries if it does not ensure legal peace of mind and action on artificial intelligence for those creating some of life’s greatest experiences.

The Government and the Minister have said continually that they want creatives to be better paid and better looked after, with licensing in the AI age to come. Given the agreement on the need for licensing and remuneration, why do the loudest AI tech companies expect to train their machines on human-created content for nothing? The Minister has referred to learning the lessons of the Napster age. I ask him: does he agree that it was the assertion of copyright that ensured we live with Spotify, for example, and not a music industry cannibalised by piracy?

Artificial intelligence is reshaping life as we know it. Its extraordinary potential must be built on integrity. Ignoring rights, abandoning trusted status or undermining commercial principles make for bad policy and worse law.

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Is he aware of the Society of Authors’ petition, which has 50,000 signatures so far, calling for action following Meta’s use of 7.5 million pirated books from the illegal LibGen database to train its Llama 3 AI? That is a blatant infringement of the authors’ copyright.

[Mr Frith]

My hon. Friend makes a precise and excellent point. Seemingly by the day, we learn of whole sections of our creative industries having their work ripped off. I will come on to what we need to do.

We need an assertion of first principles: economic fairness and an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work—the cost of doing business and paying one’s way. Our mission for our creative industries cannot mean creative industry submission. The opportunity plan will not work if our creative industries are the opportunity cost. As Labour, we back the working people who make our creative industries so powerful.

Digital Exclusion

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. As hon. Members can see, the debate is oversubscribed and there will therefore be a two-minute time limit. I remind colleagues of two things: if they wish to speak, they need to bob; and any interventions taken will cause other colleagues to lose time further on in the debate.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing this important debate. Digital exclusion is a social, economic and increasingly political issue. I came into politics to preserve what we should all be preserving in this place: the freedom of the individual. Sadly, those rights are being diminished day after day. I am not a luddite and I am not against the technological age—indeed, I welcome it. Yet with every advance, we must also make sure that the rights and freedoms of the individual advance at a similar pace.

Derbyshire Dales, where I live, is particularly affected because of the geography. We have had a lot of money from the Government and they have upheld their promises in a large regard. However, we still have patches of poor connectivity. I remind everybody of what Lloyds bank said in 2021: as many as 10 million people do not have the basic foundation skills to be able to access the digital world. That is one in six individuals. Putting aside other things that might disadvantage them, such as not having a smartphone or, as in Derbyshire Dales, not having technology that can work in the dales because of the difficulty with signals, that is a huge number of people.

Digital exclusion disproportionately erodes the rights of our elderly and disadvantaged people, along with the basic tenets of society such as small businesses. I have seen that quickly in Derbyshire Dales and with my experience in the campaign against the National Westminster Bank. The chief executive was not available to see me for months, so the managing director told me he was committed to helping people transition. He said, “We have 60% of the people in your area connected to our online app.” I said, “I am talking about the 40%; that is what I am concerned about.”

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Sarah Dyke.

[Miss Dines]

Thank you very much. I am very pleased that I was able to raise these issues because we have to protect the rights of the individual.