Parthenon Marbles: British Museum Act 1963
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
Kalimera, Mr Vickers. It is very good to have this debate and I commend the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for bringing it to the House. Interestingly, it is the first one on this issue in this Parliament, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about it.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that UK relations with Greece are extremely warm and tender, and have been for many centuries in many regards. Perhaps Lord Byron is best known in the UK for his poetry, and for being
“mad, bad and dangerous to know”,
but in Greece, he is considered to be quite a hero. That is why I am delighted that we are in the process of having the statue of Lord Byron moved to Hyde Park, where it will have a more prominent display. I know that the Greek Government have been supportive of that. For that matter, I have been to one production of Oedipus in the last few months, and there have been two—albeit rather updated—versions here. I think we all know that Greek culture is a really important part of our foundational understanding of what it is to be a modern democracy. Indeed, the word “democracy” comes from two Greek words, and “telephone”, “oligarchy” and so many other parts of our language are determined by their Greek origins.
The hon. Gentleman was also absolutely right to point to the many millions of British people who go to Greece every year. I think one in four British people goes to Spain every year and one in six British people goes to Greece. That is why it is so important that in the conversations I have had, particularly with my Greek counterparts, both as Tourism Minister and as Culture Minister, we have often focused on those issues more than anything else.
We want to enhance the relationship. This is nothing to do with being a member of the European Union or not being a member of the European Union. I was really delighted only a couple of weeks ago to be invited as a Culture Minister—I think it is the first time this has happened since Brexit—to the informal meeting of Culture Ministers in Warsaw. There are so many areas in which our cultural relationships are intrinsically linked with Greece, not least in our discussions about Ukraine and security in the eastern Balkans. There are so many areas in culture and security where our geopolitical relationship with Greece is absolutely vital. That is nothing to do with whether we are a member of the European Union. That is why we want to press the reset button on our relationship with the EU.
Chris Bryant
I will, but it will limit the amount of time I have to respond to the questions.
Andrew George
I welcome the Minister’s opening remarks, particularly about Lord Byron, who, of course, was opposed to Lord Elgin’s actions regarding the removal of the Parthenon sculptures. Clearly, the specific point for today is whether it is possible, under the 1963 Act, for the British Museum to arrange a loan, and whether the Minister and the Government would stand in its way.
Chris Bryant
If the hon. Gentleman had let me get on to that subject, we would have got there earlier, but he got to make his point—I think he divided the speech he would otherwise have made into two interventions. That is not something that I ever did when I was—
Chris Bryant
That is the use of irony, which is also, of course, another fundamentally Greek concept.
I want to say at the outset that the marbles are an extraordinarily significant and important part of Greek and—I would argue—western artistic and architectural understanding. Nobody should ever diminish their importance. Indeed, it is upsetting to think of previous moments when the Acropolis was used as an arsenal, and a big explosion ended up destroying large parts of it. That was many centuries ago. The marbles were built between 447 BC and 438 BC by Phidias, who was one of the greatest of all Greek artists and sculptors. He also designed and built the great statue of Zeus at Olympia, which was one of the seven great wonders of the world, along with the hanging gardens of Babylon and so on.
Many of us who have been to see, both here and in Athens, all the different elements of the marbles know how extraordinary they are, although I worry that we do not quite see them in the brilliance that people would have seen them originally. We know now, from lots of research that has been conducted, that they would have been painted or tinted in some way, and they would really have stuck out. The battle of the Centaurs and the Lapiths, and the frieze with the Panathenaic procession, would have looked very different from how we experience them today.
This is a debate that has gone on for 200 years, although I think the first direct bid from the Greek Government to the UK Government was back in 1983, and it was turned down in 1984. I should make some things very clear. First, the Parthenon marbles—or the Elgin marbles, whatever we want to call them—are not the property of the UK Government. That is sometimes misunderstood, because in different countries, parts of the national patrimony are actually under the direct ownership of the Government. We do not have that structure in the UK. From the outset, the British Museum was set up as an independent body. Its trustees are given fiduciary responsibilities under the British Museum Act 1963 now—it was originally under previous Acts before that—and they have to adhere by them. If they do not, they will find themselves in court. That is one of the aspects of this debate that we have to bear in careful consideration.
One of the questions that has been raised fairly regularly is whether it is legally possible for there to be an indefinite loan. I want to be clear about that issue, because I noted that an article in The Daily Telegraph— I think it followed a conversation that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire had with the paper—talked about an indefinite loan. Let me be absolutely clear that the British Museum Act 1963 states in section 3, on the keeping and inspection of collections:
“Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Trustees of the British Museum to keep the objects comprised in the collections of the Museum within the authorised repositories of the Museum, except in so far as they may consider it expedient to remove them temporarily for any purpose connected with the administration of the Museum and the care of its collections.”
It is possible for loans to be enabled through an open individual export licence. They are granted by Government, but can be granted only for up to three years. Obviously, the working assumption of anything that is temporary—a temporary licence— is that it is guaranteed that the items are returning. That puts paid under existing law to any idea of an indefinite or permanent loan.
I have read articles where people in Greece say that they are not interested in a loan anyway, because a loan implies that the marbles still belong to the British Museum rather than to Greece. The important point that I am trying to clarify—because I think there has been some misunderstanding—is that under existing law, it would be impossible for there to be a permanent or indefinite loan. The trustees would be required, in seeking a licence to export, to show that they were absolutely certain that the items were returning. I do not think that would be easy if they had arranged a permanent or indefinite loan—the point being that we would have to change the law. The immediate question that the hon. Member may ask is whether we are intending to change the law. We have no intention to change the law.
I will respond to some of the hon. Member’s other questions in writing. He asked about conversations or communications with the Greek Government on this issue since last July. I have met several Ministers, including Culture Ministers and Tourism Ministers, at various different times. The only occasion on which this issue was mentioned was when the Tourism Minister came to see me on 4 November last year, and she very briefly raised the matter. We mostly talked about tourism, but there was a brief mention of the Parthenon sculptures. I will check if there have been any other communications from the Greek Government since last July, but I am not sure there have been. I may be wrong, so I will write to the hon. Member.
There are provisions in the 1963 Act for temporary loans, and my understanding is that the chairman of the British Museum has been in some discussions. We have not been party to those discussions, but he has briefly outlined some of the issues that have arisen, both to me and to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I am not aware of any further developments in that area in recent months. If a suggestion of a temporary loan were to come from the British Museum, there is a process for considering that under existing law, but that would—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
Ms McVey, I am sure that if you were not in the Chair, you would be participating in this debate, because I know that you have an interest in this area not only as a Member of Parliament, but personally. I am not sure whether there is a recording of your performance in “The Vagina Monologues” years ago, but there are many other recordings of you around, and I am sure you would want to enforce your copyright in relation to them as well.
Today is not only the 48th birthday of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) and Shakespeare’s 461st birthday, but Turner’s 250th birthday. I suppose we could all join in singing “Happy Birthday” since, interestingly enough, it came out of copyright in 2015 because Warner Chappell lost a lawsuit over whether it maintained the copyright. The fact that people had to pay for it is one of the reasons that it rarely appeared in films and instead people ended up singing “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow”—or “For She’s a Jolly Good Fellow”—which always seemed rather odd.
I will not go through all the individual contributions to the debate, if that is all right with Members, because I want to deal directly with the specific issues as much as I can. My hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on securing the debate, talked about a landing point, and that is what I will try to talk about today.
There are some things that I think we all agree on. First, an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work is a fundamental principle not just of the Labour party, but of the whole of British society in how we order ourselves. Another hon. Member said that creators deserve to be paid. I completely and utterly agree, and so do the Government. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to the performers’ rights framework. He is quite right: that does need some review, and we are looking at it. Interestingly enough, in one of the very early Westminster Hall debates I took part in, way back on 12 June 2002—the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who is sitting across the Chamber today, led the debate that day—I said that we need to look at the performers’ rights framework. I completely agree that creators need to be remunerated.
Secondly, it is patently wrong to use pirated material to train large language models. I have to be careful, because—I declare my own interest as an author and member of the Society of Authors—it has been noted in several newspapers that my own work was scraped in the use of the Library Genesis dataset by Meta Platforms Inc. Such use is patently wrong and I do not think anybody disagrees with that.
Thirdly, we should never characterise the creative industries as luddites. That is simply and patently untrue. I recently went to Ninja Theory, a video games company in Cambridge. It uses AI all day, every day, as an integral part of making sure that any game it presents is at the cutting edge of modern gaming. The same could be said of so many creative industries, not just about their use of AI but about their use of innovation. I want to knock this on the head: nobody in Government is saying that the creative industries are luddites. It is perfectly legitimate for people to have concerns about their future remunerative stream, and we acknowledge that.
It is not just video games; musicians and people in so many other parts of the creative industries use AI. Indeed, we should not forget that a large chunk of the creative industries is tech companies that are developing AI. As several hon. Members have noted, those companies have their own copyright concerns—otherwise, how will they make a living into the future?—but the irony of some complaining about others stealing their work is not lost on anybody.
Fourthly, the creative industries are already engaging with artificial intelligence. Many of them are engaged in licensing already, and have been from the very beginning. That is not just true for newspapers, many of which have had an easier time delivering that if they have been behind a paywall; a whole series of different licences have now been arranged. I went to the London book fair and spoke to several publishers, all of whom were interested in bringing forward licensing with AI companies and want to do so with all the AI platforms, for the simple reason that, as some of the academic publishers put it, they want AI to be the best version of AI that it can be. A fundamental principle of a pipe is that what comes out of it depends on what is put into it, and the quality of responses produced by AI will depend on the quality of information that has been put into it. Many of the UK’s big academic publishers are trying to license and get remuneration for their work because they want to make sure that AI provides good, modern answers based on solid information.
Fifthly, transparency is vital but not simple, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said. Several hon. Members referred to the European Union, which theoretically has transparency provisions in its legislation, but has yet to come up with a system that is both proportionate, and effective and usable. Frankly, there is no point in somebody dumping a list of millions or billions of URLs that have been scraped and looked at on some kind of website. Whether that was done on a monthly or weekly basis, it would hardly be usable, or a proper, effective means of transparency.
We need to get transparency, and the enforcement of transparency, right. That is why we have consulted on this area. There is a great deal more work that we need to do. I would like to do some of it with allies in other countries who are struggling with this too, but we need to do it with the creative industries and with tech. There must be somebody out there who could make a commercial living out of creating an app that could help us solve the transparency issue, but it is vital that we do so. We need to make sure that there is transparency, because otherwise how can anybody know whether their works have been scraped or not?
Chris Bryant
I am very reluctant to give way, if only because I have quite a lot of things to get through. I am really sorry. We will have another debate on this issue very soon, I am sure.
Sixthly, several Members referred to people wanting a “legal peace of mind”. I am not reiterating the line about whether or not there is legal certainty; that is not the point I am making. Many individual creators have been in touch with me directly—I am sure that they have been in touch with other hon. Members—to say, “I don’t know where I stand now under the existing law. I understand how Getty Images can go to court and enforce their rights, sometimes on behalf of themselves but also on behalf of the people they represent, but how do I do that for myself when I’ve just posted some of my works online, because I’m advertising my works? I don’t want to disappear from the internet, so the robots.txt system doesn’t work.”
That is a really important area where we need to do work. We have a framework of civil enforcement of copyright in the UK. It is robust and it meets the Berne convention issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North referred to, but it is still easier for those who have lawyers and cash to use it. That is why we have collecting societies, which can be more effective in many areas, but the different segments of the creative industries that we are talking about have to be dealt with differently, because a musician, an artist, a photographer, somebody who writes or somebody whose words or voice are being used are all treated differently, or their rights are enforced differently at present, and we need to make sure that there is that legal peace of mind for all those people into the future.
My hon. Friend said that a technical solution for rights reservation does not yet exist and he is absolutely right. I think a couple of other Members made that point, and I know that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which is admirably chaired, has referred to some of these matters, including in a letter to Secretaries of State. But why do we not make it happen? I am determined to make it happen. Surely, it cannot be beyond the wit of the clever people who are developing all this technology to develop something. If we could get to a place where it was very easy for any individual, or everybody—
Chris Bryant
I only have 45 seconds left, so I am afraid that I cannot; I am sorry.
If we were able to deliver that over the next 12 to 18 months in the UK, then we genuinely would be leading the world and we would be answering the problems of transparency and provenance, and making sure that people were genuinely remunerated. That is one of the things I am determined to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is no longer in his place, said that we must listen to the creative industries before any legislation is introduced. He is 100% correct. I absolutely commit that that is what we will do. Somebody else said that technology is not good or bad; I think they were almost quoting “Hamlet”. I will make the point that artificial intelligence was made for humanity by humanity, not humanity made for artificial intelligence, and we need to make sure that we get the balance right.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North started the debate by saying—because he had to—that we have “considered” the impact of AI on intellectual property. We have not adequately considered it yet. We have to consider it more. We were not intending to legislate in the data Bill, and there is no clause in it, on opt-out. There is no such clause. There is no need to take it out, because it does not exist. I am determined to get us to a place where people are properly remunerated, where they are able to enforce their rights, and where AI can flourish in this country and be used by the creative industries and the creative industries are not left by the wayside. In short, to quote the Bible, we will not sell our birthright for a mess of pottage.
Bedford Universal Theme Park and Resort
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
I am pleased to publish an update on the proposal for the construction of a Universal Destinations and Experiences (UDX) theme park and resort in Bedford, further to the Prime Minister’s announcement of the same during recess on 9 April.
We have reached an agreement in principle for Universal to turn the site of the former Kempston Hardwick brickworks, on the outskirts of Bedford, into a 476-acre theme park and entertainment resort complex. The expected multi-billion pound investment from the American company will be one of the most significant investments to be made in the United Kingdom in this Parliament, and is among the largest single investments ever in the UK tourism and entertainment sector.
The benefits of the project are substantial. Universal estimates that it will deliver over £50 billion for the economy by 2055; and that 8.5 million visitors will come to it in its first year of operation in 2031. Over the course of the construction period, 20,000 jobs will be created, with a peak of 5,000 on site at the busiest time. The park and resort will employ 8,000 people in its first year, which is anticipated to rise to 10,000 by the 20th year of operation. Jobs will require skills of all kinds, with opportunities to develop careers in a range of creative, administrative and technical fields. The development is expected to become the biggest visitor attraction in the UK, surpassing our current top attraction of the British Museum. It will be the first Universal theme park in Europe and one of the largest visitor attractions on the continent.
This investment is the Government’s plan for change in action, directly improving the lives of working people and strengthening our country. It aligns with our missions to kick-start economic growth and break down barriers to opportunity—providing valuable opportunities outside of London and our bigger cities for professionals to develop their careers and live meaningful lives.
In November, this Government announced the creative industries as a priority growth-sector, and a key pillar of the upcoming industrial strategy. Universal’s theme park and resort is one demonstration of how this Government are already securing investment in the high-growth sectors that will drive our growth mission.
Part of the reason Universal chose the UK as their European home was due to the strength of our creative industries. From Dua Lipa to Shakespeare, Conan Doyle to Hogwarts, we are a world leader in the arts and creative industries. Universal’s theme park and resort will be another tremendous asset to the sector. It will bring hundreds of jobs in the creative industries, showcase our wonderful British intellectual property, and enhance our soft power, as fans of British creativity across the globe look at the world-class offer in Bedford.
Alongside the creative industries this will boost tourism in the UK. In November of last year, I announced my ambition for the UK to attract 50 million visitors a year by 2050. The tourism industry is larger than our automotive and agricultural industries combined, and is projected to grow in the years ahead. This investment will create a new visitor economy in Bedfordshire, enabling Bedford and the region to showcase proudly all it has to offer to tourists, from the UK and globally. This Government believe everybody across the UK is a part of our national story, so I am proud that this investment puts Bedford at the centre of a new, major tourist attraction.
Government are working hard, together with Universal, to ensure that they can meet the ambitious delivery timelines. Even so, decisions on procurement and intellectual property rest entirely with Universal and as such they will be the first to share updates in those areas. Of course we have gone to great lengths to champion the strengths of British companies and intellectual property.
The Government are also working closely with Bedford borough council. It is essential that local voices and experience should be woven into any delivery of policy, projects and programmes; and given the scale of change and the transformational impact on the area, the imperative to do so is even greater. The council has shown commendable dedication so far to this project.
The Department would welcome the support of colleagues across both Houses for this transformational investment.
[HCWS590]
Living Heritage Inventory: Consultation Response
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for Gambling and Heritage and DCMS Lords Minister, Baroness Twycross:
The Government have published the response to the consultation on the inventories of living heritage, one of the key obligations under the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, which the UK ratified last year. The response details how we, working closely with the devolved Governments, will create inventories of living heritage of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which will combine into a UK inventory.
The Government will start a conversation throughout the UK about our cultural heritage—the folklore, performance, customs and crafts that play an important role in the identity, pride, and cohesion of communities across the UK—and how we collectively safeguard this intangible cultural heritage or ‘living heritage’.
The Government have taken an open, inclusive and community-based approach to implementing the convention and we are grateful to the many who participated in the roundtables and submitted responses to the consultation. This engagement has been invaluable in developing the criteria, categories, and approach we will use for the inventories. DCMS has worked closely with the devolved Governments to agree the consultation response.
Later this year, the Government will open the call for submissions to these inventories with full guidance and information about how to submit an item. DCMS will engage and include as many communities as possible to recognise and celebrate the extraordinary range of living heritage across all corners of the UK.
[HCWS588]
Automation: Economic Benefits
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
Finally, somebody speaks up for the robots. We have been waiting for centuries. The robots have been clamouring outside, waiting for the moment when somebody would speak up for them, and I am sure that they will be delighted about the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) has done so today.
My hon. Friend made a point right at the beginning about the cultural aspects of how we view the word robotic, which was interesting, was it not? If we say that a politician is robotic, we somehow dismiss them and think that that is inappropriate. Instead, it might actually mean that they are accurate, precise and do things on time. In addition—I suppose this is because I am the Minister for the creative industries—it makes me think of “Hamlet”. Are robotics good or bad? Well, as it says in “Hamlet”:
“There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.”
I think that is part of the problem we have here. For some reason or other, we have decided that automation is bad, but actually my hon. Friend is quite right to say that in so many different regards it can only possibly be good.
Often, robotics can take away the drudgery from a repetitive process that a human being might find difficult to maintain in as accurate a way as a robot. It can enhance productivity; several Members who are not even obsessed with this matter are none the less interested in how we can improve our productivity in the UK, because it is one of the ways in which we fail economically. Robotics can also improve the quality and reliability of a product. So, a business that significantly invests in automation can end up, despite the up-front capital costs, recouping that investment much faster than it would if it had relied on other means of producing its goods.
Automation is not about stealing jobs; it is about enabling humans to do other things, including other jobs where human creativity and human ability and the relationship of one human to another may be more important than the repetitive element of the work.
My hon. Friend referred to running the London marathon and asked whether robots can run a marathon for us. I do not think that is the point of a marathon. The point of a marathon is that it is far too long; it is a preposterously lengthy race. I have run the London marathon three times. I had decided that I was not going to race against anybody else; I was just racing against myself, to get to the end. That is my advice to him about how to run a marathon. It was all going swimmingly until I got to the very end—to the last 200 yards—and two women dressed as Bakewell tarts overtook me. Then, I was very upset and decided that I was going to beat the tarts, and I did. However, the point is that there are things where only we humans can compete and where only we can make a difference.
Robotics can also provide solutions to pressing social problems, including autonomous vehicles for transport, which we have not referred to yet, and robotic maintenance and monitoring, supporting clean energy transition. Robotic innovations can also enhance social care, which might be a very significant part of improving productivity and the quality of the care that can be provided, so that the personal human involvement is not about doing the drudgery.
Robotics can also help with surgery in hospitals. It is depressing that we have lagged behind many other countries in bringing, for instance, laparoscopic robotics into hospitals up and down the land. I had two such operations last year; if tea is poured into me, it just pours out as if I were a colander. The significant improvement in the amount of time, the accuracy, the safety and the lack of infection that laparoscopic robotics can provide in surgery is absolutely significant. For instance, as in my case, the ability to remove a melanoma from inside a lung—collapsing the lung and then removing the melanoma—is quite extraordinary and would never have been possible unless we brought automation into the system. However, that requires capital investment.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are not a world leader in automation; I wish we were. I have slightly different figures from his—mine might be a year out of date—but I think that, according to the International Federation of Robotics, we were 24th in the world in 2023, but it may be that in 2024 we were 23rd in the world. My hon. Friend pointed out that we are not in the top 10—we are the only G7 country not to be, which is an embarrassment for us. This country has innovated in so many areas, although once we have innovated we have sometimes found it difficult to take things to market and get them invested in—other countries have been better at that—so that is one of the things that the Government need to address. That is shameful. As several Members said, it is part of the problem with our productivity. If we could only get to par with others in the top 10, we would improve our productivity by roughly 20%. British Ministers have been dreaming of that kind of significant improvement in productivity for the past 15 or 20 years, because that would enable the economy to grow far more significantly.
My hon. Friend had a different figure for the significant improvement that we could see in gross value added. My figure is that £150 billion could be added to our GVA by 2035 if we seize hold of the opportunities that robotics and automation provide.
My hon. Friend referred to some of the problems. As I said earlier, I think one of the problems is reluctance. That is partly due to an ethical question: how do we ensure that people do not lose jobs but find different jobs in which they are more effective, productive and engaged? There are also some moral anxieties about robotics—perhaps some of the films that we have produced over the years, which he wittily referred to, have not entirely helped in that.
Another issue is access to cash—in particular, to capital financing. In the discussions I have had as a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology Minister, people from the industry have repeatedly said to me, “It is easier if you are in London and the south-east than it is if you are in the rest of the United Kingdom.” That is another aspect that we need to change. These issues are about automation not just here in London but throughout the United Kingdom, and in so many different sectors. I have responsibility for space, and obviously robotics and automation are a key part of delivering an ambitious space programme in future years. I believe we can be a world leader if we focus on the things that we are particularly good at, and where we have a unique contribution to make, but I am conscious that we need to get the security aspects right.
There are things that we are already doing. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have a Made Smarter adoption programme, whose budget we doubled to £16 million a year, starting from 1 April 2025. That will undoubtedly make a difference. As he said, we are developing an industrial strategy. Members might think that the country should always have an industrial strategy, a bit like they might think that we should always have a digital inclusion strategy. Those two things have to go hand in hand. We are developing an industrial strategy and, just as in space, we are rightly focusing on the things where we have a unique capability. Through the Department for Business and Trade, we have decided to focus on sectors where we think there is an opportunity for economic growth and where the UK has something special to offer.
I am really glad that the advanced manufacturing plan includes work on robotics, which is key to several elements of advanced manufacturing. I am slightly in danger here, because I have read it and I cannot tell my hon. Friend what is in it given that we will be publishing it later, but it has not got to its final draft yet. I think that a lot of things that he has been saying will be reflected in that document.
My hon. Friend said that this was not about AI, but sometimes robotics and automation are referred to as “embodied AI”. Obviously, there are significant elements of robotics that work best when they include a learning capacity. That is why I am really proud of the AI opportunities action plan that we launched earlier this year. It has 50 different proposals. We are taking action in relation to all 50, and have been consulting on two. That includes looking at the AI skills gap—a significant aspect, which hon. Friend mentioned. We need to make sure that we have the skills in the UK to develop automation.
Likewise, we have to look at whether we have enough AI graduates coming out of universities, or even starting in that education process. That too is not just a matter for one part of the country; it is a matter for economic growth throughout the country. We also need to increase the diversity of the talent pool that comes into that world. It is not just in one industry, such as automotives, where that might be significant, but a whole series of industries—nearly every one—and also lots of our public services that could be better delivered using embodied artificial intelligence. Similarly, we need to look at the education pathways into AI, and therefore into robotics as well.
Part of DSIT’s funding to UK Research and Innovation goes to Innovate UK, which is responsible for the catapult centres. That includes the one to which my hon. Friend has already referred, the high value manufacturing catapult. DSIT is providing £8.8 billion to UKRI in this financial year; Innovate UK will receive £948 million of that. The high value manufacturing catapult is a strategic research and innovation hub for industry, commercialising the UK’s most advanced manufacturing ideas. The seven centres help businesses to transform the products they sell, the way they make them and the skills of their workforce, to remain competitive globally.
I am delighted that, as has been mentioned, we have had a historic debate on automation. I hope I have not provided a robotic answer to my hon. Friend’s questions. I very much hope that when we produce our industrial strategy in the next few weeks and months, he will be proud to say that we are embracing and fully behind this drive for greater productivity through greater automation, while always holding on to the belief that it is not about replacing people’s jobs. It is about enabling people, with that human element, to play the human role they need to play in whatever industry it may be, whether the creative or automotive or other. My final thought is that the marathon is far too long a distance. I wish him well. I hope he comes in at more than three hours and 24 minutes.
Question put and agreed to.
Digital Landlines: Rural Communities
Chris Bryant Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts, and to see so many Members take part in this debate. From the moment I was appointed as the Telecoms Minister, this issue has been the single thing that has kept me awake most at night. It is about very vulnerable people up and down the country, many of whom have absolutely no understanding of what PSTN might mean, how their telecare device works or whether it will work when a man or a woman comes to change the connection to their house, and so on.
At the same time, on day one, I was made very aware by officials that the single biggest problem we have is that the copper network is simply becoming less and less reliable. Simply remaining with the old system will not work, because that will leave more people in danger, rather than fewer. The very first thing I did as a Minister was to rant in the office, “We are going to get everybody round the table to come to a better set of decisions.” It was preposterous to me that people were still selling telecare devices that would only work on an old analogue system, and would not work on the new system at all.
Chris Bryant
I will not give way for the moment; I want to make a few points first, if that is okay.
It was also preposterous to me that still very few people had any understanding of what was happening in their own home and that most operators had no proper connection with a list of vulnerable patients or customers, despite the fact that local authorities, health boards and a whole series of other public sector bodies have precisely that information.
As I said, the very first thing I did was to stamp my foot and we got everybody round the table—I think it was in July last year, and we had another meeting later in September. I was forceful with all the operators in this field. First, I wanted to make sure that every single local authority was written to and told that they must provide that list of vulnerable customers to the operators. They started saying things about GDPR and I said, “No, you know perfectly well that we are able to get round these issues for this specific purpose.”
Secondly, I was trying to make sure that there was much greater resilience in the system—the point that several Members have made. Thirdly, of course the Ofcom rules say batteries only need to have one hour of back-up, but it is not just Vodafone that offers more than that; BT, KCOM and Zen Internet have all announced, following discussions I had with them back in September and November, that they will now have a battery power of between four and seven hours. Of course, that is not perfect—if there is a flood or something that will knock out the systems for several days—but that is when other resilience measures from local authorities really need to kick in.
I have acted in all those different areas from the beginning. I say this as gently as I can to the former Minister, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds): the briefing that I had was that previous Ministers were utterly complacent in this area, and that is why I was determined to act.
Esther McVey
The explanation that has been given is that the switchover is happening because of the poor condition of the copper, but has the Minister sought reassurances? Has there been a full investigation? I find it hard to believe that the copper is so bad that the switchover cannot be delayed. Will he go back and get assurances that it needs to be done?
Chris Bryant
It is a fact. We have to deal with the facts, I am afraid. It is a simple fact that the copper system is now failing on a daily basis.
Chris Bryant
Yes, I have facts. I would be happy to write to the right hon. Lady if she would like me to. I remember that last July, my anxiety was that somebody would end up having a telecare device not working because of VoIP. Since that time, the number of failures has increased far more in relation to when copper has failed, rather than in relation to VoIP. That is the precise fact that we have to deal with.
The former Minister, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire is right; it is an industry-led process and it always has been. We have to deal with the practicalities of the fact that the copper system is not going to last forever. The other former Minister over there, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), is looking cross with me. I am not saying that the civil service briefed me to that effect.
Chris Bryant
I did not. I will finish my point. All of industry briefed me about that point—they were grateful because they said that everybody was, frankly, complacent about the issue until we came to power.
Steve Barclay
The Minister did say that. I welcome the fact that he has just corrected what he said. I think this is a debate in which everyone has a common purpose—particularly relating to the vulnerable and those with medical devices when there are storms and other crises—which is how we can arrive at a solution. Hopefully, we can work on that together.
What came out of many of the interventions we have heard was a concern about gaps in data. For those of us who, as Ministers, have attended Cobra, one of the first things that is almost always found is a concern over the quality of data. In covid, we had to get the Information Commissioner to change the rules for the clinically extremely vulnerable because we did not have enough data.
The Minister seemed to be saying that, having stamped his foot and intervened, he has fixed the data issue, but colleagues have been saying that they are concerned about data. Could he clarify—is he still concerned about gaps in data, or is he saying that the gaps in data have now been addressed? Could he also write to the Members attending the debate to confirm the data issue?
Chris Bryant
That was a long intervention and I am not sure what precise elements of data the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. What I am saying is that one of the things the operators needed to have was a full list of all vulnerable customers. It is never going to be 100% perfect, because there are some people who had telecare devices but have moved on to a different system, and so on, but in the main the people who know who their vulnerable customers are—those who might be relying, for instance, on a telecare or similar device—are local authorities and local health trusts or boards, or whatever the pattern may be in different parts of the United Kingdom. We have got to a place where 85% of local authorities are now reliably providing that information. I have not had any further complaints from the operators, but we keep on pressing the point with them.
In November, we also introduced the non-voluntary migration checklist, which means that nobody will be moved from one system to another without having had a visit, without having had the system explained to them, and without it being made sure that the new telecare device, or whatever it may be, would work under the new system. That has substantially reduced the dangers that there may be to individuals.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire referred to the subject of working between Departments. We have been working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, and that has led to the new telecare national action plan, which was announced a few weeks ago. That, too, was a result of the consultations that we started last July, September and November about trying to make sure that every person in the country who could be at risk because of an outage, an electricity failure, or the simple transition from one system to another, would be covered, and that they would have a system that worked as efficiently and effectively under VoIP as it would have done under the copper system.
I do not think we have any choice about whether we transition from copper, because copper will simply not survive for the next five to 10 years. I am happy to write to the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on the specifics if she wants.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
If there is a recognition that we need to switch from copper to broadband, then this plainly is another incentive to get broadband rolled out to the most remote rural areas. A councillor wrote to me to say:
“As we only get 2MBs on a good day, adding the land line will reduce the signal to a point where our devices will not work”.
These are people who are trying to work, earn money and pay taxes in rural areas. Does the Minister agree that, if we are going to scrap copper, we need to make sure that we have broadband?
Chris Bryant
There is a big point about broadband generally, and I will come to mobile because I think that several Members’ points have not been about PSTN at all today; they have been about mobile connectivity. That is an important issue of resilience as well. I could speak for the whole day about that, not least because of the reports today—I think in The Telegraph—that all of Ofcom’s previous announcements on mobile coverage are rather wide of the mark when it comes to what people are really able to achieve. The hon. Gentleman referred to 2 megabits per second; a telecare device will work on 0.5 megabits per second, so that is not the issue. The issue is whether someone has a router that has a back-up battery that will survive long enough if there is an electricity cut.
Damian Hinds
The Minister is right that the most vulnerable people must be at the very top of our list of concerns, but can I be really clear that this debate is not only about that group? It is about anybody who is cut off in a storm and may need to phone the emergency services, because anybody—they may not even be elderly—might have a medical emergency. That has not been getting enough attention in his remarks so far.
Chris Bryant
In truth, the advice I have had so far from the industry is that in the main in those kinds of instances, people would be using their mobile phone to—[Interruption.] Well, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire got cross with me when I was not listening to him earlier, so I will get cross with him back.
There is a legitimate point here: how do we make sure that we have the resilience for mobile technology as well? The point that I have made many times is that Ofcom reports 97% coverage for all mobile operators in many constituencies, but we all know from our lived experiences that that simply is not true. I think that that is partly because its expectation of mobile coverage is 2 megabits per second, whereas to be able to do anything reliably, a mobile signal today needs 5 megabits per second. There are also still areas with notspots—where there is simply no mobile signal. In my own semi-rural constituency in the south Wales valleys, there are many areas like that.
We need to make sure that the industry providing the mobile signal is able to deliver greater resilience in its masts. I am sure that other Members will have had the experience that I have had in my constituency, where people have set fire to masts because they believe that they do medical damage and things. If there is no mobile signal, people do not have any ability to make calls. The vast majority of people now do not rely on their home landlines to make emergency phone calls; they rely on mobiles.
Damian Hinds
This may be the last thing in the debate, but it is important to say that in many of our constituencies, there are places where people cannot make a voice call on a mobile telephone indoors. That is what an elderly person would be trying to do. It is not about a data transaction; it is about being able to make a phone call.
Chris Bryant
That is literally the point that I made two sentences ago, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reiterating it. The point is that we need to be able to get broadband to every single home in the country. We are working on Project Gigabit to deliver that as far as possible.
I am aware—not least because I am a Welsh MP in Wales—that there are some places in the UK where it is going to be phenomenally difficult to get to every single home with gigabit-capable broadband. That is where other solutions, such as fixed mobile and potentially satellite, are going to have to come into play. We will need to develop new technology to—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council Report: Government Response
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The security and resilience of the UK’s digital infrastructure is of central importance to the Government’s strategic objectives. This statement provides an update on the Government’s response to the Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council’s report and recommendations. It outlines the Government’s approach to addressing the risks to supply chains that support advanced connectivity technologies.
I am grateful to the Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council for its report and recommendations, setting out the risks we still carry and what the Government, working with industry, should do to address them.
Ensuring that individuals and businesses have access to high-quality connectivity serves as the foundation of our modern, digital economy. Given our current and future reliance on this connectivity, it is essential that these technologies are secure and resilient. This includes ensuring that we have a healthy, competitive telecoms supply chain, both to drive innovation and to avoid the risks that may arise from acute market concentration. In the broader digital sector, last year’s Crowdstrike incident, which led to IT outages worldwide, showed just how disruptive it can be when something goes wrong with a supplier to which we have high exposure.
I accept the Council’s recommendations. The previous Government took steps to begin addressing these risks, but Government and industry still have more to do. In the Government’s response, we reaffirm our commitment to secure and resilient digital infrastructure. We outline the steps we will take to manage risks in the short term, transition to a healthier supply chain in the medium term, and prevent similar risks from emerging in the long term.
By addressing these issues, we can drive growth and build sovereign capability by increasing the share of technologies developed within the UK. With a strong research base and a range of suppliers of advanced connectivity solutions based here, we aim to expand the UK’s role in the global supply chain and influence the next generation of technologies to meet our connectivity needs.
To seize this opportunity, the Government have committed to advanced connectivity technologies as a key growth market in the forthcoming industrial strategy, utilising our available levers to maximise our potential. We will work in partnership with the mobile network operators to deliver the measures set out in this response. To ensure all our efforts are well-targeted and informed by those both developing and deploying these technologies, we will also establish a new Advanced Connectivity Technologies Council.
The security and resilience risks to our digital infrastructure are significant, but the economic potential that will be unlocked by cutting-edge connectivity is vast. Guided by the Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council’s recommendations, the Government will work to advance secure, resilient and innovative digital infrastructure and the technologies that enable this, now and in the future.
The Government response will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
I look forward to continuing work to strengthen, secure and expand our digital infrastructure, working with stakeholders across the economy and international partners.
[HCWS552]
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
I am sure that every Member of the House would agree that Ofcom’s reporting of mobile coverage is rather over-optimistic and does not reflect people’s lived experience. I am absolutely determined to change that, and Ofcom is helping me to do so.
Claire Hughes
My constituent Lesley suffers from multiple health conditions, including epilepsy, and lives with the constant risk of seizures. Her family rely on broadband to use the landline, but recently the broadband went down for several days, which meant she was completely unable to make calls because of the ongoing problems with mobile coverage in Llandudno. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss how we can safeguard vulnerable customers such as Lesley and address the issues in Llandudno?
Chris Bryant
I think my hon. Friend also has a problem at one of her universities, which we are going to try to deal with as well. She has written to me, and I will write back as soon as possible, but perhaps we could short-cut that with a meeting. I am conscious that, for medical conditions, the resilience of someone’s connectivity is just as important as the day-to-day coverage.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his candour and honesty. He is one of the most effective, experienced and able Ministers in the Government. Having paid those compliments, can I encourage him to visit Shropshire, where there are still too many notspots? Perhaps one of the reasons is that this country has only four mobile network operators. Is it not time that we had more competition? Finally, is the shared rural network agreement likely to hit its targets by the end of this year?
Chris Bryant
The shared rural network will reach its targets. The right hon. Member makes a very good point, which is that, frankly, the connectivity that people think they are getting from Ofcom is simply not what they are actually getting. Their phone looks as though it has lots of bars and is saying 4G, but they cannot even download an app to park their car. We have to transform that across the whole of the UK. In the end, most of that is down to the industry, and I want to make sure that we remove some of the barriers to further investment in the industry to improve mobile connectivity for every single Member of the House.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
If we are to be a successful digital nation, we have to take the whole nation with us. We were proud recently to publish our first digital inclusion action plan, the first for 10 years, because of precisely that: we want to take everybody with us.
Michelle Welsh
Too often, in ex-mining communities such as Ollerton and Edwinstowe, in rural communities such as Farnsfield and even in Hucknall West, people struggle to get a phone signal and access to the internet. Constituents feel that they are left behind and miss out on the new and upcoming technologies that we know improve access to online jobs, education and business opportunities. Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure such communities are at the heart of the Government’s digital inclusion ambitions, so no one is left behind, especially those in deprived communities?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and her constituency exemplifies one of the issues we face, which is that we might have relatively affluent areas cheek by jowl with much poorer areas. That is why, in our digital inclusion action plan, we have tried to ensure that we address all the different forms of digital exclusion, whether it is by virtue of age, ethnicity, educational background or physical geography.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Lack of access to digital services prevents people from applying for jobs, studying and accessing healthcare, but community interest companies such as Donate IT, based in Wincanton, are helping to bridge the gap by diverting IT equipment that was otherwise heading to landfill. By refurbishing that tech and distributing it to the people, schools and groups who need it, Donate IT is helping to address digital poverty. How does the Minister plan to support such organisations to prevent electrical waste from going to landfill and to tackle digital exclusion?
Chris Bryant
I am really pleased that that is happening in the hon. Lady’s constituency. We were pleased as a Government to be able to say not only that many Government Departments will make sure that we do precisely the same thing, but that many major employers will also do the same. It is crazy to chuck old kit into landfill when, frankly, it could be used much better to provide people with digital opportunities for the future.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
This country is a creative content superpower, and we will do absolutely nothing to undermine that. We want to make sure that people are properly remunerated for their work and that AI companies have access to the high-quality data that they need to be able to deploy effectively in this country.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
The Minister can see that the whole House has filled up out of concern at the atrocious mobile phone signal in Godalming and Cranleigh high streets and in Bramley, Shamley Green and Peaslake. Now that spring is in the air, will he visit Cranleigh to see for himself just what a problem this is?
Chris Bryant
Well, I was in Pizza Express in Godalming only a couple of weeks ago, and the mobile signal was absolutely shocking. I could not find my way to Busbridge village hall. I am not sure whether it is the MP or the Telecoms Minister who is rubbish—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”].
Science, Innovation and Technology
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
…First, there are presently no rules enabling the Secretary of State to decide what “turnover” means in relation to potential non-compliance with a designated vendor direction, such as that on the use of Huawei services. The order corrects that so that it is established and laid down in statute what those provisions are.
Secondly, the order changes the term “provider” to the term “person” because the 2003 and 2021 Acts are not consistent one with another.
[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 March 2025; c. 3.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
…First, there are presently no unambiguously applicable rules enabling the Secretary of State to decide what “turnover” means in relation to potential non-compliance with a designated vendor direction, such as that on the use of Huawei services. The order corrects that so that it is established and laid down in statute what those provisions are.
Secondly, the order changes the terms “notified provider” and “provider” to the term “person” because the Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Penalties) (Rules for Calculation of Turnover) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/2712) and the 2021 Act are not consistent with one another.
Broadband Industry Commitments: Telegraph Poles
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Today, the Independent Networks Co-operative Association (INCA) and the Internet Services Providers’ Association (ISPA), the trade bodies representing the fixed-line broadband industry, have published new best-practice recommendations for the deployment of telegraph poles.
The Government understand the concerns of people across the country about the use of telegraph poles to support the deployment of new gigabit-capable broadband networks, especially where this duplicates other infrastructure or seems unnecessary.
I have heard from people who were not aware of new infrastructure coming to their street until telegraph poles were erected, and from people whose access to their driveway was blocked by a new unannounced pole. I certainly do not want to impede or slow down the roll-out of essential connectivity. I support the commercial and competitive roll-out, but I do want to ensure that this is done sensitively and proportionately.
Telegraph poles can play an important role in delivering connectivity. This is particularly important in areas that do not yet benefit from gigabit-capable connections, but even in areas that already benefit from gigabit-capable broadband, competition between different operators using poles and ducts can bring greater choice and lower prices to consumers.
Sharing existing infrastructure is obviously better for everyone, but it will not always be possible, for instance in areas where the existing broadband infrastructure was directly buried in the ground, without ducts. Ducts may also be full, or damaged. In some cases, developers have discovered that underground cabling is buried rather than ducted. In such areas, it is generally not possible to use existing infrastructure. Building new underground ducts can be up to 10 times more expensive than installing poles, and comes with its own challenges such as traffic disruption. Higher costs to operators will ultimately raise costs for consumers or result in infrastructure not being built at all.
The Government considered a range of options to ensure that we can effect change without negatively impacting roll-out. I have met with telecommunications providers on multiple occasions. I have sought targeted action where I was made aware of specific issues, and also voiced my strong concerns about the deployment of new infrastructure where alternatives, such as sharing existing infrastructure, would be viable.
In response to my concerns, INCA and ISPA undertook to work with their members and the wider fixed-line broadband industry to produce new guidelines for the deployment of telegraph poles. These guidelines set out conditions that must be followed when deploying telegraph poles, and set out what operators are expected to do when installing new infrastructure.
But more importantly, the new guidelines include a commitment by its signatories to always consider the needs of communities during the design and construction of new fibre networks.
I am grateful for the efforts of the industry, and trust that this new commitment, underpinned by strong expectations towards operators, will mean that communities can be confident that their needs are put first as the roll-out of gigabit-capable connectivity continues.
A copy of the “Telecommunications Poles Working Group Best Practice Recommendations” will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS548]