UK Town of Culture

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

As always, Ms Furniss, it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing what I think has been a very enjoyable debate. It has not just been a debate about the town of culture; I think it has actually been the largest lobbying exercise from MPs that we have seen in this Parliament. It has been a geographical trip through everyone’s wonderful constituencies. We heard from my hon. Friend about everything from yarn bombers to mosh pitters, in the form of Led Zeppelin and Robert Plant. Of course, he has invited the President of the United States to come and visit his wonderful green lands—I am glad about his intonation on that.

I pay tribute to the Halesowen Abbey Trust for its work on the Leasowes walled garden, which demonstrates the civic pride that my hon. Friend talked about in his opening speech. As he mentioned, culture is a shared language. Whether we are talking about yarn bombers, heavy metal, mosh pitters or some of the wonderful heritage buildings around the country that we have heard about, one thing is for sure: we all have that shared cultural heritage that we want to preserve. It is not just about celebrating the past; it is about shaping the future, as many of my hon. Friends and others have said.

I also pay tribute to Colin Brookes of Halesowen Town FC, and pass on our sympathies to his family. Those kinds of individuals drive local projects, institutions and organisations. Without those personal commitments from people like Colin Brookes, none of these institutions would continue to exist; we rely on local people’s passions for that. It was not just a great speech from my hon. Friend; it was also a superb oral application form, which I hope Hansard will just pop, verbatim, straight into his application form for the town of culture competition.

This scheme will be delivered across the UK and in collaboration with devolved Governments. As we have already heard, the UK town of culture competition builds on the city of culture model for cultural placemaking, which was first launched in 2009, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), said, and is now in its fifth iteration. Derry/Londonderry, Hull, Coventry and now Bradford have benefited from the lasting and transformative impacts, including more than £1 billion of additional investment added to local economies of past host cities, increasing jobs, tourism and that local cultural pride.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned, Bradford 2025 has delivered a wealth of significant benefits, not just for Bradford itself but for the wider region. The highlights of its time as UK city of culture include delivering more than 5,000 events across all 30 district wards and attracting more than 3 million people with its world-class cultural programme. It commissioned and involved more than 650 local artists, involved 87,000 individuals in participatory projects, 2,700 volunteers—the Colin Brookes of this world—with more than 5,500 people benefiting from training, and engaging more than 160 schools and educational settings.

The direct positive impacts on people’s lives in the local community are clear, as we have heard. More than 80% of people surveyed said that Bradford 2025 had a positive impact on their wellbeing; it made eight in 10 residents feel proud of where they live; and more than 70% of residents felt more connected to the people in their communities. I therefore echo the congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley to the Bradford city of culture directors, Shanaz Gulzar and Dan Bates. I thank them for all that they did, and thank everyone who participated in that.

[Anna Dixon]

I thank the Minister for his congratulations. Bradford council has already committed about £13 million over the next five years to the legacy, but much more is needed for capital projects, such as the Bingley town hall creative workshop. Would the Minister agree to meet me and representatives of Bradford council to discuss how we secure the legacy of Bradford 2025?

[Ian Murray]

I am very happy to take up that invitation to meet with my hon. Friend and representatives to see how that legacy is lasting, because the legacy is actually the most important thing from the city of culture scheme. I hope there are also huge legacies from the town of culture scheme, not just for the successful town but for all the applicants. It may give another boost to all of that cultural heritage and cultural futures in those areas.

When the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport launched the UK town of culture, she said that

“every place has a story worth telling”,

and we have heard those stories this afternoon. I have been struck by the depth of what has resonated from hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen said this is about telling the story of the past and today, but also about shaping the future. Indeed it is.

We have heard lots of wonderful stories. I will run through some of those, rather than going through what the town of culture will be about, because everyone seems to be reflecting. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) dropped a bombshell, and told us that he tries to get Strangford into every debate—who knew? He is a great champion of Strangford. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) talked about the history of opening up the arts to everyone —that is what the town of culture is about; it has to be about art for all—and reminded us not to forget about rural areas and those on the periphery, which I think is really important and what this is all about.

Turning to the town of Amesbury: we had heavy metal from Stonehenge, Romans and Saxons and Spın̈al Tap in a four-minute speech; who would have known we would have got there today? My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) talked about “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, which I thought was more Greek than Stoke-on-Trent. She talked about the art, music, charities and heritage, and the Longton carnival in the Stoke-on-Trent area.

We heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) about the £60,000 of funding to help develop the approach for shortlisted candidates. It is critical that there is that support to ensure that we develop some of those. There is also £60,000 available for longlisted city of culture candidates so that they can develop their proposals. I join in congratulating Wimborne as Dorset’s town of culture 2026. I would love to visit if I possibly can, but only if I get to see “Legally Blonde: The Musical”—I will maybe go down there to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) talked about the Prescot Cables FC, and the story he tells is a story from many places across the country. Who would have thought that William Shakespeare, fleeing the plague, would have turned a bus stop into a playhouse for young people being trained, and for cultural heritage and outreach to schools? One of the key things he said, which drives the town of culture and the city of culture—indeed, it drives the Secretary of State and me in terms of culture across the country—is that change can happen. A big catalyst for change is arts and culture; it is a great advert. My hon. Friend also gave a great advert for Southport’s year of culture in 2026. I cannot remember the website, but I am sure it is in Hansard for everyone to refer back to.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) talked about the whole competition empowering local people, and Chesham being a coiled spring champing at the bit to get their application in. Who knew that Bishop Auckland was the home of the calendar, and therefore the home of time itself? My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) made a reference to Laurel and Hardy, and the “Land of Hope and Glory”, which I think is a great combination to have there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) spoke about turning the Reading Gaol into a cultural and arts centre. I think that is absolutely fantastic, bringing arts and history to life. And who knows? The car park might be a famous royal cemetery. Rather than sending the town of culture prize pot to Reading, maybe we should just send a couple of spades and a digger, and we could do it on that basis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley went through all those issues, and re-emphasised the fact that Bradford, as the city of culture, had something for everyone. Crewe and Nantwich is the home of the Cheshire Archives. It is absolutely fantastic to have those there, but the key thing is arts and culture being a catalyst for town centre regeneration. I think that is key. We tend to forget that arts and culture can be that catalyst: they can bring people together and regenerate footfall in our city centres.

Finally, we heard how hotly contested this competition will be in North West Leicestershire. I am not going to look at my officials when I say this—I do not know who will actually go through the application forms, but how they are going to determine who will win is quite extraordinary, given what we have heard this afternoon and the applications. I would say, to everyone who has spoken this afternoon and to anyone who is interested in the competition, to apply. There is such a rich heritage of culture and arts in every single corner of the country—north, south, east and west. We should celebrate that, and the kinds of celebrations we could have from that can be through this competition. The competition will not just be about winning, although I am sure that all Members present today will want their own town to win; just taking part in the competition will be a big celebration of arts and culture.

I will respond to the specific question by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham about the timeline for the competition. For now, I can merely say that we will launch the competition very shortly. Of course the first town of culture will be in 2028, so the timeline, as Members can see for themselves, is relatively short. Consequently, we will launch the competition as soon as we possibly can.

Each place has a unique story. However, there is also a shared conviction that through culture and creative industries we can share the stories of towns, and celebrate the contribution of towns to our national story. That is why the town of culture award is so important. I thought that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), was slightly curmudgeonly when he asked if we need a town of culture competition; I think he has heard today why we need it. Even if it is just an opportunity for local people, local arts and culture organisations and local MPs to talk about and champion their local area, that in itself is something we should champion.

Our vision for the UK town of culture competition is that the public know we see and value the contribution that towns make to our national story, and that there are benefits for all those who are able to tell their own story. At the end of the competition, a cultural programme will be delivered that draws on the best of art, heritage and creative industries, underpinned by compelling local stories that will be shaped by local people, delivered through local partnership, and designed to leave a lasting legacy through strong cultural infrastructure, increased participation in culture and the creative industries, and a renewed sense of local pride. Indeed, we know that that is what the award does. One of the key things that the Secretary of State and I are very keen to see happen is the bursting of the bubble between there being talent everywhere and opportunity not everywhere. That is something we want to build upon.

This has been a tremendously enjoyable debate and I look forward to all the applications coming in. I do not look forward to having to assess the applications, but I encourage people to get them in, because we know that our national story is not written by one city or one institution. It is not written by one town or one organisation. It is written in the places across the United Kingdom and shaped by the generations of people who have lived, worked, created and contributed there. The UK town of culture competition is an invitation to celebrate that story and invest in it, to ensure that in the future it continues to be told with creativity, confidence and pride.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I call Alex Ballinger to wind up quickly, because we expect a vote at 4 pm.

Government Cyber Action Plan

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)]

Today I am publishing the Government cyber action plan, which sets out how we will transform cyber-security and resilience across Government and the public sector.

Public incidents demonstrate the devastating real-world consequences of inadequate cyber resilience. The recent incident affecting the Legal Aid Agency compromised personal data and impacted the organisation’s ability to digitally process legal aid applications and bills.

Similarly, the attack on Synnovis—a supplier of pathology services to the NHS—caused delays to over 11,000 outpatient and elective procedure appointments and, tragically, contributed to the death of a patient.

This reality underscores the fact that cyber-security is not a luxury; it is a fundamental component of business continuity, and all organisations should take steps to defend themselves.

Digitisation offers substantial opportunities to transform lives, deliver better public services, and drive economic growth and digital government. By investing in secure and resilient foundations, we do more than protect and transform public services; we drive innovation and growth within the UK’s cyber-security sector.

This Government have taken important steps in understanding and mitigating cyber risk across Government and the public sector. The Government Cyber Co-ordination Centre, also known as GC3, enables us to respond as one Government to cyber incidents, threats and vulnerabilities. Our secure-by-design approach enables us to “fix forward”, ensuring future digital services are designed to achieve cyber-security resilience outcomes. GovAssure, our cyber assurance process now entering its third year of operations, offers an unprecedented picture of current resilience levels and the fundamental blockers to progress.

However, the evidence is clear: we must do far more to address the persistent threat. We must move from a model where individual organisations act alone to one where the Government truly defend as one.

Today’s Government cyber action plan sets out a radically new model for how Government will operate differently to deliver this necessary transformation. It is backed by investment of over £210 million, led by the Government cyber unit within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The unit is taking decisive action to rapidly address the recommendations from both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee by holding Departments to account for their cyber-security and resilience risks, as well as providing them with more direct support and services, and co-ordinating response to fast-moving incidents.

[HCWS1221]

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)]

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

A happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all the House staff. This is the first opportunity I have had to say that to you.

On 3 June 2024, a busy Monday morning in south-east London, criminals attacked Synnovis, an organisation that processes blood tests on behalf of our national health service. They did not turn up physically, but logged on to computers thousands of miles away and set off ransomware—malicious software that encrypts files from afar, making them unusable. The attack had a ripple effect across London hospitals. It delayed 11,000 appointments, blood transfusions had to be suspended and the company lost tens of millions of pounds.

This was not an isolated case. In the year leading up to September 2025, the National Cyber Security Centre dealt with 204 “nationally significant” incidents, meaning that they seriously disrupted central Government or our critical public services. That is more than double the 89 incidents in 2024. No one disputes that we must do everything we can to protect the UK from these attacks. The UK is the most targeted country by cyber-attacks in Europe, and it was the fifth most targeted nation in 2024 by nation state-affiliated threat actors. In 2024, it is estimated that UK businesses experienced over 8.5 million cyber-crimes in the 12 months preceding the survey, and that in that year more than four in 10, or 43%, of UK businesses were subject to a cyber-attack, affecting more than 600,000 businesses in total.

Significantly, cyber-attacks are estimated to cost UK businesses almost £15 billion each year, equivalent to 0.5% of the UK’s annual GDP, notwithstanding the wider economic effects of intellectual property theft or the experience of patients, as in the first example. The average cost of a significant cyber-attack for an individual business in the United Kingdom is estimated to be just over £190,000. There has been a 200% increase in global cyber-attacks on rail systems in the past five years, increasing the likelihood of severe disruption to the economy and to people’s daily lives.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that, as we become more and more reliant on IT systems—I am thinking in particular about the new patient registration system at the Princess Alexandra hospital in my constituency—it is more and more important that we combat potential cyber-attacks, particularly from foreign powers and enemies of this country? That is why the Bill is so crucial.

[Ian Murray]

I could not agree more. I gave the example of the Synnovis incident that brought blood transfusions in London to a halt, affecting thousands of patients. Our everyday lives are affected by this. As we modernise and digitise our economy and our Government, we have to ensure that our systems are as secure as possible, and cyber-security is right at the heart of that. This is not just a defensive issue; it is very much an economic growth issue as well, as we can see from the impact it has on our economy, our public services and the day-to-day lives of people, as in the example of our train systems that I just mentioned.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and it is great to see him in his post. On economic growth, how has he sought in the Bill to balance the absolute need for a regulatory framework that businesses can have confidence in alongside the ability to attract continued investment, and to ensure that we do not end up with an over-regulatory framework that stifles investment? How did he find that balance?

[Ian Murray]

The Bill builds on the 2018 regulations, which were a hangover from the EU when we adopted them in this country. The Bill expands on those. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) just suggested, this is about economic growth as well as protecting our systems, so we have to find a balance between ensuring that our regulators have the powers and tools to regulate properly and giving businesses and our public services the confidence to use digital technology knowing that we have the most secure cyber-security in Europe, if not the world. We are very good at this stuff, and that is the balance to be sought. This Bill is about economic growth rather than about the over-regulation of businesses. I do not say this flippantly, but cyber-security is one of those areas where if everything is working, nobody notices, but when it is not working, suddenly everyone notices and it is everyone’s problem. That is why we are bringing the Bill forward and extending the scope of the powers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for what he is saying and bringing forward. There is much in the Bill that we should encourage. I know that he is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland is home to 130 cyber-security companies with some 2,750 employees. It is therefore essential that this legislation protects those jobs and enhances the capacity for more. Does he believe that the Bill both protects us and provides the opportunity for growth in Northern Ireland and, indeed, across the whole of the United Kingdom?

[Ian Murray]

Indeed it does. It is one of a number of provisions that the Government are bringing forward to create growth across the country, not just in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State’s passion is to make sure that those jobs are everywhere, right across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. The Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), has been in Belfast recently discussing this legislation and wider cyber-security issues with the industry in Northern Ireland, so I can assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that that is indeed the case.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Hackney council was the subject of a major cyber-attack in 2020. It did a good job, though it was very slow because of the nature of the challenge of getting things back up and running. The Bill is therefore very welcome but, pursuant to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), there are challenges for some of the smaller companies. I represent Shoreditch, which has many tech companies that need to maintain a standard on cyber-security but are small. How is the Minister going to balance the regulation for those smaller companies to ensure that they can keep abreast of things but are not so dampened down that they cannot progress and grow?

[Ian Murray]

This is about making sure that we extend the scope of the 2018 regulations into other parts of the economy, and I will come on to that later in my contribution. It is about reporting things more quickly to ensure that the attacks can be seen and action can be taken more quickly. It is also about reporting to the regulators to give the regulators confidence and powers across a wider scope of sectors in the economy, and to give businesses the confidence that those sectors have to report to the regulators when things are going wrong so that swifter action can be taken. We can see from the host of recent high-profile issues, including at Hackney council, that it is important to ensure that this legislation goes through quickly and does the job that it is intended to do.

[Chris Vince]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I apologise for intervening again. Is there a piece of work we need to do on culture? When businesses or the public sector are victims of cyber-crime, there is a danger that employees may feel embarrassed or nervous about reporting their concerns. We need to encourage people if they are victims of cyber-crime to come forward quicker and to recognise the challenges, rather than trying to hide them away and the issue becoming worse.

[Ian Murray]

While physical security and national security are issues for all of us, so is cyber-security. The Bill builds on the 2018 regulations to widen the scope into other areas of the economy where such issues have become much more prevalent—for example, data centres. I hope that doing so will give industries and sectors, including their employees, the confidence to report things to the regulators. Giving powers to the regulators will give businesses the confidence that they can report stuff; it is not a regulatory heavy hand dampening businesses. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend and the rest of the House on that.

Before that significant number of interventions, I was talking about why this issue matters and gave statistics for recent cyber-security activity in the United Kingdom. As a result of all that, one of the very first things we did as a new Government after the election was announce this new cyber-security Bill, just 10 working days in. Since then, the Department has been talking to cyber experts, businesses and regulators to turn these proposals into the comprehensive, serious and proportionate piece of legislation that we present for Second Reading today—one that protects the public and strengthens national security without placing undue burdens on businesses. I appreciate that that is a fine balance, but I think that this Bill finds that balance, so I am confident that the whole House will support it.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

We support this Bill and its efforts to tackle cyber-security, but it does not address the mass unauthorised scraping of trusted news content by generative AI systems. That content, as the Minister knows, is often taken without consent or compensation. As the Bill progresses, will he be prepared to look at some measures—maybe something like a bot register where people have to declare their intent when it comes to this type of activity? Will the Government look at this seriously so that news can be protected in this new environment?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in the way in which he uses interventions on pieces of legislation. I know AI copyright is close to his heart as a former, or perhaps current, professional musician and, indeed, one of the key musicians in MP4—let’s not push that to a Division! AI copyright is, of course, a key issue that the Government are looking at. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are working closely together on this issue. I think the legislation means that there has to be a report to Parliament in March—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be very interested in that. We are bringing together the industry and tech companies to try to find a way through that particular issue. We know that it is a huge issue. It is not in the scope of this Bill, which has been kept very tight to deal with these specific and serious cyber-security issues.

As we know, the first duty of Government is to keep people safe. The question is how precisely the Bill will achieve that goal. The answer is simple. The UK’s main cyber-rules—the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018, or the NIS regime—were first introduced seven years ago and have not been updated since. Those rules require operators of essential services such as energy, water and hospitals, as well as some digital service providers such as online search engines, to take steps to protect the services they provide and the data they hold from cyber-threats.

As Members might expect, a lot has changed in the cyber-landscape in the past eight years. We have had the rise of AI, which cyber-criminals are using to their advantage. Data centres have become a firm fixture of modern life, and we want to see more of them. Since the rules were introduced, criminals tactics have evolved to exploit loopholes in the regulations, as they did in the attack on the NHS supplier that I mentioned, which revealed how hackers can target third parties, such as IT companies, or supply chains as a back-door way to bringing down a wider system. As always, the story is one of technology and cyber-threats moving faster than policymakers can possibly keep up with.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to mention the impact on supply chains. In the west midlands, we recently had the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover. That had a significant impact not just on that company, but on the supply chain, which has its roots right through the west midlands. That essential part of our economy was brought to a grinding halt by a cyber-attack. Will he confirm that this Bill will help prevent such instances from happening in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for all he did on the issues facing Jaguar Land Rover. I know that the matter is close to his heart and, indeed, it was a really big issue across the country, showing how a cyber-attack can affect not just one company, but has a ripple effect throughout the economy. Of course, the Government stepped in to unlock a £1.5 billion bolster to Jaguar Land Rover’s cash reserves to help it through that problem.

I should say to my hon. Friend, and I will come to it later, that Jaguar Land Rover and other private organisations are not in the scope of this Bill. The reason is that individual private companies should take their own cyber-security seriously and ensure that the risks of such incidents and threats are minimised as much as possible. The Bill widens the scope of the existing regulations, which do not include that, but of course the Government are working closely with Jaguar Land Rover, Marks & Spencer and other high-profile cases, because we know the impact they can have on our economy. Indeed, had the Government not stepped in and resolved that issue, the impact on Jaguar Land Rover, and the tens of thousands of employees at the plants and in the supply chain, would have been catastrophic and is not worth thinking about. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue.

As I said, as always, the story is one of technology and cyber-threats moving faster than policymakers can possibly keep up with, but today we are fixing that. The first change in the Bill is to widen the scope of the 2018 regulations. To keep up with the changes of the past eight years, we are adding a few new things to that list, starting with large-load controllers. That includes any organisation that manages a significant flow of electricity to or from a smart appliance. It might be a company that supports electric car charging, for example. Bringing these entities into scope will safeguard our power supply and give consumers confidence in using energy-smart appliances, all of which are critical as we advance towards our clean power 2030 mission and net zero.

The second change is that we are adding large data centres in recognition of their growing importance to our day-to-day lives and to the economy. These are vast digital warehouses for the United Kingdom, home to servers that host everything from patient records to their bank details. This is the data that underpins modern life and all our lives and communities, and it must be protected.

We are expanding the scope of the regulations to include managed service providers as well. Those are organisations that provide ongoing functions, such as an IT help desk, to an outside client. Their access makes them an attractive target for cyber-attacks as criminals can find one weak spot and bring countless organisations down. For example, in 2014, an attack on a service provider for the Ministry of Defence compromised the personal data of around 270,000 people—military personnel, reservists and veterans. As organisations rely more and more on outsourced tech, we have to close this gap. In fact, weaknesses in the supply chain have become such a risk that we will go even further by allowing regulators to designate certain organisations as critical suppliers. That includes certain suppliers to essential services that could have a significant impact on the economy or society as a whole—for example, key suppliers to water companies, grid operators or air traffic control. These critical suppliers will be subject to cyber-security duties, which we will set out in secondary legislation.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Last year, the Treasury Committee wrote to the top 10 banks in the UK because there had been a number of outages. There was no suggestion that cyber-security attacks were involved in most cases. A trend in the responses was that third-party software providers are often the source of the issue. What is the Minister’s thinking about how to involve the banking sector in the scope of the Bill?

[Ian Murray]

The banking sector is obviously in the regulators’ scope for cyber-security, and there have been a number of outages, as my hon. Friend mentions. The general principle is that cyber-attacks no longer come in through the front door, but through third parties and suppliers. We have seen that, for example, in the recent incidents at Heathrow and in cloud outages with Amazon Web Services and other such companies. They are covered by their own regulations. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) about Jaguar Land Rover, those companies will not be in the scope of the Bill, but we hope that the financial services sector, which is a leader in cyber-security for a whole host of fairly obvious reasons, will take that forward.

The recent attacks on British icons such as Marks & Spencer and Jaguar Land Rover will loom large in people’s minds. Many Members across the Chamber have already mentioned them. Supply chains were thrown into chaos, with small businesses paying the price, which clearly shows the ripple effect across the economy—on other businesses, smaller businesses and patients, such as in the public service examples mentioned earlier—when one part of the system is attacked.

We are clear that all businesses—that covers financial services, Jaguar Land Rover, Marks & Spencer and others—must take immediate steps to protect themselves. That is why, in October, members of the Cabinet wrote to the FTSE 350 companies urging them to strengthen their defences by doing three things: first, to make cyber risk a board priority; secondly, to require suppliers to have a cyber essentials certificate; and thirdly to sign up to the early warning service. That was followed by a similar letter to entrepreneurs and small businesses in November with bespoke advice for smaller teams. We know that those actions work. Organisations with cyber essentials are 92% less likely to claim on cyber insurance than those that do not. Businesses know best how to protect themselves; we are not here to regulate for the sake of regulating.

Government are taking action too. As I announced this morning, the Government cyber action plan sets a radically new model for how Government will strengthen their cyber-resilience and is backed by over £210 million of investment. Government Departments will be held to standards equivalent to those set out in the Bill. That is why the public sector and the Government are not included in the scope of the Bill. The Government should not need to legislate for themselves; we should just get on with making sure that we are leading the charge and that the cyber action plan strengthens the Government’s cyber-resilience. [Interruption.] I do not know if that was an attempt at an intervention from the Opposition Front Bench, but I am happy to take it.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s comments about the obligation on the public sector. However, I caution him that, in my experience, cyber-security is one of those things that Ministers talk about, but then other priorities overtake it. The advantage of legislative requirements is that they force Ministers to think about it. I urge the Minister to look at that point again as the Bill passes through Parliament. There is a case for putting more stringent requirements on the public sector in order to force Ministers’ minds on the point.

[Ian Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman would have had some involvement in this when he was in government; indeed, the 2018 regulations came from the previous Government. We are all trying to make sure that we are catching up with the technology as quickly as it moves. He makes a very interesting point that I am very conscious of and happy to take away. We are determined to deliver the cyber-security action plan, which is backed by £210 million.

The actions that the previous Government took did not come to fruition in terms of their 2030 target, which is why we have refreshed the action plan and brought it forward with some significant cash. It is important for Ministers to take that forward. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will hold us to account to ensure that we are fulfilling that promise in the cyber-security action plan. Public services, and indeed central Government, must take the leading role to show businesses that the approach to take is to ensure that all our systems are as secure as possible, not just on economic grounds, but for the people that we all seek to represent.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the excellent points he is making on the importance of cyber-security and the cyber-security action plan. Can he say a little bit about how the success of the cyber-security action plan will be measured, monitored and communicated to the House? He is probably aware that only 33,000 cyber essentials certificates were issued in 2024, for example, so an increased take-up of cyber essentials and the guidance in the action plan are essential.

[Ian Murray]

There are some key dates to monitor progress in the action plan itself. I wrote to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, this morning on the publication of the action plan to lay out some of those issues; the letter will be landing soon. I would be happy to discuss that in front of the Committee in more detail. I hope that the Committee, and indeed the Opposition and our own Labour Members, hold us to account for delivering on this, because it is fundamentally important to Government, whether it be digitisation, modernising Government or winning the case with the public about why digitisation is so important and why Government should be as secure as possible and lead the charge on that across the whole economy. I hope that we and the Committee can take that forward in the weeks and months ahead.

As I said, the Government cyber action plan launched this morning is backed by over £210 million of investment and Government Departments will be held to standards equivalent to those set out in the Bill. I hope that that partially answers the question from my hon. Friend the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. Although the focus of the Bill is on essential services, it will also indirectly help businesses, including those damaged by the recent attacks, and Government. Almost all organisations today rely on data centres, outsourced IT or some kind of external supplier. By extending the Bill’s oversight, we are preventing attacks that could, in theory, reach thousands of organisations.

The Bill also gives new powers to regulators responsible for enforcing the NIS framework. Effective compliance is crucial to the success of any regime. These reforms could be world-leading on paper, but without proper enforcement they are meaningless.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

We have talked about the regulators having new powers to designate critical national infrastructure in regard to cyber-security threats, but who actually has accountability? The Bill refers to

“regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

Which Secretary of State is that, given that this is a cross-departmental and cross-Government approach?

[Ian Murray]

Cyber-security is the responsibility of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but the Cabinet Office has a clear resilience issue as well, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), who was in the Cabinet Office previously. The DSIT Secretary of State will make those regulations, but a plethora of regulators are involved in this process—energy, water and data centres all have different regulators. The regulators that regulate those sectors are being empowered through the expanded number of sectors being brought into the legislation to take the responsibility.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the point about regulators, the industry has issued a brief, which points out, quite sensibly, that these regulators are going to have a lot of extra duties to perform and they will therefore need extra resources to be able to perform those duties, but the extra resources they require will only be unlocked when the Bill has passed. Is there not a danger of a transition period where duties will be laid on regulators to fulfil their role before they have the resources to carry it out?

[Ian Murray]

We have to pass the legislation first. It may be amended during its passage through both Houses. Therefore, the regulators will not know what they are regulating until the Bill has passed. However, as I mentioned at the start of my contribution, we have been working with regulators, businesses, organisations and cyber-security experts in the run-up to producing the Bill to make sure that it is in the right place—that it is proportionate on businesses and regulators—and that it is effective, which is the most important thing. I am sure that we will have debates on those kinds of issues as we go through Committee and on to Third Reading, but I very much acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman said.

The Bill will strengthen the powers of the NIS regulators, ranging from Ofgem to the Civil Aviation Authority, which work together to uphold the UK’s cyber rules across those different sectors—I may have taken the previous intervention 10 seconds too early! We are raising the maximum fine that they can impose, for example, while simplifying the penalty bands to make them clearer. The key driving force for this measure is not to punish rulebreakers or raise revenue, but to incentivise firms to be vigilant. Our goal is 100% compliance and zero fines.

We will also ask regulated organisations to change the way they report attacks and expand both the types of instance they have to report and the timeframe in which they have to report them. This is a small but crucial change. Under the current rules, regulators get notified about a breach only once it has already caused significant disruption—when traffic lights have failed or the heating has shut off. The system does not include cases with the potential to cause a crisis much later, like a hospital’s computer system quietly being spied on as hackers wait for their moment to strike. Under the Bill, if an organisation is within scope, it will have to tell its regulator and the National Cyber Security Centre about these types of breaches within 24 hours and provide a full report within three days. Pace and speed are of the essence. This will not only give us better information, but help agencies to warn others, should they need to, before they become the next targets.

The Bill will also allow the Government to set clear and consistent outcomes for regulations to work towards. One of the virtues of having a regime enforced by different agencies is that each has sector-specific expertise—Ofgem understands the complex digital systems that underpin the national grid, and the Civil Aviation Authority knows the precise threats to air traffic control, for example—but that approach has sometimes led to inconsistencies in how the regime is applied. Some bodies interpret the rules differently from others. The Bill aims to fix that with a single set of objectives issued by central Government and applied across the board. That will send the message that no sector is an easy target in the UK.

We will also improve the way in which regulators, intelligence agencies and law enforcement share information with each other by providing greater clarity on what regulators can share and receive. It is important that regulators have the resources to do their job, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. The Bill will also give them new powers to cover the full costs associated with their regulatory duties. To ensure transparency, regulators will consult on how fees are calculated and publish a statement each year to show how the funds are being used. Together, the measures add up to a much more consistent and effective regime with better reporting and much clearer guidance for all involved.

The Bill ensures that the UK’s cyber-security regime is not only fit for today but flexible enough to head off future threats as well. I have mentioned a few things that have changed in the past eight years—shifts in technology and the nature of cyber-attacks, artificial intelligence, data centres and the economy—but one of the biggest changes was, of course, Brexit. Since our exit from the European Union in January 2020, we have been unable to amend the NIS regulations without primary legislation, because the rules were originally part of European Union law. That has slowed the process and made it difficult for us to keep pace with new emerging threats and technology. Meanwhile, Brussels is pressing ahead with NIS2—its forward-looking update—while we lag behind.

That procedural quirk has left essential UK services more exposed, which perhaps tells us something about why the UK has such appalling figures compared with some of our EU counterparts, as hackers and cyber criminals exploit gaps in our dated laws. That is an unacceptable risk, so the Bill includes new powers for the Government to update the NIS regime via secondary legislation, to make it quicker and more agile for dealing with evolving technologies—we might need to respond quickly to a new type of cyber-threat, for example. That is not in order to override Parliament; in almost all cases, the Government will still be required to consult on any changes, and Parliament will have the final say on any legislation made under the power. However, delegated powers are essential for keeping us as responsive as possible. When national security is on the line, we need the ability to act fast and decisively.

In fact, in extreme cases some threats emerge so rapidly that even secondary legislation is too slow; if an ally were to be invaded by a hostile state, for example, the cyber risk to the UK would suddenly escalate. The Government will therefore also be given powers to direct regulators or regulated entities where national security is threatened—to issue specific cyber-security guidance in a crisis, for example. Those powers are intended as a last resort to protect our national security, and safeguards will go into the Bill to ensure that they are used accordingly.

The UK’s cyber sector is the third largest in the world, as we heard from our friend from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It achieves double-digit growth year on year. We have fast-growing clusters of expertise in Cheltenham and Manchester. This legislation will supercharge that success, doubling down on one of our nation’s greatest assets. At its core, the Bill is about protecting the essential services that we all rely on, so that the lights always stay switched on, clean water always runs in our taps, and hospitals are always safe and secure. Those are the real life community issues that we and our constituents all encounter every single day.

This is more than a technical upgrade; it is a bold commitment from the Government to protect one of our biggest economic strengths and keep the UK safe in a rapidly evolving digital world. Together, we are working towards a future in which security is not a hope but a guarantee. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

As my right hon. Friend is aware, local government is outside of the scope of the Bill, but it is a very juicy target—much of the public sector remains a very juicy target. In acknowledgment of that, the Government whipped out a strategy very quickly this morning that is meant to give us assurances about the public sector’s cyber-resilience. I am not sure that that strategy will provide much reassurance, which is why it is important to understand that this Bill can only be one part of a much wider arsenal to tighten gaps where they exist, in both the private and public sectors.

[Ian Murray]

It is worth clarifying for the House that we brought forward the Government cyber-security strategy this morning because the 2022 consultation undertaken by the previous Conservative Government was not acted upon. This Government are acting on those threats, bringing forward a plan that we will subsequently see through, and I think the hon. Lady should acknowledge that.

[Julia Lopez]

I welcome the strategy, but I have not yet had a chance to have a good look at it, because the Government always seem to publish these sorts of documents right at the last minute. The only way to get any information out of this Government is to apply some pressure in this House, and then, remarkably, things come flying out of the cupboard.

I will be very interested to see what the strategy looks like and whether it is up to the challenge we now face. The problems and risks of cyber have increased markedly since we were in Government because of the advent of AI technology—that technology is changing the picture very rapidly, just as the defence picture is changing very rapidly. My concern is that this Government are not taking seriously enough the various defence and security challenges that this House faces; they are prioritising spending on welfare payments, union payments and all manner of other things. It is one thing to get a strategy out of the door; it is another to put in place the measures that will implement that strategy. Basically, all we have seen over the past 18 months is strategy documents, without a great deal of delivery. That is one of the reasons why the Government are so rapidly losing public confidence.

In conclusion, we support this cyber Bill in principle—the threat is real and growing, and it demands action. However, it is only a tool, not a cure-all. A Government who are trying to close down gaps in one place while wilfully opening up huge new risks in a different corner are being negligent in their approach. Furthermore, if this legislation is to command confidence, it must be practical, proportionate and genuinely effective. Without meaningful improvements, the Bill risks placing new burdens on business while delivering only marginal gains for our national resilience. Cyber-security is a shared responsibility between Government, regulators, industry and the public, but leadership must come from the top, and that is where this Bill currently falls short.

With the private sector taking the lion’s share of the load while gaping holes remain in public sector cyber-defences, the Bill begs obvious questions about the confidence that citizens should have in flagship Government projects such as the Prime Minister’s mandatory digital identity system. As it stands, the Bill would not have prevented high-profile cyber-shutdowns such as Jaguar Land Rover’s, it does little to address the chronic vulnerabilities in the public sector, and it certainly will not make Labour’s dodgy ID database any more secure. That is why, as the Bill progresses through Parliament, we will be pressing this Government to ensure that it delivers genuine security, proper accountability and raised cyber-defences across the board, while taking them to task on major mistakes such as mandatory ID. Cyber-security is no longer a niche compliance exercise; it is about protecting the fundamental economic and defence interests of our nation.

BBC Charter Review: Terms of Reference and Green Paper

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

The Government have today published the terms of reference and the Green Paper consultation for the BBC charter review, formally launching the review.

The BBC is an institution like no other. For over 100 years it has been at the heart of our national life and a light on the hill for people across the world. This charter will formally set the terms of the BBC for the future, with a clear ambition to set the BBC on a path to thrive until well into the latter half of this century.

Our vision is for a BBC that is trusted, loved and belongs to us all, providing those shared spaces and places that have become so rare and so precious in recent decades. Sustainably funded, with a strong presence in every nation and region so that all of us can see ourselves reflected in our national story. A broadcaster known for its unique strengths, from the highest-quality children’s programmes to impartial and trusted news and documentaries, the world over.

The review will focus on the following areas, which are set out in the objectives in the terms of reference and the Green Paper:

Trust, independence and accountability are central to the BBC’s future, to how it operates and to how it engages with audiences. The BBC must remain independent, genuinely accountable to the public it serves, and, critically, it must continue to command public trust.

To ensure that the BBC remains a trusted institution, it must also follow the highest editorial standards. This is how the BBC provides the facts necessary for civilised debate and a foundation of shared national understanding. It must continue the World Service’s vital work in providing trusted and truthful news internationally, and delivering on its role as a UK soft power asset promoting British values abroad.

The BBC needs to also reflect the whole of the UK. People, right across our nation, must be able to access content that genuinely reflects their lives, their communities, and their contributions. This means the BBC must commission, produce and distribute stories that are truly rooted in diverse UK experiences and promote British stories and creativity to the world.

This charter review will ensure that the BBC continues to remain an engine of growth driving good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK and a leader in technologies that provide public value.

Finally, we have to ensure that the BBC is funded in a way that is sustainable for the long term, providing the BBC with the funding it needs to continue to deliver a vital public service, while also being fair for audiences.

The consultation will be open for 12 weeks. Following this, the Government will bring forward a White Paper next year ahead of tabling a new charter, which Parliament will have the chance to debate. The new charter must come into force by 1 January 2028.

[HCWS1176]

Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)]

It is great to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I did not realise you were such a technophobe until we heard from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). I am disappointed that you were not able to contribute to this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank him and other speakers for their contributions.

I have not been on the RTG fans message board that my hon. Friend mentioned, but I am sure it has been very busy this weekend. I wondered if some of the trolls mentioned by the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) were perhaps wearing black and white over the weekend. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central raised an important point, however: it is the site managers and volunteers who are hosting those forums, keeping them legitimate and working very hard to abide by the law.

Jambos Kickback is an important site for my football team, and many people use it to find out what is going on. It is run by volunteers with no money at all—just for the sheer love of being on the forum together—so I fully understand what the petitioner wants to bring forward. I thank my hon. Friend for the measured way in which he put forward the e-petition. He called for robust, effective and proportionate regulation, which is what the Government are trying to do through the Online Safety Act.

The shadow Minister highlighted that by going through the ledger of the positive and negative issues that the Government face, and indeed that were faced when her party was in government. The one thing on that ledger that is non-negotiable is the safety of children online—I think all hon. Members made that point; in fact, I am disappointed that those who do not make that point are not in this debate to try to win that argument, because I would be very interested to hear what they have to say.

The petition received over 550,000 signatures. Although I appreciate the concerns that it raised, I must reiterate the Government’s very strong response that we have no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act. Parents should know and be confident that their children—I am a father of two young girls, aged five years and ten months—are safe when they access popular online services and that they can benefit from the opportunities that the online world offers. That is why the Government are working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and as effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from the Act’s protections.

This year, 2025, has been one of significant action on online safety. On 17 March the illegal harms codes of practice came into effect. Those codes will drive significant improvements in online safety in several areas. Services are now required to put in place measures to reduce the risk of their services facilitating illegal content and activity, including terrorism, child sexual abuse and exploitation, and other kinds of illegal activity.

I asked the officials for a list of the priority offences in the Act; there were 17, but that number has increased to 20, with the new Secretary of State at the Department adding some others. It is worth reading through them because it shows the problem and the scale of it. I was really struck by Members who talked about the real world and the online world: if any of these offences were happening in the real world, someone would be carted off to jail immediately rather than being allowed to continue to operate, as they do online.

The priority offences are assisted suicide; threats to kill; public order offences such as harassment, stalking and fear of provocation of violence; drugs and psychoactive substances; firearms and other weapons; assisted illegal immigration; human trafficking; sexual exploitation; sexual images; intimate images of children; proceeds of crime; fraud; financial services fraud; foreign interference; animal welfare; terrorism; and controlling or coercive behaviour. The new ones that have been added by the Secretary of State include self-harm, cyber-flashing and strangulation porn. Do we honestly have to write that into a schedule of an Online Safety Act to say that those things are unacceptable and should not be happening on our computers?

On 25 July, the child safety regime came into force. Services now use highly effective age assurance to prevent children in the UK from encountering pornography and content that encourages, promotes and provides instructions for self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Platforms are also now legally required to put in place measures to protect children from other types of harmful content, including abusive or hateful content, or bullying and violent content.

When we visited schools, we spoke to headteachers, teachers and parents about the real problem that schools have in trying to deal with the bullying effects of social media. According to Ofcom’s 4 December report that some hon. Members have referenced already, many services now deploy age checks, including the top 10 most popular pornographic sites, the UK’s most popular dating apps and a wide range of other services, including X, Telegram, Reddit, TikTok, Bluesky, Discord, Xbox and Steam. This represents a safer online experience for millions of children across the UK; we have heard that it is already having an impact.

The Government recognise, however, the importance of implementing the duties proportionately. That is why proportionality is a core principle of the Act and is built into many of the duties contained within it. Ofcom’s illegal content and child safety codes of practice set out recommended measures that are tailored to both size and risk to help providers to comply with their obligations —it is really important to emphasise that. When recommending steps that providers can take to comply with their duties, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services.

Let me just concentrate on that for a minute. For instance, Ofcom recommends user blocking and muting measures to help to protect children from harmful content, including bullying, violent content and other harmful materials, and those recommendations are tailored to services’ size and risk profile. Specifically, Ofcom recommends that all services that are high risk for this content need to implement those measures in full. However, for services that are medium risk for this content, Ofcom suggests that they need to implement the measures only if they have more than 700,000 users.

However, while many services carry low risks of harm, risk assessment duties are key to ensuring that risky services of all sizes do not slip through the net of regulation. For example, the Government are very concerned about small platforms that host the most harmful content, such as forums dedicated to encouraging suicide or self-harm. Exempting all small services from duties requiring them to tackle that type of content would mean that those forums would not be subject to the Act’s enforcement powers, which is why we reject the petitioner’s views. Even forums that might seem harmless carry potential risks, such as where adults can engage directly with child users.

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that low-risk services do not have unnecessary regulatory burdens placed upon them, which I hope reassures the shadow Minister. That is why, in the statement of strategic priorities issued on 2 July, the Government set out our expectation that Ofcom should continue focusing its efforts on safety improvements among services that pose the highest risk of harm to users, including small but risky services. The Government also made it explicitly clear that Ofcom should ensure that expectations on low-risk services are proportionate.

Alongside proportionate implementation of the Act, the Government also understand the need to communicate the new regulations effectively, and to work with companies within its scope to ensure that compliance is as easy as possible. To deliver that, Ofcom is providing support to online service providers of all sizes to make it easier for them to understand and comply with their responsibilities under the UK’s new online safety laws. For example, Ofcom has already launched a regulation checker to help firms to check whether they are covered by the new rules, as well as a number of quick guides for them.

I will address some of the issues raised by Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) started by raising the issue of pornography and other harmful content. User-to-user services that allow pornographic content, and content that promotes, provides instructions for or encourages suicide, self-harm or eating disorders, must use highly effective age assurance to prevent all children under 18 from accessing that type of content.

Services must take proportionate steps to minimise the risk of children encountering that type of content when using them, and they must also put in place age assurance measures to protect children from harmful content, such as bullying and violent content. Ofcom’s “Protection of Children Codes of Practice” set out what steps services can take to comply, and Ofcom has robust enforcement powers available to use against companies that fail to fulfil those important duties. We are already seeing that enforcement happening, with 6,000 sites having taken action to stop children from seeing harmful content, primarily via age checks. That shows the scale of the issue.

Virtual private networks have also been mentioned by a number of Members, including the shadow Minister. Following the introduction of the child safety duties in July, Ofcom reported that UK daily active users of VPN apps temporarily doubled to around 1.5 million—the average is normally about 750,000. Since then, usage has dropped, falling back down to around 1 million daily users by the end of September. That was expected, and it has also happened in other jurisdictions that have introduced age checks. According to an Ofcom rule, services should

“take appropriate steps to mitigate against methods of circumvention that are easily accessible to children”.

If a provider is not complying with the age assurance duties, by promoting VPN usage to bypass age assurance methods, Ofcom can and should take enforcement action. The use of VPNs does not protect platforms from not complying with the Act itself.

[Jim McMahon]

The Minister has done a huge amount of work on this issue, which I am sure is appreciated by everyone in this House. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to find a way for these VPN companies to bridge between the service user and the ultimate website or platform that they are viewing, so why are VPNs not in scope of the legislation to ensure that they are compliant with the age verification measures? Presumably, it is more difficult for the end website to know the origins of the user, if they have bypassed via a VPN. Surely the onus should be on the VPN company to comply with the law also.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; let me come back to him in detail on the VPN issue, as his question relates to what we are planning to do in our review of the Online Safety Act, including both what was written into the legislation and what was not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who is no longer in her place, highlighted the really important issue of chatbots, which has also been mentioned by a number of other Members. Generative AI services including chatbots that allow users to share content with one another or search live websites to provide search engines are already regulated under the Online Safety Act. Those services must protect users from illegal content and children from harmful and age-inappropriate content.

[Victoria Collins]

Ofcom has said, and my understanding is, that in certain circumstances AI chatbots are covered, but certain new harms—such as emotional dependence—are not. That is an area where the House and many people are asking for clarity.

[Ian Murray]

I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. There are a whole host of issues around porn bots and AI-generated bots that have now also sprung up. We know that we are committed to the Online Safety Act and its review as its being implemented. As technology moves on quickly, we have to keep pace with what the harms are and how we are able to deal with them. I thank the hon. Lady for raising those particular issues.

We will act on the evidence that comes forward. It is clear that if the evidence shows us that we have to act in various areas, including chatbots, we will do so. The Secretary of State announced plans to support a child safety summit in 2026, which will bring together tech companies, civil society and young people to shape how AI can benefit children and look at online harms and the movements on those.

[Emily Darlington]

I wanted to raise with the Minister that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will be undertaking an inquiry in the new year on brain development, addictive use and how that impacts various key points in children’s development. The Minister says that he will look at all evidence. Will he look at the evidence produced by that inquiry to ensure that its information and advice goes to parents across this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does on that Committee. Of course, the Government have to respond in detail to such reports and we look forward to the recommendations it brings forward. Often we see conspiracy theories in the online world, but there is no conspiracy theory here: the Government are not trying to defend a position against what evidence might come forward.

We have just signed a memorandum of understanding with Australia to look at their experiences of protecting children online and whether there are things that we can do in this country. It has to be evidence-based, and if the evidence base is there, we will certainly make sure to act, because it is non-negotiable that we protect young people and children online.

[Jim McMahon]

I think there is no disagreement on the protection of children and there is no disagreement on what we have legislated to be illegal content. There is more debate needed on harmful but not illegal content and where that line is and what we enforce, and the protections for those who are not children, particularly vulnerable users and those who are being exploited and drawn into some quite extreme behaviours.

I will be honest about where some of these tensions are. How confident will the UK Government be in entering into negotiations on this when we are in the position we are in on trade with the US? The US has also made it clear that it sees any further regulation on social media platforms to be an infringement on trade and freedom of speech. When it comes to making that call, where will the UK Government be?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Act. Although we are regulating to make sure that children and young people are protected online, he is right to suggest that that does not mean we are censoring stuff for adult content. The internet is a place where people can access content if they are age-verified to do so, but it cannot be illegal content. The list of issues in schedule 7 to the Act that I read out at the start of my speech is pretty clear on what someone is not allowed to do online, so any illegal content online still remains illegal. We need to work clearly with the online platforms to make sure that that is not being purveyed through them.

We have seen strong examples of this issue in recent months. If we reflect back to Southport, the public turned to local newspapers—we have discussed this many times before—because they wanted fast and regular but trustworthy news. They turned away from social media channels to get the proper story, and they knew they could trust the local newspaper that they were able to pick up and read. I think the public have a very strong understanding of where we are, but I take the point about people who are not as tech-savvy or are impaired in some way, and so may need further protections. My hon. Friend makes the argument very strongly.

I want to turn to AI chatbots, because they were mentioned in terms of mental health. We are clear that AI must not replace trained professionals. The Government’s 10-year health plan lays foundations for a digital front door for mental health care. Last month, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology urged Ofcom to use existing powers to protect children from the potential harms of AI chatbots. She is clear that she is considering what more needs to be done. The Department of Health and Social Care is looking at mental health through the 10-year plan, but the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has also been clear that she will not allow AI chatbots to affect young people’s mental health, and will address their development, as mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins).

Let me touch on freedom of expression, because it is important to balance that out. It is on the other side of the shadow Minister’s ledger, and rightly so, because safeguards to protect freedom of expression and privacy are built in throughout the Online Safety Act. Services must consider how to protect users’ rights when applying safety measures, including users’ rights to express themselves freely. Providers do not need to take action on content that is beneficial to children—only against content that poses a risk of harm to children on their services. The Act does not prevent adults from seeking out legal content, and does not restrict people posting legal content that others of opposing views may find offensive. There is no removing of freedom of speech. It is a cornerstone of this Government, and under the Act, platforms have duties to protect freedom of speech. It is written into legislation.

Let me reiterate: the Online Safety Act does not limit freedom of speech. In fact, it protects it. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) was clear when he said in his wonderful speech that making the internet a safe space promotes freedom of speech. Indeed it does, because it allows us to have the confidence that we can use online social media platforms, trust what we are reading and seeing, and know that our children are exposed to age-appropriate content.

I will address age assurance, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). Ofcom is required to produce a report on the use of age assurance technologies, including the effectiveness of age assurance, due in July 2026—so in seven months’ time. That allows sufficient time for these measures to embed in before considering further action, but the Government continue to monitor the impact of circumvention techniques such as VPNs and the effectiveness of the Act in protecting children. We will not hesitate to go further if necessary, but we are due that report in July 2026, which will be 12 months from the implementation of the measures.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson asked about reviewing the Act. My previous comments covered some of that, but it is critical that we understand how effective the online safety regime is, and monitoring and evaluating that is key. My Department, Ofcom and the Home Office have developed a framework to monitor the implementation of the Act and evaluate the core outcomes from it.

[Tom Collins]

The Minister describes the review of the Act and how we have a rapidly growing list of potential harms. It strikes me that we are up against a very agile and rapidly developing world. I recently visited the BBC Blue Room and saw the leading edge of consumer-available technology, and it was quite disturbing to see the capabilities that are coming online soon. In the review of the Act, is there scope to move from a register of harms into perhaps domains of safety, such as trauma, addiction or attachment, where the obligation would be on service providers or manufacturers to ensure their products were safe across those domains? Once again, there could be security for smaller businesses available from the world of technical standards, where if a business is offering a simple service and meets an industry-developed standard, they have presumption of compliance. The British Standards Institution has demonstrated very rapid development of that through the publicly available specification system, and that is available to help us to navigate this rapidly. Could that be in scope?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Interventions should be brief, but I am very kind.

[Ian Murray]

Sir John, you are indeed very kind. My hon. Friend gave two examples during his speech. First, he mentioned brakes that were available only for high-end and expensive cars, and are now on all cars. Secondly, he mentioned building regulations, and how we would not build a balcony without a barrier. Those examples seem fairly obvious and almost flippant, but it seems strange that we would regulate heavily to make sure that people are safe physically—nobody would ever argue that it would be a complete disregard of people’s freedom to have a barrier on an 18th-floor balcony—but not online. We do that to keep people safe, and particularly to keep children safe. As my hon. Friend said, if we are keeping adults safe, we are ultimately keeping children safe too.

We have to continue to monitor and evaluate. I was just about to come on to the post-implementation review of the Act, which I am sure my hon. Friend will be very keen to have an input into. The Secretary of State must complete a review of the online safety regime two to five years after part 3 of the Act, which is about duties of care, fully comes into force. The review will therefore be completed no sooner than 2029. These are long timescales, of course, and technology is moving, so I understand the point that he is making. I recall that in the Parliament from 2010 to 2015, we regulated for the telephone, so we move slowly, although we understand that we also have to be nimble to legislate.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, asked whether the Act has gone far enough. Ofcom, the regulator, is taking an iterative approach and will strengthen codes of practice as online harms, technology and the evidence evolve. We are already making improvements, for example strengthening the law to tackle self-harm, cyber-flashing and strangulation. The hon. Lady also asked whether Ofcom has received an increase in resources. It has—Ofcom spending has increased by nearly 30% in the past year, in recognition of its increased responsibilities. She also asked about a digital age of consent. As I mentioned, we have signed a memorandum of understanding with Australia and will engage with Australia to understand its approach. Any action will be based, of course, on robust evidence.

[Victoria Collins]

I would just like to clarify that I made a call for an age of data consent. We put that forward earlier this year as an amendment to the Act. A very first step is to stop social media companies harvesting data and using it to power these addictive algorithms against young people. It is about data consent to 16. Then of course, there is the wider discussion about what is happening with social media in general, but it is that age of data consent that is our first call to action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I take that point about the amendment that the Liberal Democrats tabled.

The hon. Lady also asked for a cross-party Committee to take action. I have already talked about the review of the implementation of the regulations that will happen in July and the other stages after that, as well as the post-implementation review. Of course, setting up a new Committee is a matter for the House. I have no objections to the House setting up Committees to look at these big and important issues that we all care about, if that is what it decides to do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester talked about the issue of Parliament and engagement. He asked whether the Department would engage with the group of academics he mentioned, who are looking at technical safety standards for social media, including considering what role those academics could play in relation to these provisions. I welcome his invitation and I am sure that the Minister responsible for this area—the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan)—would be delighted to participate in those talks. I am sure that he will be in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester to take him up on that offer.

We have heard about algorithms, so it is worth focusing concentrating on them. Hon. Friends have talked about the algorithms that serve harmful content. The Government have been clear that algorithms can impact on the risk of harm for children, which is why the legislation comprehensively covers them. The legislation requires providers to consider, via risk assessment, how algorithms could impact children’s exposure to illegal or harmful content, and providers must then take steps to mitigate those risks. If they do not do so, Ofcom has powers that it can use.

[Jim McMahon]

There needs to be a tie-in here with the Cabinet Office and the review of electoral law. If a kind donor in my constituency owned a big billboard and gave me absolute free use of it during an election period, but made an offer to any other party that they could put a Post-it note on the back of it that nobody would see, I would have been expected to declare that as a gift in kind, or a donation in kind. That is not the case with algorithms that are posting and promoting generally right-wing and far-right content during the regulated period. Surely there has to be a better join-up here of election law and online law.

[Ian Murray]

This is a huge issue and all of us in this House are very concerned about misinformation and disinformation, and the impact on our democracy. Indeed, I am sure that in the time that I have been speaking here in Westminster Hall, my own social media will have been full of bots and all sorts of other things that try to encourage people to get involved in this debate, in order to influence the algorithm. That can fundamentally disturb our democracy, and is something we are looking at very closely. The Cabinet Office and ourselves are looking at the misinformation and disinformation issue, as is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in terms of the media outlook and how elections are run in this country. We should all be very clear about not having our democratic processes undermined by such algorithmic platforms that serve up the kind of content that provides misinformation and disinformation to the public.

[Emily Darlington]

I appreciate what the Minister says—that these powers are in legislation—yet the process is still the social media platforms marking their own homework. We are in a vicious circle: Ofcom will not take action unless it has a complaint based on evidence, but the evidence is not achievable because the algorithm is not made available for scrutiny. How should Ofcom use those powers more clearly ahead of the elections to ensure that such abuse to our democracy does not occur?

[Ian Murray]

A whole host of legislation sits behind this, including through the Electoral Commission and the Online Safety Act, but it is important for us to find ways to ensure that we protect our democratic processes, whether that be from algorithmic serving of content or foreign state actors. It is in the public domain that, when the Iranian servers went dark during the conflict with the US, a third of pro-independence Facebook pages in Scotland went dark, because they were being served by foreign state actors. We have seen that from Russia and various other foreign actors. We have to be clear that the regulations in place need to be implemented and, if they are not, we need to find other ways to ensure that we protect our democracy. At a small tangent, our public sector broadcasters and media companies are a key part of that.

To stay with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), she made an excellent contribution, with figures for what is happening. She asked about end-to-end encryption. We support responsible use of encryption, which is a vital part of our digital world, but the Online Safety Act does not ban any service design such as end-to-end encryption, nor does it require the creation of back doors. However, the implementation of end-to-end encryption in a way that intentionally binds tech companies to content will have a disastrous impact on public safety, in particular for children, and we expect services to think carefully about their design choices and to make the services safe by design for children.

That leads me to online gaming platforms and Roblox, which my hon. Friend also mentioned. Ofcom has asked the main platforms, including Roblox, to share what they are doing and to make improvements where needed. Ofcom will take action if that is not advanced. A whole host of things are happening, and we need the Online Safety Act and the regulations underpinning it to take time to feed through. I hope that we will start to see significant improvements, as reflected on by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central mentioned deepfakes. That issue is important to our democracy as well. The Government are concerned about the proliferation of AI-enabled products and services that enable deepfake non-consensual images. In addition to criminalising the creation of non-consensual images, the Government are looking at further options, and we hope to provide an update on that shortly. It is key to protecting not only our wider public online but, fundamentally, those who seek public office.

The Government agree that a safer digital future needs to include small, personally owned and maintained websites. We recognise the importance that proportionate implementation of the Online Safety Act plays in supporting that aim. We can all agree that we need to protect children online, and we would not want low-risk services to have any unnecessary compliance burden. That is a balance that we have to strike to make it proportionate. The Government will conduct a post-implementation review of the Act and will consider the burdens on low-risk services as part of that review, as mentioned in the petition. We will also ensure that the Online Safety Act protects children and is nimble enough to deal with a very fast-moving tech world. I thank all hon. Members for providing a constructive debate and raising their issues. I look forward to engaging further in the months and years ahead.

Culture, Media and Sport

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Written Corrections

[Jim McMahon]

I get the Government’s intention, which I strongly support, and I credit the Minister for the work that he is doing, but none of us would accept a member of the public going into a newsagents, taking a newspaper off the rack and walking out without paying for it, yet that is exactly what is taking place with these online giants. They are taking the news off the rack without any payment, commercialising it and making billions in the process. That is what we need to consider. I hear the arguments about whether local authorities should continue with statutory notices—I have a different view; I am not sure that we should hold on to something from the past if it is not adding real value that can be demonstrated from the public investment—but we need to move to a modern way of funding a sustainable local press. Surely that requires a bigger intervention from the Government.

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to that, because the AI copyright issue is a key part of what we are trying to determine. As my hon. Friend will know, under the legislation, the Government are preparing to publish the report and impact assessment required by sections 135 and 136 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That must be laid before the House by 12 December… That assessment will be reported to the House by Christmas.

[Official Report, 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 388WH.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray):

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to that, because the AI copyright issue is a key part of what we are trying to determine. As my hon. Friend will know, under the legislation, the Government are preparing to publish the report and impact assessment required by sections 135 and 136 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That must be laid before the House by 18 March… That assessment will be reported to the House by the spring.

Local Media

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

It is brilliant to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan, and it is great to have this wonderful debate with you presiding over us. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing an important debate. We can see from the contributions that it has been an important one, which everyone is interested in. I am delighted that he graduated from stuffing leaflets into newspapers at 13 to stuffing Tory leaflets through letterboxes at 45; he has certainly gone a long way. I, too, had a newspaper run when I was younger, a morning run, which I hated—it was underpaid, too long and too early in the morning—although apart from that, I loved everything about it.

Local media provides a vital and unique service to our communities in its provision of trustworthy—which I emphasise—public interest journalism. Local journalism fosters a range of social benefits, much wider than that itself, empowering local communities and reflecting the issues that matter to us. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right when he said at the start of his contribution that many people would want to pop up to talk about their local titles. I agree that that might not make a blind bit of difference to the way in which we are treated as a local MP in our local newspapers, but it was nice to hear.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that excellent local titles such as the Bridlington Echo, the Driffield & Wolds Weekly and The Holderness & Hornsey Gazette need support? We need to ensure that the income stream from local authority statutory notices continues, so that such thriving local titles continue into the future.

[Ian Murray]

One hundred per cent, and the hon. Gentleman has just secured a column.

We heard from many Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), about the Isle of Wight County Press, the Island Echo, the Isle of Wight Observer and OnTheWight. He hates getting calls from the editors of those newspapers to clarify things, but I am sure his relationship for leaking stuff back to them is rather strong.

We also heard about the Hampshire Chronicle, the Bromley News Shopper, the Biggin Hill News Shopper, the Stranraer and Wigtownshire Free Press, the Meon Valley Times, the Bournemouth Echo, Bournemouth One, the Greater Nunthorpe News, The Oxford Times, the Epping Forest Guardian, Everything Epping Forest online and The Comet. We heard about The Independent Melksham News, Talk of The Town, Coastal View & Moor News, The Yorkshire Post, Yorkshire Radio, the York Press, the Bedford Independent, the Bedford Today, Coast & County, BBC Yorkshire and Tees, the Witney Gazette, The Scarborough News, the Farnham Herald.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the editor of his local newspaper, Paul Symington, but did not tell us the name of the newspaper, but I believe it is the Newtownards Chronicle—they might pronounce “Newtownards” differently in the east of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) talked about local radio—Radio Forth, Central FM and Radio Clyde, such that I thought he was going to burst into a jingle at one point with his experience—and the Stirling Observer.

We heard about the Somerset Western Gazette, The Somerset Leveller and the Bath Chronicle. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) mentioned the Oldham Evening Chronicle, The Oldham Times, the Oldham Reporter and the Manchester Evening News. He even went on to talk about ITV regional news.

I am not going to get involved in the childishness and churlishness of mentioning all our local newspapers, so I will not mention the Edinburgh Evening News, The Edinburgh Reporter or Edinburgh Live. All that shows us, however, the impact that local newspapers have on our life, locally and across the country.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ian Murray]

I am happy to give way—did I forget yours, sorry?

[John McDonnell]

No, I never mentioned it; don’t worry. Does the Minister agree about the sense of urgency in this debate? I will give an example from my constituency. We had those demonstrations outside the asylum hotels, largely fuelled not by local people, but by organisations, quite ruthless ones, with masked men trying to break into the hotels and all the rest. Also, on social media, we have had allegations made against asylum seekers that are completely untrue, but specifically designed to sow division in our community.

We lack a very locally focused newspaper, so people have no access to finding out what the truth really is. They get beguiled and misled by that social media, which is deliberate, because those social media clicks become clickbait, and those individuals make money from it. That is the significance of local media, in particular local press, at the moment when our society is under such threat from those individuals and far-right organisations.

[Ian Murray]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. In fact, he pre-empted what I was about to say on the way in which it is more important now than ever for our local news to be part of the ecosystem of how people digest current affairs and what is happening.

We saw the division and tensions that were created in Southport. Thankfully, those were headed off at the pass because of local people turning to local news outlets, such as the Liverpool Echo, the Southport Visiter and others, where they could trust that the news they were picking up—either in a newspaper or online—was truthful, up to date and in the best interests of local people. Those examples, as well as the ones my right hon. Friend gave, show how important it is to have trusted local news to deal with mis and disinformation.

[Rachael Maskell]

I was certainly referring to such an example in my speech, but I am particularly concerned about the influence that disinformation is having on this place and on the policies of Governments over time, which have been brought out in response to that social, unregulated space. Is that not all the more reason for the urgency behind ensuring that a properly regulated environment is put in place, so that we do not have those influences, and we instead pull on the real stories and evidence out there?

[Ian Murray]

That is really part of the Government’s response to this challenge, as I will lay out in my contribution. The Government are committed to devolving more power and funding to local leaders and communities to bring decision making closer to the people it affects. That, of course, allows local journalism and local news to exercise that transparency and hold power to account by being in the public interest and having that strong accountability. Those are all essential in the examples that we heard in the previous two interventions.

Local media plays a key role in all this—not only in helping to build a more socially cohesive country and providing trustworthy information at that local level, but in countering the false and divisive narratives that are percolating through all our communities, and in helping to keep communities informed, scrutinising local decision making and fostering civic engagement. These are all things that hon. Members have covered in their contributions.

At the same time, never before has this role been so endangered. We have also heard from many hon. Members about the dangers and the challenges. The way that we consume news has transformed—people say over the past 20 years, but actually it has been transforming daily. The way that people consume the news of tomorrow will be different from the news of yesterday.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I understand the importance of involving those at the coalface in the Government’s deliberations on the upcoming media strategy. Would he agree to meet the National Union of Journalists and consult it on the local media strategy?

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to that, but yes—I will lay out later what the local media strategy has done so far, how we have been consulting through the roundtables we have undertaken, and where the Secretary of State has been taking a leading role.

As we know, people are increasingly looking to their mobile phones rather than their local newspaper. I do not know when hon. Members last actually bought their local newspaper—picked it up off a shelf and paid for the physical copy. Across news publishing, local TV and radio, these changes have prompted significant financial challenges, as traditional business models for local journalism are under more pressure than ever. Those pressures are more acute for local news publishers, both in print and online, although many local outlets are now moving online.

Around 300 local newspapers, as we have heard already, have closed since 2005—equivalent to as much as a third of the sector—and the number of journalists employed by the three largest news providers, which have 60% of the market, fell from around 9,000 to 3,000 between 2007 and 2022. Over that 15-year period, revenue for those three publishers fell from nearly £2.5 billion to a little more than half a billion. We can see the challenge of revenue for our local newspapers.

The effect has been an overall decline in the provision of high-quality local media across the country. More than 40% of UK citizens who are interested in local news do not consider that their local news needs are being met. As many as 38 local authority districts now have no print, online, TV or radio dedicated specifically to that area, leaving up to 4.7 million citizens in local news deserts. That is why the Government are committed to the local media strategy.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Does the Minister recognise that, while we are talking about the struggles local media outlets are facing—and that huge drop in revenue over 15 years—taking away £32 million by removing the opportunity for them to carry advertisements for licence changes could have a huge impact?

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to examine that point in more detail, but it is well made and certainly understood by Government. That is why we have committed to the local media strategy—to address all of the issues, but particularly those around sustainability—because our vision is for a thriving local media that can continue to play an invaluable role as a key channel of trustworthy information at local level, reporting on the issues that matter to communities, reflecting their contributions and perspectives, and telling their stories at that local level. The Government also want to empower local media to hold local public services to account, to help foster a self-confident nation in which everyone feels that their contribution is part of an inclusive national story, and, of course, to counter damaging mis and disinformation.

To achieve that, the Government intend to support local media in three key ways. In the short to medium term, we will help the sector, particularly local news publishers, to innovate and transition to sustainable online-focused business models. Over the longer term, we will help the industry to adapt to changing online audience habits and to foster a collaborative and complementary relationship with those that have most influence over citizens’ news diets, particularly big tech—as we have heard—and the BBC, with the important role that it plays. Finally, we will make it easier for journalists to scrutinise local public services and other institutions, conduct investigative journalism and report without fear or favour. Innovation funding is part of that. We have not ruled out the option of financial support being a key part of the local media strategy, bearing in mind the fiscal constraints in which we currently operate.

[Jim McMahon]

I get the Government’s intention, which I strongly support, and I credit the Minister for the work that he is doing, but none of us would accept a member of the public going into a newsagents, taking a newspaper off the rack and walking out without paying for it, yet that is exactly what is taking place with these online giants. They are taking the news off the rack without any payment, commercialising it and making billions in the process. That is what we need to consider. I hear the arguments about whether local authorities should continue with statutory notices—I have a different view; I am not sure that we should hold on to something from the past if it is not adding real value that can be demonstrated from the public investment—but we need to move to a modern way of funding a sustainable local press. Surely that requires a bigger intervention from the Government.

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to that, because the AI copyright issue is a key part of what we are trying to determine. As my hon. Friend will know, under the legislation, the Government are preparing to publish the report and impact assessment required by sections 135 and 136 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That must be laid before the House by 12 December.[Official Report, 8 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 2WC.] (Correction) The impact assessment will include an assessment of each of the options put forward in the Government’s consultation on copyright and AI, including the economic impact of each option on copyright owners and AI developers. That will include the publishing and the news sectors.

In the meantime, the Secretaries of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and at DCMS have jointly shared three meetings with representatives of both the AI and the creative sectors. We are convening expert working groups and parliamentary working groups to consider all the options. We are dedicated to protecting our world-class creative industries and to ensuring that they thrive in the age of AI. Our creative industries sector plan is all part of making sure that that sector flourishes. I am interested in what my hon. Friend said about that British news co-operative model, which might be able to be used as a collecting agency for those kind of issues.

That assessment will be reported to the House by Christmas.¹ There will be great interest in that and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to supply some more information on those particular industries. We are very much dedicated to protecting our world-leading creative industries. I hope that gives him some assurance.

On the local media strategy, in the spring we had a roundtable with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and local news editors. We set up an industry working group to consider the issues in more detail and explore areas for collaboration. I have not dealt with the roundtable yet, being relatively new to this role—I do not know whether the National Union of Journalists is part of it but I will check and inform my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) whether it is. If not, we will make sure that it has input into that working group. That roundtable has been meeting since June and has been invaluable in shaping our approach. We thank all those journalists who have given their time to help us shape that work.

A whole host of other things are happening. Let me touch on a few that address some of the issues that have been raised. Many hon. Members raised concerns about the recent Government proposal to relax statutory requirements—this goes to some of the interventions—to publish and print applications for alcohol licences in local newspapers. That proposal is being explored as part of a wider set of licensing reforms that aim to create a modern, proportionate and enabling system that supports economic growth, revitalises high streets first, as vibrant communities, and helps local authorities. The call for evidence closed in November. We are carefully considering the responses and will take forward the final decision as part of that local media strategy. Of course, the contributions that hon. Members have made in this debate, and others on this topic, will be taken into account in that process.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Councils are currently required to place a notice in one or more newspapers circulating in their area; that Bill would enable councils to decide how best to publish any relevant information. In practice that provision will apply to very few councils, since over 80% in England already operate a leader and cabinet model and will therefore not be required to make any changes to their governance models. The DCMS and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are considering how that measure interacts with the forthcoming statutory notices review that sits alongside it.

At the same time, the Government recognise that statutory notices of all types are important in helping to inform the public of decisions made by the council that affect the quality of their lives, local services and amenities or their property, and the impact that has on the financing of local media. A separate part of the strategy will look ahead to the long-term future of local media. It is important that we consider the role of the BBC as part of that, as many hon. Members have mentioned. As the charter review approaches, the Green Paper will be published soon. That is an opportunity to consider how the BBC can best support and defend local news through its work.

In that context, as the shadow Minister mentioned, the local democracy reporting service plays a key role in helping communities and local businesses to scrutinise decisions that impact them and in holding public services to account through fact-based local reporting. We will look to extend and improve that service as part of the licence charter period. The BBC underpins a lot of local reporting and the local news ecosystem.

We are taking action through the digital markets regime, which came into force at the beginning of the year and which should help rebalance the relationship between the biggest tech firms and news publishers. The issue of big tech companies not being subject to the rules was raised in the debate. We welcome the progress made by the Competition and Markets Authority, in particular in designating Google’s and Apple’s services as being subject to its rules. Measures in the Online Safety Act 2023 on the treatment of journalists’ content will add a further layer of protection for the industry against the erroneous takedown of content by social media platforms, especially at the height of the news cycles that we have seen, once implemented by Ofcom. The local media strategy will explore whether further action may be needed to support local media in adapting to changing audience habits online, and guaranteeing public access to high-quality local journalism, particularly in the context of AI-generated news summaries and aggregators.

On Government advertising expenditure, we are committed to ensuring we make the best use of local media in Government advertising campaigns. My Department has been working closely with the Cabinet Office on that as part of the local media strategy, because we know local media provides that trustworthy environment for those kinds of governmental issues, and is a vital source of revenue. We are working on taking that forward.

I will refer quickly to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the Government establishing a journalism foundation to co-ordinate support. The Cairncross review recommended something similar. Our local media strategy will seek to achieve the same ends by co-ordinating support for this vital industry. That possibility is on the cards and I look forward to working with him to see that happen.

The Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025, which passed in the summer, extends public interest considerations to further protect plurality in our system; there are public interest considerations about the need for a sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises. The statutory instruments about control by a single publisher, which was also mentioned by many hon. Members, have gone through.

I will finish by talking about the protection of journalists, which is hugely important. They need to be protected from harassment, abuse and threats, whether online or offline, of an illegal nature. As co-chair of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, alongside the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), I welcome the delivery of many of the group’s commitments to ensure that journalists can operate free from such threats. The NUJ has been very involved in that hugely important process. That includes the work of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which confirmed in September that each police force across the UK now has an appointed single point of contact for journalists to reassure them that they can operate in the field and online with a direct point of contact to the police should any issues arise.

We are committed to a plural, trustworthy and independent media landscape. Our local media strategy will play a key role in fostering that at a local level. More will be announced on the strategy in the coming months. I look forward to working with right hon. and hon. Members to ensure that the local media strategy delivers for all our local newspapers.

Gambling Levy

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for Museums, Heritage and Gambling and DCMS Lords Minister, Baroness Twycross:

The statutory levy on gambling operators, which commenced in April 2025, represents a major transformation. The levy will provide, for the first time, independent and sustainable funding for gambling-related harms research, prevention and treatment.

Subject to final checks, this year the statutory levy has raised just under £120 million, which will be ringfenced solely for the use of tackling gambling-related harm. This will support our priority of making sure there is sufficient and sustainable funding in the system for projects and services and to fill the gaps that we know exist in the evidence base and provision of treatment and support. The funding will improve and expand services to new areas, to ensure more people can access the right help when they need it.

In line with the objectives of the statutory levy, funding will be directed in specific proportions for the purposes of research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm:

20% will go to UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) for the establishment of a bespoke research programme on gambling. The levy will provide a dedicated and sustainable injection of funding for independently-commissioned research to inform policy and practice. We expect the formal launch of the UKRI Gambling Harms Research Co-ordination Centre to take place in April 2026. A small portion of funding will also be allocated to the Gambling Commission to direct further research in line with its licensing objectives.

30% of funding will go to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the Scottish and Welsh Governments to develop a comprehensive approach to the prevention of gambling-related harm across all three nations of Great Britain. In England, OHID will prioritise the development of an independent, public health approach that recognises the importance of the voluntary sector and local authorities in delivering effective prevention activity.

The remaining 50% of funding will go to NHS England and the Scottish and Welsh Governments to work with providers, including the third sector, to increase access to treatment and support for those experiencing gambling-related harm. This will ensure services are joined up and consistent so that no one is falling through the cracks.

All commissioners are working to establish their respective gambling harms programmes and structures. In England, it is expected that applications for voluntary sector organisations to access levy funding for prevention programmes will open in the new year, with grant funds being accessible from April 2026 in line with the conclusion of GambleAware commissioning. The approach for voluntary sector provision of treatment programmes will be confirmed shortly. It is a priority for all commissioners that those affected by gambling-related harm continue to have access to the help and support they need.

Governance arrangements have been put in place, which will look objectively at how the levy is working and hold commissioners to account. The Gambling Levy Programme Board has been established as the central mechanism for establishment and oversight of the levy to ensure that funding is being spent appropriately and efficiently, and that the system is delivering on its objectives.

The Gambling Levy Advisory Group, has now been renamed the Gambling Levy Delivery Group to reflect its focus on implementation and delivery. This brings together the research, prevention and treatment commissioners at a working level, alongside DCMS and Gambling Commission officials, to facilitate appropriate integration and collaboration between commissioning leads.

Funding decisions will be taken by the appropriate bodies, with scrutiny provided by relevant governance structures. We will also ensure that lived experience voices are informing levy programmes, with further details to be confirmed in due course. Through these governance arrangements, we will continue to review how much the levy is collecting and the distribution of the levy as the evidence base for this grows.

[HCWS1118]

Gambling: Regulatory Reform

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

It is great to have you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, for this important debate. I am pleased to respond to it. I congratulate—as all other hon. Members have—the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) on securing this debate, and on the balanced way in which he presented his case, with the gambling industry on one side and the harms that it causes on the other.

The Government care deeply about gambling regulation. The number of debates that we have had on the issue, and the constructive contributions that we have had from hon. Members from both sides of the House, show that Parliament is very interested in the issue as well. Since the election last year, we have tried hard to strike the right balance between taking action to reduce gambling-related harm in areas where it has the greatest impact and supporting the gambling sector to modernise. I wish to set out how we have approached that task and what might come next, not least in the context of last week’s Budget. I hope to address as many points from hon. Members as I possibly can.

Gambling is enjoyed responsibly by many tens of millions of people, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), laid out. It is an industry that is part of our national life. Having a little flutter on the grand national and betting on the world cup semi-final or the grand prix are the kinds of big events that bring people together. My mother was a bookmaker. What she could do on that chalkboard on grand national day to work out the odds and the winnings—and often the losses—for the punters was something to behold. Many hon. Members have mentioned family members, and I remember my grandfather looking to win that million pounds with 25p a bet on a Saturday afternoon—he died a pauper, never quite making it that far. Gambling also brings people together, so that flutter is something that we should cherish. The industry has worked very hard to protect it and, in last week’s Budget, we tried very hard to protect it too.

For many people, including many Members who have spoken, the regulation of the online sector is of the greatest concern. We recognise that the risk of harm is greater for many online products and we have taken targeted action on that. In May, we introduced a £2 online slots stake limit for 18 to 24-year-olds and a £5 limit for those 25 and over. Those limits are a targeted intervention to protect those most at risk of gambling harm and unaffordable losses. It took a long time to get that through—it was a debate that went on right through the last Parliament if I recall—and many hon. Members, including the former Member for Hyndburn, took that forward to get some limits in place.

Several hon. Members have mentioned advertising. We recognise the impact that harmful gambling can have on children and vulnerable people, and we are committed to strengthening protections for those at risk. There are already rules to ensure that adverts are not targeted at, and do not strongly appeal to, children and those at risk of harm. The hon. Member for Witney majored on the way that advertising can affect children, and I am grateful for his contribution on that, so I want to address it particularly.

We want to protect young people from gambling-related harm, and my noble Friend the gambling Minister, Baroness Twycross, cares a great deal about this issue as well. As part of the prevention stream of the statutory gambling levy, gambling education funding will improve access to and support for gambling education. We also welcome the Department for Education’s expanded guidance on gambling as part of the statutory relationships, sex and health education curriculum. I am sure that my noble Friend would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Witney to discuss those harms for young people.

I will run through some of the prevention measures that have been introduced that the shadow Minister mentioned, such as financial vulnerability checks, safer online casino game design, improving consumer choice on direct marketing, Think 25, extending test purchasing to small operators, financial risk assessments, better access to safer gambling tools such as deposit limits that restrict people’s gambling, and socially responsible incentives. I do hear, however, that there are issues with trying to pull people into gambling—to get them on to the platforms and betting—through free spins, free bets and free cash. That is something we should be looking at.

The industry has voluntarily done a number of things. It has introduced GamProtect, as we have heard already, and the front-of-shirt sponsorship ban for next season, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I wish Stoke all the very best in being promoted from the championship; my own club, Heart of Midlothian, have burst my coupon on many a Saturday afternoon by not getting the results that they surely deserved. The industry has also voluntarily introduced improved gambling transaction and bank blocking, which is ongoing, and worked on creating the gambling ombudsman. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is no longer in his place, but we are very much looking at that ombudsman issue. It will take primary legislation to bring in something like that, but I assure hon. Members that it has not left the agenda.

We need to work closely with the gambling industry, where we can, on those big advertising issues to ensure that advertising does not exacerbate harm. We intend to redouble our efforts to work cross-Government and with tech platforms to address illegal gambling advertising, which poses the most risk for children and vulnerable people, as hon. Members have mentioned. We will continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission to develop a new, evidence-based model for independently developed safer gambling messages.

I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen in today’s written ministerial statement, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, that the statutory levy has raised just under £120 million so far. That will be ringfenced, ensuring that it is used solely to address gambling-related harm across the UK. That will support our priority of making sure that there is sufficient independent and sustainable funding in the system for projects and services to tackle and treat gambling-related harm. It will also help to fill the gaps that we know exist in the evidence base and in the provision of treatment and support.

To answer the shadow Minister’s challenge on the timescale, we have appointed a number of commissioners to oversee the delivery of levy funding. Some 20% of levy funding has been allocated to UK Research and Innovation for the establishment of a bespoke research programme on gambling, and to the Gambling Commission to direct further research in line with its licensing objectives. Some 30% will go to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the Scottish and Welsh Governments—they will get their share of that—to develop a comprehensive approach to the prevention of gambling-related harms across all three nations of Great Britain: Wales, Scotland and England. In England, the OHID will prioritise the development of an industry-independent public health approach that recognises the importance of the voluntary sector and local authorities in delivering effective prevention. I think that answers some of the issues that we heard from the shadow Minister about how expertise needs to be involved in this process and to be funded to deliver on some of those issues.

This is really important: the remaining 50% of the levy will go to NHS England and the Scottish and Welsh equivalents to commission the full treatment pathway, working collaboratively with the third sector to increase access to treatment and support for those experiencing gambling-related harm. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Jim Dickson) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) said that this should be a public health issue, and I think that the breakdown of that £120 million from the levy—the amount going directly into health issues—shows that the levy is dealing with this as a public health issue, rather than it being a gambling or DCMS issue.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about Northern Ireland, of course, but this is just a Great Britain initiative. Gambling, as he mentioned, is substantially devolved in Northern Ireland, where a separate regulatory system is in place. We are open to working with the Government in Northern Ireland on issues relating to gambling regulation. I understand that DCMS officials—many of them are sitting behind me—are having a meeting with counterparts in Northern Ireland on this very issue next week, so hopefully there will be progress on that. If there any issues that the hon. Member wants to bring forward, he should please get in touch with the ministerial team and we will certainly take those forward, on behalf of Northern Ireland, to help where we can.

Let me say a little about the modernising measures that we have put in place. Our work to tackle gambling-related harm has not prevented us from introducing modernisation measures, where appropriate, in a balanced way. For example, in June we introduced modernising reforms to the casino licensing regime to support growth in the land-based casino sector. Those were enacted following consideration of all the available evidence and are proportionate modernisations that reflect the changes in gambling behaviour since former restrictions were set many years ago. In October, we launched a consultation on changes to stakes and prizes for low-risk category D machines to support the family entertainment sector that runs seaside amusement arcades and piers. We all remember, as kids, being on the pier and putting 1p and 2p pieces into those kinds of low-stake machines.

Only last week, of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the abolition of bingo duty in recognition of the benefits that bingo halls bring to our local communities and in support of a sector loved by many. I am sure that the shadow Minister will have the odd bingo game at one of his fundraisers to entertain the masses—or not. We are also consulting on the issue of venues that are operating under bingo licences but may be difficult to distinguish from adult gaming centres to see whether there is an appetite for change to ensure that any premises with a bingo licence has bingo at the heart of its offering.

I know that there have been concerns about consumer protection in adult gaming centres. Baroness Twycross, the gambling Minister, has been clear that she will not consider any deregulatory changes to adult gaming centres without improved protections. The industry has announced new measures on self-exclusion, and the Government will continue to work with it and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the protections are fit for purpose.

Many Members have also raised concerns about the concentration of gambling premises, particularly in deprived areas. To strengthen the powers available to local authorities, the Government will introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing as soon as parliamentary time allows, and that will empower local authorities to take data-driven decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling-related harms. I hope that answers the question that the hon. Member for Witney raised.

Let me also mention the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central about the way in which the gambling industry supports local communities as well as sports through that kind of advertising. Sports support is obviously an issue for governing bodies, and the governing bodies for the premiership have determined that such advertising on the front of shirts will not be allowed next season. We would encourage every sporting body, or any body, that is taking advertising from the industry to look very clearly at what the impact of that is.

[Gareth Snell]

I welcome the Minister to his new role. He is right that a number of sporting sectors derive a lot of sponsorship from the gambling sector, such as darts, the English Football League and horseracing. If, as a result of the tax changes announced last week, those companies withdraw their sponsorship, do the Government have a contingency plan? Have they had conversations with those sectors about how to make up that shortfall? In particular, I think £350 million goes into horseracing every year from gambling companies through sponsorship. If it loses that, the horseracing sector in this country will die.

[Ian Murray]

We talk to the gambling industry about that constantly. My noble Friend Baroness Twycross, the gambling Minister, is taking some of those discussions forward. We will continue to monitor it because a huge amount of sponsorship comes from the gambling industry. That is not a judgment on whether it is right or wrong, as we have heard today how damaging it may be; the hon. Member for Witney mentioned that the industry spends £2 billion a year on advertising. We should monitor it, and individual governing bodies will be looking at it. Premier league football is a good example of where a governing body has made a decision on shirt sponsorship, although I do not think it will have any difficulty in attracting sponsors, but other sports will find it more difficult to attract new money. We have seen this before with tobacco and alcohol advertising being banned, and we will continue to monitor it.

I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for telling the personal story of his friend M. I am sure that story is reflected all over the country. We have heard from other Members this afternoon about suicides and the impact that gambling has had on families and the wider community. We should always reflect on those stories when talking about the positives and negatives of gambling.

I want to address the gambling taxation changes, which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, mentioned in some detail. The changes to gambling duties were outlined by the Chancellor last week at the Budget, which we will vote on this evening. Everyone will be aware that, in addition to the abolishing of bingo duty, we have announced an increase in the remote gambling duty from 21% to 40%. We have also announced a new remote betting duty set at 25%, with a carve-out to protect horseracing.

We have introduced those increases in gambling duties to reflect the way in which the sector has gone and to support our public finances. I take issue with how the shadow Minister presented that issue, because it is all about making balanced judgments. Of the money that will be raised for the Treasury, £26 million will be used to tackle the black and illegal market, which is a concern for us all. The money will also ensure that we can pull 450,000 children out of poverty, addressing any correlation between gambling addiction and poverty. The Chancellor and I believe that pulling 450,000 children out of poverty would be the best societal way of using that money.

With the Budget changes, it is clear that the Government are not anti-gambling. I have set out some of the measures that we have introduced in support of the sector. Through the Budget, we have also sought to limit the impact on the high street and protect activities that are lower risk and have greater levels of employment. We recognise the dangers posed by the illegal market, and for those in the regulated sector and those at risk of gambling-related harm. That is why we have allocated that £26 million to the Gambling Commission over three years to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market. That will be kept under constant review. We also hope to work closely with the industry and others to see how we can go further in this space.

The issue of consumer awareness was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), and by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. I hope that we can work on customer awareness to demonstrate that the regulated sector is where people should be, and to spot the unregulated sector. If someone were to land on a website from an advert on social media, is it obvious to the vast majority whether it is a regulated or unregulated website? How would they know? I suspect that the unregulated sector has rather less regulated ways of pulling customers in. Education on customer and consumer awareness through the Gambling Commission would certainly be something that we should look at as well. There is no doubt that the social harms in the illegal industry are more amplified than those in the regulated industry.

I will talk a little about the national lottery, because it is a part of gambling that we do not tend to talk about in this country. I know that the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned national lottery scratchcards, but most people do not see playing the national lottery as gambling. It would be interesting for some analysis to be done about what the public thinks gambling actually is—whether it is the 25p accumulator on the Grand National or playing the national lottery. There is no doubt that the national lottery is a national institution and it has had a huge impact on good causes in our communities. I suspect that a lot of people in this country play the national lottery, yes, to win the big prize, drift off on a yacht somewhere in the Mediterranean and hand in their resignation—I suppose it would be to the Prime Minister in my case if I were to win—and retire. But people also play the national lottery knowing that a lot of that money goes into good causes and they see transformation, whether through heritage or charitable cases and those kinds of things.

To conclude, it is important that as a Government we now take stock of where we are. I know that there are further regulatory reforms that many Members want to see, and we will continue to act when evidence shows us that we need to intervene. Nevertheless, it is important that we implement and evaluate our recent reforms properly and give them time to bed in before moving on to the next thing. For example, we need to ensure that the three strands of the statutory levy are running smoothly. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the shadow Minister. We need to fully engage with stakeholders to understand the impact of the tax changes on their businesses and provide as much certainty as we can while that happens. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central in particular. This all requires a bit of time to bed in.

Ultimately, the Government want a gambling sector that is modern, sustainable and protects the most vulnerable from harm but that is also thriving. Our manifesto committed us to working with the industry to ensure responsible gambling, and that remains important to us. In parallel, we will continue to regulate gambling in a balanced and modernising way and support the regulatory sector where we can.

[Gareth Snell]

I welcome some of the submissions that the Minister has made. Could I press him on what monitoring there will be of movement towards the unregulated market? The OBR report is quite clear that the Government expect to see a proportion of people from the regulated sector move to the unregulated sector. The increased money for the Gambling Commission to tackle that is welcome. However, can the Minister say whether there will be a concerted and specific effort to monitor the direction of travel? The Netherlands saw a five times increase when it made some changes, and is struggling to recoup that. I want to make sure that we learn from those lessons and do not end up repeating the same drive towards the more damaging part of the sector.

[Ian Murray]

I think that the Government have acknowledged the issue around the black and illegal market, given the £26 million that has gone into the Gambling Commission. Since April 2024, the Gambling Commission has significantly increased its disruption activity and has focused on finding innovative ways to tackle the illegal market. The Crime and Policing Bill, introduced to Parliament in February, has passed through the House of Commons and is now in Committee in the other place. It will give the Gambling Commission greater powers to act quicker to take down illegal websites, so there are legislative moves on this issue as well.

As part of the Budget there is £26 million specifically for the Gambling Commission to increase its investment resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market. The message from Government is that if someone is operating in the illegal market, we are coming after them—legislatively, regulatorily and with money. We will continue to monitor the outcomes from that.

This has been a very balanced debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Witney for securing it. No doubt we will return to this for regular updates on where we are. I hope that the levy, the new tax changes and the money for the Gambling Commission for the illegal market can now bed in and that we can try and get some of that £120 million levy into the organisations that deal with gambling harms. I hope, also, that we can celebrate that gambling is harmless for the vast majority of the public who participate in it—and something that this Government are very keen to support.

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), as well as all the Members who attended the debate; and you, Sir Desmond, for chairing it. I appreciate the sensible, fair and respectful way that we have handled the debate and the shared recognition that gambling can be fun but can also do a whole lot of damage. We have to try to balance that as best we can. I think we have all tried to do that in our own way.

I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for doing his best to make the other case. He did a fair job of that. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did excellent jobs in detailing the damage done, particularly so with regard to M, who my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury mentioned. After the debate, I will be asking about where he is now.

I also thank the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for bringing a great range of thought with regard to the public health aspects of this issue. They made very valuable contributions on that. The shadow Minister did a great job of making the case for the other side of the argument.

I thank the Minister for all his input. It was very helpful that he explained where the Government are on the gambling levy, local authorities and the cumulative impact assessments. I will admit to being less clear about the Government’s position on online advertising and what they are planning to do with that £2 billion—when, where and how. I look forward to staying in touch on that. Similarly, the issue of the ombudsman was not covered in detail. I would welcome an intervention from the Minister to provide some clarity on that.

[Ian Murray]

I am surprised and grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. The gambling ombudsman is the most effective way to deliver independent alternative dispute resolution. We know that that will require primary legislation, and we are conscious of the need to put in place an appropriate mechanism as soon as possible. It has not been ruled out. Work on this is ongoing, but it will require primary legislation. As I said at the end of my speech, with all the other things that we want to do to try to bed this in, we are very conscious that the industry is having to deal with an awful lot of change at the moment, but it is still on the agenda.

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank the Minister for that. I believe we have covered everything. I appreciate everybody’s being here.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered reform of gambling regulation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

9. What recent progress the Future of TV Distribution stakeholder forum has made on its work.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

The stakeholder forum has made significant progress in its work to support the decision on the future of terrestrial television beyond 2034. The forum has gathered and presented evidence on many aspects of this very complex issue. The work of the forum will be vital in ensuring that we arrive at the best decision for both UK households and the television industry itself. A decision that maintains both universal television access, which is important, and the sustainable public service broadcaster ecosystem is what we are aiming for.

[Martin Vickers]

The Minister will be aware of a recent survey that shows that there is very little knowledge among the public of the future changes, but those who are aware are concerned about not only obtaining the service but its cost. What guarantees can the Minister give that the costs will not be too heavy?

[Ian Murray]

Those are all considerations for the working group. It has met four times already and is due to meet again in December. I have met the group to discuss these issues since I have been in post. Digital inclusion and connectivity, as well as the cost, are all active concerns and they will be weighed by Government when we make the decision, but let us not forget that this is a decision from 2034 onwards—nothing will change before that.

[David Mundell]

Older people and those in rural constituencies such as mine, which unfortunately still have unreliable broadband, rely on terrestrial television. The excellent Westminster Hall debate that I led demonstrated cross-party concern about this issue. Will the Minister meet me and other concerned MPs to discuss how we can safeguard terrestrial television?

[Ian Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has taken this issue forward. The Westminster Hall debate was very engaging and interesting, with contributions from across this House. I read the transcript of the debate just yesterday. As the stakeholder forum nears the end of its work and completes that process, I would be very happy to meet him. When the assessment is complete, my office will be in touch. It is always a pleasure to meet the right hon. Gentleman, and for the record, when we next meet, it is his round.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

4. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on funding for youth services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking to help support small and medium-sized music recording studios.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

It is of course important to support our music industry, including studios, and that is at the heart of what we are trying to do through the music growth fund, which has £30 million in it. The music levy goes straight into grassroots music, supporting studios.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Greg Smith.

[Greg Smith]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and apologies for making it just in time. Chiltern Railways are entirely to blame.

I thank the Minister for that answer, however a couple of weeks ago I met my constituent Dom, who runs a small music studio. The cost pressures on the music industry coming from this Government are unsustainable at the moment, not least from business rates—even after yesterday’s announcement—employer national insurance and the minimum wage. With so many small music studios having closed in recent years in this country, how will the Government ensure that our music industry has a solid future?

[Ian Murray]

The creative industries sector plan is right at the heart of this Government’s industrial strategy, and music plays a key part in that. We will have the music 10-point plan shortly, and the £30 million music growth fund will support grassroots music, including those kinds of studio. I was at Co-op Live in Manchester just last month launching Discover! Creative Careers. It has a studio there, and it is trying to open up to the public. This is about access to studios and also about supporting them. I hope that the ticket levy, which we hope to get to 50% of all shows next year, can support studios, as well as the other growth projects we have in place.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to help increase the number of women and girls taking up sports in Greater Manchester.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

7. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the UK city of culture and UK town of culture competitions on local communities.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

Strong evidence from the city of culture programme proves that supporting local culture pays both economic and social dividends for those areas and the wider public. The town of culture is a new competition to ensure that smaller places can share that real impact, by shining a spotlight on places and enabling them to tell their stories. The winner of the new town of culture competition will receive £3.5 million and, for the first time ever, as confirmed from the outset, the city of culture winner will receive £10 million. There has been much excitement about the new town of culture competition and I look forward to those bids coming in.

[Andrew Cooper]

Northwich and Winsford, in my constituency, have long punched well above their weight when it comes to cultural vibrancy and creativity. Winsford, in particular, has earned a proud reputation as an incubator for musical talent, with emerging acts, such The Luka State and The Voke, making waves on the national indie music scene. Meanwhile, Northwich has firmly established itself as the events capital of Cheshire, hosting standout occasions including the Now Northwich International Street Dance festival, The Charlatans’ North by Northwich takeover and, of course, the world-famous Piña Colada festival. Does my hon. Friend agree that Mid Cheshire makes an outstanding contribution to the UK’s cultural landscape, and will he consider supporting a joint bid from Northwich and Winsford for the town of culture competition?

[Ian Murray]

Mr Speaker, I would never presume to know your diary, but I feel as if we should go together to the Piña Colada festival, just to take one for the team and see what that is all about. Since I gave my answer to my hon. Friend’s substantive question, I have been lobbied by both Wigan and Scunthorpe for town of culture as I was sitting on the Front Bench. The culture and creativity celebrated by towns in Mid Cheshire is superb, as we have heard, and the examples my hon. Friend provided illustrate how the area is already showcasing local creativity and talent. We are thrilled that the UK town of culture competition will provide an excellent platform for towns like those, UK-wide, to highlight those causes, and we look forward to receiving bids from those towns, once the submission window opens shortly.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the innovation around the UK town of culture. My 10 seconds of fame as the Under Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was in December 2017, when I went to Hull, the train broke down and I announced on “The One Show” that Coventry would be the UK city of culture. On behalf of Salisbury, which celebrates its 800th anniversary in 2027, may I ask if guidance can be given? Salisbury is a market town with a cathedral and we would love to apply, but given all our world-leading cultural assets we will need guidance about whether we qualify for the city or the town of culture.

[Ian Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman is probably exaggerating when he says he had 10 seconds of fame—

[John Glen]

Maybe five seconds?

[Ian Murray]

I will meet him halfway and say seven and a half seconds. These are very exciting projects. As I said, I have already been lobbied by Wigan and Scunthorpe as I have been sitting on the Front Bench, and now I am being lobbied by Salisbury, so that shows the excitement around both the competitions. That is why we introduced the town of culture competition. I look forward to bids coming in and I am happy for officials to work with the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that the bid goes to the right competition.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

8. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of introducing a cap on the resale of concert tickets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

T4.  Huddersfield contemporary music festival is the UK’s largest international festival dedicated to new music, and the programme this year has more than 30 world and UK premieres. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to this festival, which brings national and international musicians to Huddersfield every November, and will he set out what the Government are doing to ensure we invest in culture in towns like mine?

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

I highly commend the festival in Huddersfield. As an Edinburgh MP who is always championing festivals, the more music festivals and other arts festivals we have across the country, the better. I encourage everyone to go.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

T3.  Yesterday I had a roundtable meeting with a number of UK-based AI firms that have reached licensing agreements with owners of rights in the creative industries and publishing industries. Rather than just talking to big tech, will she and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology meet those UK-based companies that are trying to do the right thing?