Radio Selection Services Consultation
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
Radio continues to be a strong and highly valued medium in the UK, with 87% of the population tuning in every week. However, the means by which listeners tune into radio has undergone a significant shift in recent years. In particular, there has been sustained growth in listeners’ use of voice-activated devices (such as smart speakers) to access online streams of live broadcast radio. The use of these kinds of devices by radio listeners has grown strongly. According to the most recent figures from RAJAR, 18% of total radio listening is via a voice-assisted device.
In response to these changes, the Media Act 2024 amended the Communications Act 2003 to introduce new powers to protect the availability and carriage of online streams of UK broadcast radio on such voice-activated services (defined as radio selection services or RSS.) These protections were put in place to ensure that listeners using these services as designated by the Secretary of State are able to continue to access live radio. Before making any such designation the Secretary of State must first receive a report from Ofcom, which the Secretary of State received on 19 March 2026.
Having taken into account Ofcom’s advice and recommendations, the Secretary of State agrees with Ofcom’s conclusion that 700,000 users is the appropriate threshold for designation. Consequently, the Secretary of State is minded to agree that Amazon’s Alexa, Google Assistant, and Apple’s Siri should all be designated radio selection services.
Before making regulations to designate these services, and having already received Ofcom’s report, the Secretary of State is now required by section 362BB of the Communications Act 2003 to consult persons who appear to represent providers of radio selection services and providers of internet radio services, and other appropriate persons.
This consultation launches today and responses can be submitted by the closing date of 9 September 2026.
[HCWS271]
Newspaper Direct Holdings: Acquisitions by State-owned Investors
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
The Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) (No. 2) Regulations 2025, which can be found at www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/1351/made, were debated and approved by Parliament in December 2025, and came into force on 31 January 2026.
They amended the exceptions for state-owned investors in the foreign state influence regime in the Enterprise Act 2002 to provide that, if a state-owned investor acquires a direct holding of more than 5% of the shares or voting rights in a newspaper—up to a maximum of 15%—they must notify the Secretary of State and publish certain details on a website before the end of a period of 14 days beginning with the date of the relevant acquisition in order to qualify for the exception.
When the regulations were laid before Parliament, I made a written statement, which can be found at https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-10-30/hcws1009 that set out the Secretary of State’s commitment to sharing a statement every six months on the details that state-owned investors have published about their investments pursuant to the regulations.
Since 31 January 2026, the Secretary of State has received no notifications of acquisitions resulting in a state-owned investor holding more than 5% in a UK newspaper directly.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will continue to publish statements every six months to maintain transparency around state-owned investment in newspapers, and to build public and parliamentary confidence in this regime. The next statement is due in January 2027.
[HCWS252]
Unlicensed Gambling Sponsorship Consultation
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 Department for Culture, Media and Sport Lords Minister, Baroness Twycross:
I am pleased to inform the House that we have today published a consultation on banning unlicensed gambling sponsorship and advertising in sport and all other sectors. This follows our announcement in February of our intention to consult on banning such sponsorship in the sport sector.
Under current legislation, businesses are able to enter into advertising and sponsorship arrangements with gambling operators that are not licensed by the Gambling Commission, so long as those operators’ services cannot be accessed by consumers in Great Britain. Unlicensed operators achieve this by geo-blocking their websites. However, this can be circumvented by consumers using a virtual private network. This has become a particular issue over the past year in the sporting sector, particularly football, as the result of changes in the advertising landscape.
We therefore intend to introduce a ban on unlicensed gambling sponsorship and advertising that will target any physical forms or manifestations of advertising or sponsorship. Within a sporting context, this will include kit and equipment sponsorships, pitchside billboards, tournament programmes, venue infrastructure, and the naming of events, leagues and venues. This will make it a criminal offence for any club, league, event, venue, individual or related assets to advertise or be sponsored by a gambling operator not licensed by the Gambling Commission when operating in Great Britain. We also intend to apply this ban to all sectors, to avoid other sectors replacing sport as an alternative vehicle for unlicensed sponsorship.
Our rationale for change is driven by three core objectives:
to protect consumers, especially young people and those who are vulnerable, from unregulated platforms that may not offer adequate player protections or fraud recourse;
to defend the integrity of our domestic market by ensuring that advertising footprints are exclusive to operators who are required to adhere to the Gambling Commission’s licence conditions and codes of practice; and
in the sport sector, to eliminate severe money-laundering vulnerabilities within football clubs and agents that have been explicitly flagged within our national risk assessment.
We believe that although most sectors and sports will be unaffected, some sports or clubs will be impacted. For example, a number of football clubs have or have had sponsorship deals with gambling operators that do not hold a licence to operate in Great Britain. Nevertheless, we want to introduce this ban as quickly as possible. In recognition that football is the primary source of unlicensed gambling sponsorships and advertising, our preferred option is to implement this ban from a fixed date in August 2027, ahead of the 2027-28 football season. This should minimise commercial disruption and allow time to secure legitimate replacements.
I would encourage those in this House who are interested in gambling and sport policy, as well as relevant stakeholders, to share their views through this consultation. I will deposit a copy of the consultation in the Library of each House.
[HCWS255]
Draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Ian Murray Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is great to see a fellow Edinburgher in the Chair, Ms Jardine. [Interruption.] I will not divide the Committee on the pronunciation of “Jardine”.
The draft regulations are required in order to amend the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations 2023 by updating the international mobile roaming wholesale rates that they set. Wholesale rates are those that mobile operators charge other mobile operators, as opposed to retail customers. The amendments will give effect in domestic law to a November 2025 decision of the EEA EFTA-UK free trade agreement joint committee, the governing body of the agreement, on which each party has a seat. I note, however, that one EEA EFTA member, Liechtenstein, has opted out of the international mobile roaming provisions in the free trade agreement.
The amendments to the international mobile roaming wholesale rates are being made to ensure that they continue to reflect current international benchmarks, which reflect market conditions. This is consistent with and necessary under the terms of the free trade agreement.
Let me provide some background for the Committee. In 2021, the UK and the EEA EFTA signed a free trade agreement. Its core terms included provisions on industrial goods, digital trade, services and investment and, of course, fisheries and agriculture. Under digital trade, in a telecoms chapter, it contained provisions on international mobile roaming. These provisions set a wholesale cap, which limits what mobile operators can charge each other. In 2023, the UK introduced the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations to implement these provisions in UK legislation. The draft regulations will amend those regulations.
As per the free trade agreement, the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations covered wholesale charges only. The free trade agreement contains a review clause, under which the wholesale rates should be reviewed by all affected parties every two years
“with a view to determining whether those rates are still appropriate”.
The UK is one of the affected parties, along with Norway and Iceland.
The rate set under the agreement has now diverged from the “relevant international benchmarks” that the agreement states should be considered. The benchmark relevant to EEA EFTA-UK is the European Union-set international mobile roaming wholesale rate, called the Euro rate. EEA EFTA adheres to the Euro rate as part of its access to the EU single market. The UK adhered to the Euro rate until 2021, with the end of the Brexit transition period at the end of 2020. The EU benchmark is based on the principle that the wholesale cap must be high enough to allow operators fully to recover reasonably incurred costs involved in building, maintaining and operating their networks. This principle, based on market conditions, is supported by the United Kingdom.
In 2025, Norway, supported by Iceland, requested a move to reflect the Euro rate. The reason was that the wholesale cap in the UK-EEA EFTA agreement should reflect international benchmarks and current market conditions. Ministers agreed to proceed with legislation for these new rates to demonstrate the UK’s willingness to align with the provisions of the free trade agreement. In November 2025, the governing body of the agreement, the UK-EEA EFTA joint committee, made Decision No. 1/2025, which agreed that the wholesale rates should be changed. The draft regulations will amend the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations 2023 to give effect in domestic law to the commitments that the UK has made to the joint committee.
I should start asking questions, to see whether people are still keeping up with all this. I think I am.
The draft regulations are strictly about amending the wholesale rate set out in the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations. It is a very technical amendment. However, I believe that it would be helpful to conclude by setting the context for the wholesale cap in the free trade agreement.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
What reassurance do we have that these savings will be passed on to customers, rather than just going towards the companies’ bottom line?
Ian Murray
That is an incredibly good question. That is why we are making the draft regulations, because the wholesale rates, or the Euro rates, are much lower than the rates currently in operation. For example, a voice call, which is €0.032, will go down to €0.019; an SMS, which is €0.01, will go down to €0.003; and data, which is €2.50 per gigabyte, will go down to €1.30 per gigabyte. The Euro rate is €1 per gigabyte. One would hope that if wholesale prices are being lowered, the savings will be passed on to consumers, as I am sure the Committee agrees they should be. Although the hon. Gentleman’s question was not strictly about the draft regulations, it was a great question to which I am delighted to have the answer.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Minister talks about the price reductions for the three countries. By my maths, that is a 70% reduction in the price of sending SMS texts, which is incredibly welcome, although I am not sure who sends those any more. Is he working on similar agreements with other countries not covered by the changes that we are making today?
Ian Murray
That is a good question. Actually, yes. This is purely about the EEA EFTA-UK agreement countries, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, although Liechtenstein is outside it at the moment because of its relationship with the European Union. On the prices, we are looking to align with the Euro rate, which the European Union uses, so the answer to my hon. Friend’s question, by default of the technicalities of the measure, is yes.
I can confirm that surcharge-free roaming has not been delivered for all UK travellers to Norway and Iceland. Mobile network operators EE and Three continue to surcharge their customers roaming in Norway and Iceland, so they should be passing that on. It is welcome that Vodafone removed the surcharges as a result of the change, and VMO2 did not reintroduce roaming charges to the EU and EEA EFTA post Brexit—post the transition period, in any case.
The Government have continued to review options for delivering surcharge-free roaming for UK travellers to Norway and Iceland, in line with the aspirations of the free trade agreement. I fully agree with hon. Members that if there are wholesale rate savings, companies that have not yet taken off surcharging for Norway and Iceland should do so. I stress that the draft regulations are strictly about amending the wholesale rates contained in the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations and fulfilling the commitments that the UK made under the international treaty. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Ian Murray
The shadow Minister is correct that we should be doing things at a greater pace, but I disagree with him about the value of the wholesale rates. The voice call rate is already higher. As I said to the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, it is going from €0.032 to €0.019, and SMS is going from €0.01 to €0.003. That is a reduction. Data is going from €2.50 to €1.30 per gigabyte, and then €1 on the Euro rate. That is about formalising in the SI what was in the EEA EFTA agreement to reflect the wholesale prices at these international benchmarks. The international benchmark used by EFTA in this agreement is the Euro rate, which is the rate that will come into effect for the wholesale charges. I hope that that answers the shadow Minister’s question.
The reason that there is no impact on consumers is that this measure does not directly affect consumers at this moment in time. As I say, some mobile operators have already reduced their surcharges regardless. In fact, VMO2 did not reintroduce any roaming surcharges at all to EEA EFTA countries post the Brexit transition period. Operators EE and Three continue to surcharge their customers roaming in Norway and Iceland, and Vodafone removed its surcharges as a result of the agreement, so this instrument will have no impact on consumer prices, because it is a wholesale issue, not a consumer issue.
On the time and the cost that it has taken to get here, I may have to come back to the shadow Minister. The cost of bringing this SI to the House is the cost of doing parliamentary democracy. It is a price worth paying for the hon. Gentleman to have his voice heard.
Ian Murray
Let me start by answering the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. It will depend on which package he is on, of course. I have a worldwide roaming package, which means that I take my package with me wherever I go, but that is the package that I purchased; it is not necessarily open to everyone who has a mobile phone.
On the challenge with Canada, Mexico and the US, there will be many fans over there at the moment—maybe not many Scotland fans, but a lot of England fans. Some will be racking up huge bills, while some will not; it will depend on which package they are on. That is why I am very clear that this is about wholesale prices and implementing the provisions in the agreement, not about the charges to the consumer. That explains my answer to the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill about the consequences and whether we should be passing the savings on. The answer to that is, of course, yes, but they do not need to be passed on to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, because he has a package already and is paying in other ways to cover these kinds of issue.
I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, that this Government’s manifesto was perfectly clear about what we want to achieve with the EU. The current Prime Minister has been very clear about resetting the relationship with the European Union. The EU-UK summit agreement from last May is coming into effect; that is deepening our relationship in a whole host of ways, from defence to trade in goods, digital and things like EU touring, which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport looks after closely. That will be renewed every year; there is a summit every year now, deepening that relationship even further.
The direction of travel from this Government is very clearly to get closer to our allies in the European Union. The Prime Minister has led the charge on defence spending through NATO and with our European partners, and that has been recognised, particularly by the NATO Secretary-General. There is no doubt at all that we are deepening that relationship, because it is right for our economy, it is right for our people and it is right for issues like this.
Question put and agreed to.
Media Green Paper
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
The Government have today published a Green Paper that sets out a new strategic direction for the Government’s media policy.
At its best, our media provides the basis of a cohesive country and a healthy democracy. It has the power to advance shared understanding, shared facts, and shared experiences which help people trust and understand one another. It is this common ground on which a country is built.
However, like so many of our other civic spaces, it is facing fundamental challenges which are putting these benefits at risk. Television is undergoing a profound transformation, having moved from a system of limited broadcast channels to an environment of “content everywhere”, where the largest players are global streaming services, video sharing platforms, and social media companies. Our domestic broadcasters, including our public service media (PSM) providers, are fighting to be seen in an increasingly competitive and fragmented market. People are increasingly accessing news online, rather than through more regulated spaces like their TV sets. This is weakening the ability of trustworthy news providers to reach audiences and shape an informed public debate.
We are consulting on a comprehensive set of proposals to ensure our media, and television in particular, can continue to play its vitally important role in our society and our democracy.
First, we are proposing three interventions to support an informed society. We will explore legislative options to require social media to make trustworthy news providers—which could include national and local news publishers and broadcasters—easily discoverable. This is crucial for countering misinformation, especially during times of crisis. We will also explore a new duty on PSM providers to develop and report on media literacy strategies, leveraging their high level of public trust and reach to help people critically assess the information they encounter. Further, we will consider mechanisms to support co-ordinated media literacy efforts across public service media, and the wider media sector.
Secondly, building on the extensive stakeholder engagement already undertaken, we will consult on measures to ensure audiences can continue to enjoy universal access to trusted and high-quality television content. The UK television market is shifting from traditional broadcast platforms such as digital terrestrial TV (DTT) to internet-delivered viewing (IPTV). The Government are committed to maintaining DTT until at least the end of 2034, but we are now consulting on what will come after this. To do this, we will work with industry and audience groups to design a package of support that helps audiences transition to IPTV services, ensuring that no one is left behind. This support will aim to address challenges around affordability and accessibility, enabling viewers to make the switch with confidence and benefit from the enhanced functionality and wider choice that IPTV services can offer. Alongside this, we will bring forward a plan for the managed withdrawal of DTT services. Final decisions will be taken in response to the consultation and set out in a White Paper.
We will also undertake a separate period of stakeholder engagement to ensure the regulatory framework for TV services continues to protect audiences from harmful content, supports media providers, and allows our creative industries to thrive into the future.
Finally, the Green Paper will explore how we can support our PSM providers—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, STV and S4C—who sit at the heart of our domestic TV ecosystem, driving growth and inward investment. PSM content needs to be easy to find on the platforms on which people watch TV. Therefore, the Green Paper examines the need for prominence on third party platforms, such as video sharing platforms. The Government’s strong preference remains for industry-led, voluntary agreements to achieve increased prominence in a sustainable and robust way that satisfies all parties. However, should these partnerships not go far enough in delivering our objectives we would need to consider legislating.
We will also consult on illustrative options for strategic reform to the PSM system with the aim of better reflecting how people consume media and to address the regulatory and economic challenges this poses. We want a system that encourages the creation of more public service content, reversing the trend of recent years which has seen the output of our PSM providers decline.
Taken together, this work will ensure that our media continues to play its vitally important roles in entertaining, educating, serving democracy and supporting social cohesion in the UK, while putting audiences first.
The consultation attached to the Green Paper will be open for 10 weeks. Following this, the Government will bring forward a White Paper later this year.
This Green Paper complements the review we are undertaking of the BBC’s royal charter. We will consider the findings and conclusions of this Green Paper alongside the BBC Green Paper published in December 2025 as part of the charter review.
In connection with the above, our Department has made the following documents available on gov.uk:
Watch this Space: A new strategic direction for UK media
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/watch-this-space-a-new-strategic-direction-for-uk-media-green-paper-and-public-consultation
Papers from the Future of TV Distribution Stakeholder Forum
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution-stakeholder-forum-papers
Minutes from the Future of TV Distribution Stakeholder Forum
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution-stakeholder-forum-minutes
Future of TV distribution—Assessing the value and alternative uses of DTT spectrum for the future of UK TV distribution
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-tv-distribution-assessing-the-value-and-alternative-uses-of-dtt-spectrum-for-the-future-of-uk-tv-distribution
I will also deposit a copy of “Watch this Space” in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS136]
Culture, Media and Sport
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
… I acknowledge the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She is not alone; the Charity Commission itself and several commentators, many of whom she mentioned, have long expressed the view that there is a strong conflict of interest in the majority of the hall’s trustees being seat holders, because they are sometimes acting in their own financial interests instead of the charity’s best interests, which is against the rules and regulations of the Charity Commission.
[Official Report, 15 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 646.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray):
Ian Murray
… I acknowledge the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She is not alone; the Charity Commission itself and several commentators, many of whom she mentioned, have long expressed the view that there is a strong conflict of interest in the majority of the hall’s trustees being seat holders, because they could act in their own financial interests instead of the charity’s best interests, which would be against the rules and regulations of the Charity Commission.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
It would be churlish of me not to recognise England’s wonderful victory in the world cup last night, but there is only one European nation that has three points at the world cup without conceding a goal, and that is indeed Scotland—the new favourites to lift the trophy.
Culture, Media and Sport Ministers have had no recent discussions with counterparts in the Hellenic Republic on mutual exchanges of cultural artefacts. As the hon. Member knows, the Parthenon sculptures are legally owned by the trustees of the British Museum. The chair of the museum has been in discussions with the Greek Government about a partnership, including reciprocal loans. As I said to the hon. Gentleman from the Dispatch Box last time, this Government would not stand in the way if such loans were agreed.
Andrew George
There is an opportunity for another victory for the United Kingdom if we can find a way of co-operating. Clinging on to half of the Parthenon sculptures while assuring ourselves that we own them, when they were obtained in, at best, highly dubious circumstances two centuries ago, is not a great look for this country. Does the Minister agree that the imminent restoration of the British Museum provides the museum and the Government with a golden opportunity to engage in what would be a better look for this country—a gracious act, reflecting a partnership and a shared love of classical history, but also natural justice—and to see all the sculptures displayed in Athens, where they belong?
Ian Murray
I can only repeat what I have said in previous answers and in my initial response to the hon. Gentleman. The sculptures are owned by the British Museum. The chair of the trustees, the former Chancellor —the hon. Gentleman’s Chancellor in the coalition Government—has had talks with Greek Ministers on this issue to seek a constructive partnership. We support those talks, but it is for the British Museum trustees to reach an agreement with the Greek Government. As I have said, we would not stand in the way if such an agreement was put in place.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
Responsibility for managing and funding UNESCO world heritage sites is devolved to local authorities and the devolved Governments. As such, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not typically provide direct funding. Heritage sites can apply for UK Government funding through our arm’s length bodies, notably the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic England, which can provide support to world heritage sites through capital grants for conservation, education and community resilience projects.
John Whitby
Cromford Mills in Derbyshire Dales was the world’s first water-powered cotton spinning mill and the birthplace of mass production. In recent decades the Arkwright Society has transformed this UNESCO world heritage site into the much-loved tourist attraction it is today. However, the renewal of the site is not yet complete, with another £1.2 million in match funding needed to help secure its financial viability. Will the Minister therefore agree to officials meeting the Arkwright Society to see what support the Department can give to help Cromford Mill secure this much-needed financial support?
Ian Murray
I pay tribute to the Arkwright Society, which does amazing work in managing Cromford Mills, which is an integral part of the wider Derwent Valley Mills world heritage site. I am therefore pleased that it has already secured £1.3 million of investment from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. I understand the remaining challenges my hon. Friend set out about the longer-term financial viability. He asked for a meeting with officials, and we should set up that meeting, but also with the Minister in the other place, Baroness Twycross, who would be very happy to meet him and the Arkwright Society.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The Roman forts of Reculver and Richborough, linked by the Wantsum channel and the River Stour in east Kent, are ambitious to secure UNESCO world heritage site status. Those ambitions will be killed stone dead if the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero supports the building of a 90-foot-high converter station on the Minster marshes. Would the Minister have a word with that Department to make sure that does not happen?
Ian Murray
It is important that any new site put forward for UNESCO world heritage site status first goes through a robust national assessment process—and the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises will be considered as part of that—before being put on the UK’s tentative list of prospective world heritage nominations. However, I am very happy to arrange a meeting with him to discuss what may have to be done to make that application as strong as possible.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
We are fully committed to implementing the measures that we announced last year, which will put fans back at the heart of live events, and eliminate industrial-scale ticket touting—it has been fleecing fans for far too long. We are working at pace to prepare the legislation and intend to publish a draft Bill in this parliamentary Session for pre-legislative scrutiny. That will allow us to draw on expertise from Parliament and across industry to ensure that our legislation is effective and enforceable.
Pete Wishart
It would be churlish not to acknowledge the result last night. The whole House can rowdily congratulate Ghana on their fantastic victory last night. I do not think the Minister fully understands the real sense of disappointment and frustration that those in the live sector feel because there is no full Bill, as has been promised by everybody, from the Prime Minister down. While this Government dither, fans continue to be ripped off by the touts, the profiteers and the spivs, as they suck the lifeblood out of our live music sector. Can the Minister clearly set out how the Bill will progress and when the sector is likely to see an outcome? Can he possibly explain why the outlawed company Viagogo was recently in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, weeks before the announcement was made?
Ian Murray
It is important to lay out that it is a manifesto commitment—from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and all of us—to get that legislation through. It is incredibly popular legislation. We need to stop fans being ripped off by ticket touts, but it is important to get the legislation right. Given the complexity of what we are proposing, with a price cap, a cap in service fees, resale volume limits, strict legal obligations on the platforms, and strict enforcement, it has to be done right. If there are any loopholes or edges to the legislation, they will be exploited by ticket touts, who are already exploiting fans and the system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in trying to get the legislation right.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I would also like to start by congratulating the England football team on their win yesterday. While fans are rightly excited to finally see England bring it home this summer, some world cup tickets this year have surged to over £24,000. Fans should not be forced to choose between remortgaging their homes or missing out on supporting their country. Will the Minister therefore support the Liberal Democrats’ call for an international fans charter to safeguard supporters against unfair ticket pricing?
Ian Murray
It is well documented that there have been issues with tickets for this world cup. My hon. Friend the Sport Minister has been having meetings about tickets for Euro 2028, which will take place in this country. It is really important, whether it is sport, music or festivals, that fans are not ripped off by ticket touts, who make huge profits out of ordinary fans who just want to watch their favourite sports or bands. The hon. Member did congratulate England on winning yesterday, but I am disappointed that she did not also congratulate Scotland for their wonderful win on Sunday morning.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
A tremendous question. Helping touring artists is a manifesto commitment. At last year’s UK-EU summit, the UK and the European Commission committed to supporting cultural exchange, recognising those touring artists. I discussed cultural professionals’ working conditions with the European culture commissioner at the first high-level meeting on culture in March. Digital ATA carnets that enable movement without customs declarations or duties were launched on 1 June across the UK, EU, Norway and Switzerland. We continue to engage with our EU counterparts at all levels and with industry to support touring.
Jeff Smith
I thank the Minister for that answer; there is some good news there. One of the many negatives of Brexit is that it has placed barriers on UK artists being able to tour in Europe. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has just published its report, featuring a number of practical measures that the Government can take to remove those barriers. Will Ministers act on those recommendations? I point to one in particular. As well as leaving the EU, the UK decided not to participate in the Creative Europe scheme, which we were net beneficiaries of. Ahead of the upcoming EU-UK summit, a signal that we intend to participate in the successor scheme, AgoraEU, would be a positive message to our creative artists.
Ian Murray
I congratulate the Committee on its report, and I welcome its continued interest in recognising the importance of international touring to the UK’s world-leading arts and creative industries sector. We are carefully considering the recommendations and will form the response in due course.
The Prime Minister agreed with the European Commission President on Tuesday to press ahead with the UK-EU summit on 22 July, so that people on both sides can feel the benefits of the UK-EU collaboration as soon as possible. Touring artists were mentioned in the summit agreement last year. I cannot comment on the ongoing negotiations, but we are determined to ensure that UK touring artists can tour again in the EU as best as possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am very fortunate that I have exceptional talent in my constituency, and for those who wish to take their talents across Europe and other parts of the world, the opportunity is there. The Minister was positive in his answer to the hon. Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith). Will the same enthusiasm, energy and commitment be shown to our Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that he does the same for my constituents in Strangford?
Ian Murray
As well as sending artists across the European Union, Strangford sends the very best to this Chamber. There is a firm commitment on the EU side to take this forward. I met Commissioner Micaleff at the high-level meeting, and also discussed the matter at the Culture Ministers’ meeting. We are determined to ensure that there can be as much ease as possible for UK touring artists in Europe. That is the manifesto commitment, and we are doing everything that we possibly can. It is complicated. There are a number of Commission elements to this—it is not just about visas but transportation, marketing and all those kinds of issues—but we are trying our very best to get through those as quickly as possible.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology laid out to the House on 18 March, we are taking forward four big strategic priorities—digital replicas, AI labelling, creative control and licensing—to get this right. No country in the world has been able to resolve this problem, but the UK is uniquely placed to try to resolve it. We want to work across the House and with both the tech and creative industries to get it right.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Ian Murray
The Redditch local history museum deserve all the support it can get. Local museums are hugely important, and decisions on the operation of cultural organisations are taken locally, independent of Government, through Arts Council England. The national development agency for museums may be able to offer some advice, and I wish Redditch good luck in the town of culture bid.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
Grassroots music venues in the constituency I represent, such as the Talleyrand, face increasing costs from business rates despite the emergency relief that has been provided. Can the Minister tell me how the music plan will help tackle the structural issues facing grassroots venues, such as the Talleyrand, and how it will secure the venue’s long-term future in our community and cultural landscapes?
Ian Murray
The music plan is to help grassroots music. It is part of a whole package that this Government are putting in place to ensure that music thrives, and continues to thrive, in this country, including the £30 million music growth fund. We have the music plan, which will be coming out and announced shortly, but we also have the ticket levy—a £1 voluntary ticket levy on every single ticket sold for major concerts—which is putting money straight into grassroots music. That has put in half a million; there is another million to come, so that is hugely good news for grassroots music.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I am so proud to back Filton’s bid to become the UK town of culture 2028. From our vibrant community to our vast heritage, including as the British home of Concorde, we have so much to offer the whole country. Will the Minister agree to meet me to hear more about this bid and what makes Filton so special?
Sir David Attenborough: Permanent National Monument
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. In fact, with you in the Chair we are talking about two national treasures in this debate.
Ian Murray
Your words, not mine, Sir Roger.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing a wonderful debate and making a lovely speech. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) says that she is the No. 1 Sir David Attenborough fangirl and, having known her for many years, I know that to be the case. These green Benches are her natural environment, as Sir David would say; she certainly deserves to be there.
Last month, of course, Sir David Attenborough had his 100th birthday—a very happy birthday to him. Alongside his 100th birthday, this year he celebrates a 70-year career as an award-winning wildlife filmmaker and broadcaster, a true national treasure and a pioneer. Sir David has been one of the most influential figures in British broadcasting and natural history storytelling, inspiring and educating generations across the world. I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on some of his contributions to British broadcasting, to telling that story and to environmental education.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South says, when we look at the career of Sir David Attenborough, we are looking at the history of modern broadcasting itself. He did not just witness the evolution of the media; he helped to shape it. As the controller of BBC2 in the 1960s, he spearheaded the introduction of regular colour broadcasts to British TV screens, and when he moved from management into production he created numerous documentaries that have captivated hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide and continue to do so. They include the groundbreaking “Life on Earth”, “Blue Planet” and most recently “Wild London”; “Wild Paisley” might be next. These contributions have helped to make the BBC the cornerstone of British broadcasting and the national institution for the public good that we know today.
Sir David’s long and successful career with the BBC is also a testament to the opportunities that the BBC provides to build careers from the early stages upward. He kick-started his career as a trainee producer at the BBC in 1952: he began by producing and presenting factual programmes, before moving through the ranks to become a senior manager and ultimately a leading television presenter and a national treasure. His career highlights the importance of the BBC and our public service broadcasters in nurturing outstanding talent in Britain and the creative sectors.
Beyond broadcasting, Sir David has had a hugely positive impact on public consciousness of nature and the urgency of climate change, as we have heard. As the climate crisis has grown, Sir David has helped people to see that the natural world is not just a matter of curiosity, but something that we must protect and secure for this generation and many to come. He has told us all that we are merely custodians of this planet, and that we need to treat it accordingly. He has educated and mobilised support and action from around the world, showing how we can work together to protect the planet while inspiring positive change.
Sir David’s contribution illuminates the pivotal role of the BBC as a light on the hill, producing and distributing educational content that protects the truth. Fact and the truth are critical for building a shared understanding of the world, and public service broadcasting is essential in arming us with the information that supports civilised debate. Sir David is truly the voice of this nation.
We must also recognise Sir David’s contribution as an innovative storyteller, and the BBC’s global reach as a potent example of British soft power. Sir David’s numerous contributions to the BBC have projected the core British value of integrity through scientific inquiry, promoting a truthful agenda and a passion for environmental stewardship to hundreds of millions of screens across the globe. That has served as an important part of British cultural diplomacy and has demonstrated our commitment to bringing people together to create positive change through truthful and impactful storytelling.
I turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South about commemoration. This country has a long and well-established tradition of commemorating national and local individuals through statues, memorials and monuments, which can serve as a long-lasting reminder of individuals and their efforts for this country and can help to bridge the gap between the past and the present.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government do not routinely fund such monuments and memorials, but there is a long history of monuments and statues being funded by public subscription, and the Government support that approach wholeheartedly. For example, I am delighted to highlight the iconic bronze statue of Eric Morecambe, funded by public donations, corporate sponsorship and national lottery grants, in his hometown of Morecambe in Lancashire; a bronze bust of Sir Bruce Forsyth at the London Palladium, privately created and gifted to mark his 60th year in show business; and the statue of Sir Terry Wogan, no less, funded by Limerick city and county council, although much loved by audiences here in the United Kingdom.
Experience has shown that investors, including those from the private sector, are often happy and very willing to fund new monuments. Many public and private organisations are rightly able, subject to the relevant permissions, to freely propose, fund, develop and deliver memorials and monuments marking various incidents and historical moments in a way that they are best placed to deem appropriate and sensitive in the areas that they should be in. Many successful monuments are created by a wide range of authorities and organisations that are able to respond sensitively to the particular circumstances that they seek to commemorate, and are often driven by fanboys and fangirls.
This debate is welcome because of the positive lasting impact that Sir David Attenborough has made and will continue to make on British broadcasting and natural history. We acknowledge that, and I thank Sir David for his continued dedication to wildlife broadcasting, environmental education and addressing the urgency of the climate crisis. He has helped to shape our understanding of the natural world and tell our national story.
Ultimately, the true legacy of Sir David Attenborough cannot be measured solely by the decades he has spent on our screens, but by the light that he has shed on the natural world around us, the environmental issues that he has championed and the dedication that he has given to outstanding British broadcasting. He has inspired more than one generation. Sir David’s work serves and will continue to serve as a blueprint for the importance of high-quality British television, broadcasting and storytelling.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South for bringing this debate to the Chamber, and the hon. Members who have contributed. In Sir David’s own words:
“Is this how our story is due to end?”
I very much doubt it.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
At the risk of editorialising from the Chair, may I say that, on the mere 43rd anniversary of my election to this House, it is a real pleasure to be able to put this motion to the Chamber?
Question put and agreed to.
Television Selection Services and Electronic Programme Guides: Regulation
Ian Murray Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
Following the statement I published on 24 February 2026, I can now confirm to the House that my Department has today laid the following statutory instruments before Parliament:
The Television Selection Services (Designation) Regulations 2026; and
The Regulated Electronic Programme Guide (Prescribed Description and Transitional Arrangements) Regulations 2026.
The Television Selection Services (Designation) Regulations 2026
This SI specifically designates those television selection services that will be captured by the new prominence regime introduced by the Media Act 2024.
To support the future sustainability of our public service broadcasters, the Media Act introduced a new prominence regime into the Communications Act 2003 that will require particular TV platforms—referred to in the Act as “regulated television selection services”—to carry and give appropriate prominence to designated public service broadcaster video-on-demand apps. Once commenced, this new regime will ensure that UK viewers can continue to find the public service media content they value on-demand.
In order to be captured by the new prominence framework, a television selection service must be designated by the Secretary of State via statutory instrument, following advice from Ofcom. Ofcom issued its draft advice on 22 July 2025, which it consulted on, and then issued its final statement on 16 December 2025. I confirmed on 24 February that, having thoroughly reviewed Ofcom’s advice and considered all stakeholder responses, I was minded to agree to Ofcom’s recommended list of designations set out in its final report. I am now bringing forward this SI to make those designations.
This SI marks an important milestone in the implementation of the Media Act 2024 and concludes the Department’s work on the designation of which television selection services are in-scope of the new prominence regime.
The Regulated Electronic Programme Guide (Prescribed Description and Transitional Arrangements) Regulations 2026
This SI was announced in the same February statement referred to above, along with the On-demand Programme Services (Tier 1 Services) Regulations. The SI updates the meaning of a regulated electronic programme guide (EPG), extending vital audience protections and accessibility requirements to newer TV guide services, such as Sky Glass and Freely. Any TV channel that can be accessed through a regulated EPG will also be within Ofcom’s remit and therefore required to have a broadcast licence.
Furthermore, the regulations will address a regulatory loophole in the existing framework whereby some TV guide services fall outside regulation despite being easily accessible through regulated services.
[HCWS33]
Animal Testing
Ian Murray Excerpts(3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
It is a great pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, in this important debate. I thank Members for their contributions. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for being a doughty campaigner for not just her constituents, but all their pets and animals. She has done that since she came into this place in 2024, and she deserves a great deal of respect and admiration for it. I also thank each and every one of the many people who took the time to sign the e-petition and those who are in the Public Gallery today.
I look forward to the day when we can finally bring an end to animal testing and the use of dogs in scientific research. Unfortunately, that day is not quite yet with us. Our direction of travel is very clear: we want to replace animals in science wherever possible, which was why our 2024 manifesto committed us to partnering with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing. Our approach to achieve that is set out in last November’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy, which many Members mentioned.
The strategy is groundbreaking. It brings together funding, infrastructure and regulatory partners so that validated alternatives can move from the lab into routine use safely and at pace. Many Members have talked about pace, which is the key issue here. However, for now, the carefully regulated use of animals, including dogs, in scientific research unfortunately remains.
First, I will expand on the ambition to phase out animal research. Secondly, although we are not yet fully ready to end testing on dogs and other animals, given the current position of science, I will set out the plan that we will put in place to do so. The petition asked the Government to accelerate the move to human-relevant alternative methodologies, and that is exactly the purpose of the strategy. It is about speeding up development and validation, increasing uptake in practice, and working with regulators so that when alternatives are proven, they are accepted and used.
The strategy is not just words; it is backed by £75 million of funding to accelerate safe and effective alternative methods. I will break that down shortly, given that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) asked about it. We are already delivering at pace by working with regulators and partners to streamline routes for validated alternatives to be accepted, backing researchers with new funding through UK Research and Innovation, and supporting the NC3Rs, which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of alternative technologies, ensuring that advances are reflected in policy and practice, and that regulations on animal research are seen through.
Nearly £16 million of new investment has been announced through the Medical Research Council, Wellcome and Innovate UK, working in partnership with NC3Rs to accelerate the development of human disease models. The MRC has also launched a £20 million funding competition to establish a pre-clinical translational human in vitro models hub, and Innovate UK has committed a further £2 million for non-animal methods that have the potential to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in assessing the pre-clinical pharmacokinetics and cardiovascular safety of new medicines.
We are building the collaboration and infrastructure needed to scale up alternatives into everyday research and development and safety assessments where it is safe and effective to do so. We are also working to increase regulatory confidence so that, when alternatives are proven, they are accepted and used consistently, and at pace, in practice.
We are consistently pushing change. In 2024, the use of dogs in experimental procedures decreased by 29% compared with 2023, as many Members said, and the broader trend is towards reducing animal use as alternatives continue to improve, but we are not complacent, and we should not be complacent. We want to get that figure as close to zero as possible.
As the strategy sets out, we are working towards a world in which the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but very exceptional circumstances. That will be achieved by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods whenever possible, but does not prevent necessary research and safety testing when no alternative is available. By streamlining the process for bringing alternatives forward, the Government will accelerate our transition away from animal use while continuing to support crucial research and innovation. As the science advances, we will use every opportunity to phase out the use of animals whenever we can.
I will run through some of the issues around the strategy and also address the comments that hon. Members made. Lord Vallance is responsible for this area in the House of Lords—I am the responsible Minister in the House of Commons—and he has probably the most advanced scientific brain that I have ever come across in government. He said something that I think is worth emphasising about this strategy:
“This Government is proud to lead a new era in advancing innovative and effective approaches to scientific research and development. We are committed to delivering on our manifesto pledge to ‘partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing’”—
I have reflected on some of that already. He also said:
“we aim to establish the UK as a world leader in developing and adopting alternatives to animal testing”.
We will align with international standards and we will say more about that at the end of this year. He continued:
“Our vision is for a world where the use of animals in research and development is eliminated…Enabling the properly regulated use of animals, while we move away from animal testing, is essential to improving the health and lives of humans and animals”.
Nobody in our country of animal lovers—we have many animal lovers here, including me—wants to see animals suffering. Our plan will support work to end animal testing and to roll out alternatives as soon as it is safe and effective to do so. That road map that will ensure that the Government, businesses and animal-welfare groups can work together to find those alternatives to animal testing faster and more effectively.
There are 26 actions in the strategy. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Stuart, that I will not run through them all, but many hon. Members will know the document.
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the Minister for setting out the progress that the Government are making but, from what I have seen of the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, its targets focus on reducing or eliminating experiments on certain types of animals. Does he agree that we actually need to be ending experiments on all animals, as has been expressed by Members from all parties today? Will he therefore engage with campaigners arguing for Herbie’s law, who have suggested a more ambitious strategy that would achieve exactly that?
Ian Murray
We do not disagree with the principle of Herbie’s law; indeed, that is what the strategy is trying to achieve. The challenge for the Government, of course, is to balance that against what is achievable and what can be validated, not just in the UK but across the international community. We want this country to be a world leader in eliminating animal research, and it is pretty clear, on the front page of the strategy, that we wish to take those 26 actions on.
Let me continue as that will help to answer the hon. Member’s question. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) challenged us to say what the strategy has delivered so far. We have moved from commitments towards trying to deliver. With the actions under way across discovery, research, validation, regulatory decision making and governance, and indeed the money to support some of that, delivery is being supported through co-ordinated action across the Office for Life Sciences, NC3Rs, UKRI bodies and regulators. The MRC has launched the £20 million fund to which I referred, and Innovate UK and NC3Rs continue to work in partnership to advance development. In March 2026, the MHRA published new guidance setting out how applications for medicines that use non-animal methods will be assessed and fast-tracked. A lot of the strategy has therefore already been put in place, but the strategy cannot be just words; it needs action as well.
Let me run through some of the challenges and questions raised by hon. Members in what has been a tremendously good debate for examining the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran chairs the relevant all-party parliamentary group, the aims of which are:
“To build cross-party support for replacing animal experiments in medical research with human-specific methods, working closely with the scientific community to identify opportunities, barriers and put forward constructive recommendations to government.”
Those are almost the same aims as what the Government are trying to achieve through the strategy. We and the APPG are aligned in the outcome we want. We look forward to continuing to work with her and the other APPG members to get it delivered.
I want to say something for clarity, because my hon. Friend raised this in some of what she said—we heard it from many hon. Members—and there has been a little confusion not just in this debate, but in previous debates. The testing of cosmetics was banned in 1998 and the testing of household products was banned in 2015. Progress has been slower than we would have wanted, but we hope that the new strategy will speed things up and give certainty to industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned botox, as did the hon. Member for Huntingdon and, in an intervention, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). Botox is not a cosmetic, so it is not covered by existing regulations on cosmetics, as we heard, but the strategy sets an aim to apply only validated alternative methods for testing the potency of botox by the end of 2027. The MHRA now accepts an alternative for most common strengths of botox, so we hope to see the practice phased out within the next 18 months or so.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon gave us a whole list of questions, some of which are the responsibility of the Home Office, so if I do not cover them all, I will ensure that he gets a detailed analysis from that Department. We will provide an update later this year about the international perspectives, because at the moment we are working out and scoping what those perspectives look like. He asked about funding. Out of the £75 million, £20 million is for the translational hub and £30 million is for the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. It does not cover NC3R’s funding.
Tomorrow, we are discussing KPIs at an official level—the hon. Gentleman challenged us about what tomorrow’s meeting will do. The matter will then go to a ministerial meeting, which happens every quarter, with the next one due on 8 July. He also talked about criminalisation. I will get the Home Office to detail a response to him in writing, but while the law criminalises interfering or planning to interfere with key national infrastructure, it does not cover the email situation he talked about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked if any consideration was given to the reviewing, reworking and revoking of licences. Again, that is a Home Office responsibility, so I will get a full response about how it monitors licences. She also challenged us on the use of AI, and we need to look at that. Many advances in medical research are happening with AI enhancement at the moment, including on motor neurone disease and how the brain operates, as I know from my constituency. AI and advances in technology will be a key part of how we phase out the use of animal testing.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) asked if the regulatory body should be paid for by the industry, but that is not the case. The regulatory body charges for its licensing; it is not paid for directly. That does not amount to the industry funding the regulator. It is standard practice for people to buy the regulatory services that are required.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) challenged us to say more than warm words. That is what I think the strategy is about and why we are advancing it rather quickly. The dates by which we need to achieve many of the issues are in the strategy.
I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for his comments. I appreciate the fact that he welcomes the strategy, although I know he wants us to go quicker, faster and with more pace, as many Members have said. He raised the issue of Herbie’s law by 2035, but we have to ensure that replacements put in place for that to happen in an orderly fashion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) asked us for a fourth R—“replace”. That is what investment in the strategy is all about, and it is why the money is available.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) talks to his cats—interesting—although I do not know whether he ever gets a response. I hope he is not opening up a debate in Westminster Hall about whether someone is a dog person or a cat person, because that could take us to—I am extending the pun even further—a rabbit hole that we might not want to go down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) certainly is a cat lover. I believe she has a cat called Clement Catlee, and another called Chairman Meow—is that right?
Ian Murray
Who has the cat called Chairman Meow, then? It must be somebody else. My hon. Friend was right to mention the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into vet costs. We want to achieve our manifesto commitment on that issue; it was a very clear part of our manifesto and we all want to see the same outcomes from that. The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned AI and asked us about the action so far, which I have run through.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), we agree with the principle of Herbie’s law. We cannot set arbitrary timelines for things that we may not be able to achieve, but we have set some strong ones already, including the 35% reduction by 2030. If we can go faster and further, of course we will; it will depend on whether we can get validated scientific research in place. We will write to her on the finer details about whether we have those 22 inspectors in place.
Let me go into why we would not put Herbie’s law on a statutory footing. In line with international practice, we are using the three baskets approach to group animal tests and prioritise their replacements—this is mainly about dogs. Basket one covers areas where there is a mature replacement tech: for example, the strategy aims by the end of 2026—this year—to use only alternative methods for skin irritation testing. Basket two covers areas where there are medium-term replacements: we aim to replace the use of fish acute toxicity tests for chemicals regulated by REACH, the regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, by the end of 2028. The strategy does therefore have defined end points, where they can be defined. Basket three covers complex end points and long-term aims. By the end of 2035, we aim to include alternative methods and regulations for endocrine disruption tests—I do not know what that means, but maybe one of the vets in the Chamber can tell us. Those aims are not on a statutory footing, but they are Government commitments. They are gateways that we want to go through with the three baskets approach.
Ruth Jones
I understand the timetable that the Minister is outlining, which is great, but there are still millions of tests being undertaken every year unnecessarily. We know about the forced swim and LD50 tests. Could the Minister outline a bit more the review of the generic project licences? How can we issue a licence for a generic project when we do not know about it? How can we evaluate and assess the risks there?
Ian Murray
We will write to my hon. Friend with the details on those individual projects—the regulations are run by the Home Office, so I will write to her on those three specific issues and make sure that everyone in the Chamber has a copy.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) said that the scale of the suffering prevented should overwhelmingly outweigh the suffering involved in testing. I think we would all agree with that. That is exactly the proportionate way in which we need to look at the issue. It is undeniable that huge pharmaceutical and medical progress has been made on the back of animal testing—the covid vaccine was a good example of alleviating suffering—but he is right to challenge us on that moral issue. That is why the strategy is in place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) is right that replacing animals in testing is the right thing to do and that the public want to see action. We agree; that is why we are taking action. The strategy should seed that innovation. It is not just about the Government saying, “This is what we want to achieve.” Hopefully, the industry and innovation will seed that through. We have seen that with other advancements, such as the ban on cosmetics testing that my hon. Friend talked about. Hopefully, that will seed industry to move forward and find innovative ways through, backed by the Government strategy.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), listed the advances in life science innovation; that is tremendous progress, but we need to go further and faster to move away from animal testing. He posed that challenge and we agree with him. He also made the important point that we have a strict regulatory environment for animal testing in this country. I will come on to that in my conclusion, but it is one of strictest in the world, and rightly so.
The hon. Member rightly challenged us by pointing out the danger that if we were to cut animal testing off now, it would go overseas, and in that case we would see a whole raft of additional animals suffering in places that do not have the same standards. That is not to diminish the issue. While we have testing in this country and regulate it to those standards, we should be making sure that the standards are met, notwithstanding all the issues that have been raised by Members today. However, there is a real danger that if we were to cut that off now, without alternatives in place, it would go overseas—an issue that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), also raised.
We will have to come back to the hon. Member for Winchester on dual licensing for veterinary use. There is an issue with the way in which animal testing works with regard to the licensing arrangements that he set out. Animal testing is also used for the veterinary side of medicines and advancements in technology, and we must be cognisant of that.
I appreciate the tone in which the shadow Minister spoke. There has been a lot done in this area; many Members have mentioned the word “pace”, and that is what we want to see, but the previous Government took a number of actions. Is a 35% reduction by 2030 achievable? We think it is. Many would say that that is not ambitious enough and some would say that it is too ambitious, but we do want to achieve it. That is why the strategy is in place, and why money is a key part of it.
Using animals in science requires us to adhere continually to the highest possible standards of animal welfare. That is reflected in the UK’s world-leading, robust regulation of the use of animals in science through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That Act specifies that animals can only be used in science for specific, limited purposes where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit, and where the potential harm to animals is limited to the absolute minimum. Those requirements are known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement, as we have discussed.
Dogs are a specifically protected species under ASPA. Projects must justify why animals are needed, why dogs specifically are needed, and why the numbers and procedures are necessary. Projects are only authorised where that justification is robust. The e-petition rightly mentions the conditions in which dogs are kept, and I want to address those claims—not to dismiss them, but to show that the regulatory system in the UK works. The UK has some of the most stringent regulations in the world governing how animals are bred, housed and cared for, with legally enforceable standards, regular announced and unannounced inspections, and a clear requirement to minimise pain, suffering and distress.
The use of animals in science is highly regulated. All establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including veterinary surgeons, with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, and an ethical review body that reviews any proposals for the use of animals and promotes the three Rs of animal use. The reality is that the technology is not yet advanced enough for alternative methods to replace the use of animals completely. For now, animal testing and research plays an important role in supporting the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for humans and animals—for example, the development of the covid-19 vaccine.
Many Members have mentioned failure rates. Animals are used to assess how potential new medicines affect biological systems, ensuring that drugs are safe and effective before human trials. The petition points out that 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA approval. However, to say that 92% of drugs fail in human trials despite being tested on animals is to ignore all those candidate drugs that are tested on animals and found not to be suitable to progress to human trials. That is the issue that we are trying to resolve. Animal studies are only one part of a layered system that screens out unsafe or ineffective substances before they ever reach volunteers and patients.
Animal testing is required by all global medicines regulators, including the MHRA; that is another international issue we have to resolve. Although the MHRA does not require all medicines to be tested on two species, safety testing in a second species is required for most drugs, with dogs being one of the species that can be used. The key proposal in the petition calls for the end of testing on dogs and other animals for the development of products for human use.
None of us wants dogs to be used in research, despite how carefully animal welfare is regulated in this country. However, an immediate prohibition would undermine the UK’s ability to test and regulate new medicines and vaccines for humans and, indeed, for the animals themselves. We would be unable to meet our international regulatory requirements for drug safety testing, which would prevent virtually all first-in-human trials in the UK from happening, compromise our capacity to respond rapidly to future health threats, result in slower access to new treatments for UK patients and slow the innovation required to remove animal testing altogether. That is the key challenge that we are seeking to achieve with the strategy.
We want a future where animals are used only in very exceptional circumstances and we are acting as fast as we can to get there through the “Replacing animals in science” strategy and its delivery. We will keep driving the shift to validated alternative methods wherever possible, while maintaining the robust protections that keep people, animals and the environment safe in the meantime. I thank Members once again for their insightful contributions to the debate; I am sure we will have many more in the future, and I look forward to working together as the strategy progresses.