What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,942 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wonder whether he agrees with the Reform leader of North East Lincolnshire council, who has said that he fully supports the renewables sector. Given that he was working for the hon. Gentleman until recently, why is there such disparity between what Reform says here and what Reform says in its local patches?
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this timely debate and welcome the Minister to his place. I asked local farmers in Ribble Valley what they would like to highlight in this debate about profitability. As hon. Members would expect, the responses included the increasing tax on fertiliser, energy prices, the short-sighted farming vision, the public’s understanding of where our food comes from and its value and quality, seasonal staff and many other things, so I am really grateful that the Government today outlined their farming vision to 2050. In the interests of time, I want to highlight a broader question about who we what to be as British society. We could choose just to import most of our food, but to me, farming is core to our Britishness. We value our local farm cheese brands, we value our rolling green hills, and we value the role farmers play in maintaining our walkways and gritting our paths in winter.
I completely agree. The main point I want to make, alongside all the powerful financial and security arguments that have been made, is that we need farming to be financially sustainable because we want it to be sustainable. We want it to be part of what we prioritise as this country. A More In Common poll found that, after the NHS, our British countryside is what British people value most about this country, so please, let’s not take it for granted. With no farmers, the countryside is not sustainable either.
As a former employee of the BBC for 15 years, I know the importance of those Reithian principles to educate, inform and entertain, which are at the core everything the organisation does. Dissemination of fake news and misinformation online is a genuine risk to our democracy. Does the Secretary of State agree that even if people are going to trusted sites and sources online, such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4, there is a real risk of the mix of slop around it polluting people’s ability to see accurate information, and that this demonstrates the absolute need for trusted news sources online?
Thank you, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his time. Just to add to his words on this issue, many local councils are doing the right thing. I had the great pleasure of attending the opening of the new Central library in Reading, in great contrast to the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) in his town.
Will the Secretary of State provide more detail on the innovation fund, particularly on how it will support increased profitability while, at the same time, driving reductions in the emission of carbon dioxide, methane and other dangerous, climate-damaging gases?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right to point out the benefits of devolution and encouraging local authorities to do more. There are many local authorities, not just at mayoral level but among the smaller local authorities, that have a strong track record. I recommend my own local council, Reading borough council, but there are many others who have introduced swathes of solar and other measures.
Yesterday we had the AGM of the all-party parliamentary group for the British offshore energy industry, of which the hon. Lady is a member, and I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) will join us on it. Does she agree that the effect of these job losses is nationwide—not just in Scotland but across the whole of the UK, including the north-east—and the people of Aberdeen have amplified how people feel across the country? Does she also agree that if the very biggest companies pull out of the North sea altogether, as they are looking at doing, that would have an even more devastating effect?
I very much welcome the opportunity for this House to debate the seventh carbon budget, but as important as this debate is, it cannot be the only place in which this discussion is held. I welcome the Government’s recognition of this in their clean energy mission, which states that that mission “will only succeed if we take people with us.” That means not just having this debate, welcome as it is, but making sure that we reach out to communities. If we do not, the space will too quickly be filled with misinformation and false narratives that undermine public trust in the need for carbon reduction and a better environment. We must continue to make that case so that support is broad, durable, and rooted in the everyday experiences of communities across the country. To do this, we must combine arguments with policies that improve the lived realities of communities across the UK. This means ensuring that the costs of decarbonising our economy do not fall disproportionately on less advantaged communities. We must work with, and in, communities and industry to ensure that the benefits for UK jobs and incomes are delivered. This mission is based on scientific evidence, and it needs a technical and practical set of solutions, but we will not succeed if we limit the debate to the scientific and the technical—we need to recognise that it is rooted in the values of social justice. The interconnected causes of environmental, social and economic justice are the challenge of our time. It is clear that bringing people with us may be becoming more difficult. Much of the progress made has been on the things that were easier to do; what is left to do is perhaps more difficult. Not only is the task ahead more difficult in itself; the consensus on progress has sadly fractured. But this is not a time to retreat. It may be a time to reflect on how we build, and I look forward to the Government’s publication of the delivery plan for this carbon budget, but it cannot be a time to retreat. The challenge is no less urgent; in fact, it is more pressing. Scrutiny is important, but it is not enough, and making the case for clean energy cannot be done through words alone—it must be done through actions that deliver for working people and for all our communities. Talking about a just transition does not in itself deliver a just transition. If we act, continuing to turn our words into deeds, the clean energy revolution will not simply be a policy programme; it will become a lasting national achievement.
I welcome the publication of the road map, and note from the section on environmental land management schemes that in 2027 there will be a need to support farms with legacy countryside stewardship and higher-level stewardship agreements in the transition to new schemes. However, many in this House, the EFRA Committee, the National Audit Office and farmers have questioned whether Natural England is sufficiently resourced to support that. Will the Minister reassure me that behind the words in this important report there will be the trained staff to support my farmers with the challenging transition?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, especially as she is my friend on the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am sorry I was not here at the beginning of the debate; I was at a really important statement on Nottingham maternity services in the main Chamber. Does the hon. Lady not agree that, even if some commission came forward and said that STV was absolutely the way to go and that we should adopt it in future, this country should adopt it only if the electorate validates that through a general election where a majority of the parties making that promise win a majority in Parliament, or through a referendum?
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today. It is a difficult and painful, but that is as nothing compared with what those families have been through. On the shocking details he shared with us about babies’ bodies being mistreated in mortuaries, I am sorry to say that that story will be directly relevant to two constituents I am representing. I would appreciate a meeting with him, however brief, to discuss their cases ahead of his Department’s publication of its decisions on the final recommendations from the phase 2 report of the Fuller inquiry. He will also know that Leeds families at the start of their maternity journey—Donna Ockenden is conducting an inquiry into Leeds maternity services—will welcome, as do I, his commitment to ensuring that the duty of candour will apply in that inquiry. Can he confirm for them and for me that all the lessons that Donna Ockenden and he have learned from this inquiry will be applied to the Leeds inquiry, so that those families get the answers they deserve?
The Minister knows that I am a fierce champion for the new clean power jobs that we are getting on Teesside. We are seeing some of those opportunities scaling up now, but we cannot see mass unemployment in the offshore industry while those opportunities are still nascent. What assurance can the Minister give that every worker will have the opportunity for a genuinely just transition?
Right now, Britain’s adversaries around the world are investing heavily in disinformation designed to disrupt democracies across the west; we are seeing the impact in this country as well. I welcome the regime set out to promote truthful content on social media, but promoting the good content is not the same as tackling the bad. I worry that there is quite a disparate approach across Government—across Ofcom, DCMS and the defending democracy taskforce. What will the Secretary of State do to pull together across Government to address disinformation and misinformation from hostile states around the world?
We welcome the focus in the road map on fertiliser resilience and getting away from volatile global fertiliser markets. North Yorkshire is home to the world’s only supply of polyhalite, a highly effective low-carbon fertiliser. Will Ministers look seriously at this in order to scale up our sovereign supply and back British fertiliser?
The right hon. Lady’s argument would have a lot more credibility if she had not said, in 2023: “Nothing will distract us from achieving net zero or driving forward renewables…I want people to feel nothing but unadulterated optimism…We are absolutely committed to our targets.” The facts about climate change have not changed, yet the right hon. Member has changed her mind. Could that be because of those Members sitting on the Reform Bench?
Point 299 of the impact assessment says: “The transition away from fossil fuels will lead to a net increase in job creation”. I believe the right hon. Lady said a moment ago that it does not mention at all the impact on jobs. I invite her to correct the record.
Does the hon. Member not think that we would give more credence to the scrutiny that the Conservatives are providing if some of their claims could be found in the carbon budget on which we are voting? Could he tell the House where it says that everyone will need to walk and will not be able to use a vehicle?
As many Members have mentioned, the temperature outside the Chamber has been climbing towards 40°C and a red heat health alert is in force. Fifty years ago, the summer of 1976 left a mark that many people still remember. We are living through that kind of summer again, except that now we know it is not a freak, but a pattern. We are seeing the impact in that schools have closed, transport has been disrupted and hospitals have cancelled appointments. Indeed, we have already seen a critical incident declared at a hospital in Portsmouth. None of this is a forecast; it has already happened, and it is happening faster than we were told, but I do not believe that we need to trade in despair, because it is not warranted and it is not useful. We still have time to act and we know what to do. That is the whole point of the seventh carbon budget that we are debating, and it is in that spirit that I support it. This is something Britain is good at. We were the first major economy to write a binding climate framework into law. We have cut our emissions faster than almost any comparable nation. This is not a burden we should carry grudgingly, but a race in which we are leading from the front and, indeed, bringing on other countries to act as well. A child starting school in my constituency this September will be in their 20s when this budget period ends, and what we decide in this Chamber writes the world that they grow up in. We must leave things better than we found them, and we cannot hand the next generation a wrecked inheritance and a bill, and call it prudence. So to those who say we cannot afford this, I say that the reverse is true. The Conservative party rightly talks about scrutiny, but scrutiny works both ways. I heard very little about the costs of inaction—flooding, wildfires and heatwaves—or the cost of not capturing the huge economic opportunities. Indeed, the impact assessment, as we have discussed, shows that transitioning away from fossil fuels will lead to a net increase. It mentions not being able to quantify exactly the impact on jobs post 2030, but it very clearly says that that is because of the context: it depends on things such as automation, AI and, crucially, policy. I agreed with the speech of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), in 2023, because she rightly argued—I did not agree with everything she said, but she made this central point—that while she agreed with the target for net zero, policy would be crucial to shaping whether it worked for families and business. However, rather than doing the hard work of designing policy to ensure that, the Conservatives have abandoned the target completely. We still have time, and we have the framework, the evidence and a national habit of leading when it counts. We should not duck this moment just because it has got difficult, and I urge the Government to keep Britain leading from the front.
The temperature right now in London is about 35°, compared with a perfect 25° in Darlington—so take me home! I want to put on the record my thanks to all the staff working to support us today, especially the armed police and the Doorkeepers in their three-piece suits. The effects of this heatwave will put huge pressure on our public and essential services, and we should all spare a thought for any woman giving birth today, for the families living in overcrowded accommodation, and for anyone with medical vulnerabilities. This weather is deeply dangerous and, in proposing inaction in the face of this climate emergency, the Conservative party must be living on another planet. I may not be a climate change expert—my brother is a geography teacher, so I am under serious pressure—but I do know my regional economy. I know that the net zero project has delivered incredible impacts and huge investment in my area, and the Minister has shown excellent leadership on this issue. Although today’s extreme weather makes her point for her, the Government have been working hand in glove with industry to ensure that we reap the economic rewards of the transition to net zero. At the G7 last week, the Government secured £1.3 billion for battery energy storage systems so that we can end the ludicrous practice of curtailment of our wind farms. In recent weeks, we have seen a co-ordinated effort by the once-credible Conservative party to paint decarbonisation as anti-jobs, anti-growth and anti-industrial communities. Although I absolutely back the calls from the trade unions to ensure a proper, equitable career transition for those working in the oil and gas industry, saying that this Government’s commitment to net zero is bad for our economy is for the birds. In my region, we have a world-leading carbon capture project, the East Coast Cluster, which includes the net zero Teesside power plant. The plant, which is powered by gas, will capture 2 million tonnes of CO2 annually and create enough power for 1.3 million homes. This technology will be globally significant, boosting our ability to support other countries that are looking for solutions to their transition, which we can sell. The technology is backed by a £22 billion investment, alongside the green hydrogen on Teesside and many other innovations. Our region is powering ahead. We have huge innovations through the Northern Endurance Partnership, and Low Carbon Materials, which is a local start-up, was shortlisted for the Earthshot prize. Net zero jobs are 40% more productive than the national average, with wages 15% higher than the UK norm. In other words, these are not just more jobs; they are better jobs. That is the assessment of the CBI, not the Labour Government. Whether it is the electric trains being built at Hitachi or what will soon to be the largest wind farm in the world at Dogger Bank, our region is home not only to the best people in England, but to the most net zero businesses per head in the country. I say to the Minister: all clean power to your elbow. Industry is investing and innovating. The public support action and want subsidies, with two thirds wanting action on climate change. Carbon-intensive industries, and workers in these industries, are calling for equitable alternatives and for the same pay and progression as other sectors.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this urgent question to the House and giving us an opportunity to discuss this important advancement. Yesterday the Government published a Green Paper, “Watch this Space”, to set a new strategic direction for media policy in the UK. The way we consume broadcast media is changing, and television is undergoing a profound transformation, having moved away from a system of traditional channels to a far more fragmented system in which people access TV on demand and on video-sharing platforms. Young people, in particular, are far more likely to access media on their phones and tablets through streaming services and platforms, and the Government believe that we are not adequately equipping that generation with access to high-quality media. There are three key areas where we intend to act. The first is digital prominence, where we are exploring legislative options to require social media platforms and connected TV interfaces to make public service media content, particularly trusted news, highly visible and easy to discover. This is not about promoting Government narratives or only the BBC; it is about ensuring that brilliant journalism from many of our news publishers—both local and national—and broadcasters can get in front of the public. For that reason, we are also opening a conversation about how we define “public service broadcasting” in the modern age. Secondly, the transition to internet TV is where we are outlining plans for a managed shift away from terrestrial broadcasting to internet-delivered IPTV. We know this is an essential switchover in terms of both access and cost, but we want to ensure that the transition is managed responsibly and that nobody is left behind. We are therefore consulting on two dates for the switchover: 2034, when current licences expire, or 2044, with any date contingent on a full and watertight transition plan. Finally, we are protecting major sporting events. We will add on-demand and streaming rights for major sporting events such as the world cup and the Olympics to the listed events regime, protecting free universal fan access as viewing habits shift online. Taken together, these proposals set out a vision for a future TV and media policy in which everyone can access world-leading public service broadcasting content, including children’s and news programming, away from the misinformation and disinformation that has defined too many of our online lives. This Government will ensure that no matter where people access their TV, they are given access to high-quality programming that informs, educates and entertains, and this Green Paper is the next stage of our ambition.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that series of questions, and I will do my best to answer them all as swiftly as I can. First, he rightly talks about the importance of getting the transition right and choosing the date of 2034 or 2044 well. He talks about the particular challenges in remote and rural areas, which this Government recognise. As he knows and as we have discussed before, there are also particular issues for older people, people with disabilities and others. We are working with the industry to put together a watertight plan to help people make that transition and ensure that nobody is left behind. We are asking these questions now precisely to make sure that we are ready and do not leave people behind. On media literacy, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the onus cannot just be on media companies alone. There is a responsibility on all of us, including schools and those of us in public life, to make sure we are equipping our young people with the skills they need to be able to navigate a completely transformed media landscape from the one we had in this country when he and I were growing up. I want to reassure him that this is not about pushing all the responsibility on to media companies and letting everybody else off the hook. We all have to work together to achieve this. It is not just about young people, either. There are serious challenges with people from every generation seeing information online that is just simply false. Who defines trustworthy news—who decides what is trustworthy news and how we decide what is trustworthy—is one of the most challenging aspects of the consultation. The hon. Gentleman will know that the definition of public service broadcasting is set out in law, but trustworthy news is a separate matter and that is precisely why we have asked the question. I would gently push back on some of the narrative that the hon. Gentleman advanced about the BBC. It is still the most trustworthy source of news not just in this country but across the world. On Monday, I was on “Newsround” explaining the consultation and the social media ban that we are introducing to the generation of children who will be most affected by it. It strikes me that there is no other country in the world that has quality programming like that through their public service broadcaster, so I think we should be careful about not trashing the BBC. He and I have shared serious frustrations about some of the specific issues that he mentioned, and we should always demand the highest quality content, but I still firmly believe that the BBC is one of the best broadcasters in the world.
My hon. Friend asks a number of questions and I will try to address them. First, in the Green Paper we have deliberately broadened out access to good quality trusted news and content to potentially include print media as well. It is not lost on me that during the Southport riots people were seeking out the Liverpool Echo and other local news outlets to try to find real information, as opposed to the misinformation and disinformation they were seeing online. She will know that alongside that, one of the things the Government have done is publish the first ever local media strategy to try to support that industry to be able to continue to provide high-quality news. My hon. Friend mentions algorithms. One reason we are particularly keen to ensure the prominence of quality, trusted and high-quality content online and on platforms such as YouTube is that at the moment the algorithms decide what children, in particular, see. I commend YouTube for its work on YouTube Kids, but we need to see more of that. At the moment, we are putting up with a situation where the older generation tends to watch traditional television on television sets and can easily find good-quality content and trusted news, but the younger generation tend to be on devices online and cannot do so. That is not acceptable.
The hon. Lady rightly talks about online regulation. She will know that that is primarily the responsibility of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but my colleague the Secretary of State and I work very closely together on that. We must ensure that we both take action to deal with the scourge of misinformation and disinformation online, which she rightly talks about, but that we give people access to news they can genuinely trust and that that news is much more readily available. The two things should be seen together. I apologise, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) also asked me about Ofcom. She will know that we recently appointed a new chair of Ofcom. We believe that Ofcom must do more to act decisively and quickly in this space. On the BBC World Service, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) will know that the Government have already stepped in, with the support of the FCDO, to ensure it continues to be funded, but colleagues across the House will have seen recently the funding cuts that were announced at the BBC. The hon. Lady rightly says that one of the pressures on such broadcasters is the fact that they are currently trying to broadcast through two distinct channels, so it is important that the Government grip that issue. She will know that the charter review is running in parallel to this process. We wanted to look at it all in the round. It is our intention, through the charter review, to ensure that the BBC is adequately funded and that it goes on not just to survive, but to thrive until well into the latter part of this century. She will also know that we recently announced that through that process we will put the BBC on a permanent charter, so that it exists for all of us forever.
I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend says. We have lost many parts of our civic realm: thriving town centres where people come together, the social clubs that used to exist all over our country, and the youth clubs that we are busy rebuilding. I thank her for all her help and support. I believe that the media, and in particular public service media, are an essential part of that civic realm. Whether it is VE Day, Remembrance Sunday or the world cup which we are all currently enjoying, public service broadcasters provide the shared moments where we come together as a nation and celebrate what it means to be us. We are determined to grip these issues and not allow us to drift into a transition, so that our public service media are adequately funded and are able to continue to do that.
On legislation, we will of course keep that option open and will not hesitate to legislate should we need to do so. We deliberately drew the parameters and contours of the Green Paper very broadly so that we could have that very open discussion and work together to ensure that we then take the action we need to take. On a slightly more reflective note, the point that the hon. Lady makes about the ink not being dry before the landscape had changed is particularly true in the online space. Rather than thinking about a piece of legislation, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I have been reflecting on the probable need to legislate quite frequently to keep pace with change. When it comes to media literacy, I agree with the hon. Lady about AI. I think there are two parts to the issue: first, ensuring that we have the right regulation so that people can trust what they see and that we do nothing in the AI space that prevents good-quality journalism from being able to thrive; and secondly, equipping and empowering the people of this country with the skills and ability to navigate AI.
I reassure my hon. Friend that I am working closely with the Secretary and State for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Home Secretary, as well as with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who leads the social cohesion taskforce that is specifically looking at misinformation and disinformation, and at how we join up across Government to tackle the issue. We have recently had a huge debate in this House about the defence of our nation, and, given the global climate, we are rightly stepping up to invest more in defence, but there is a war being waged in our communities—on our streets, online, on social media—that we have got to take as seriously as we take equipping our armed forces with what they need.
That is precisely why we have asked the question. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are different ways of approaching the issue. One is, quite simply, to promote public service broadcasters. We think we may be missing a trick there, which is why we have asked the question in the consultation.
The Government have been talking to the journalism trade unions to ensure that people are protected when those cuts are made, and that we do everything we can to protect that really good quality—not just the journalists, but the technical staff and others, particularly those across our nations and regions, who feel vulnerable to those cuts. The cuts at STV and the BBC are precisely why we need to manage the transition and get it right. We cannot duck the question of when we make the transition, because doing so places incredibly onerous costs on public service broadcasters in an already very tight funding landscape. As my hon. Friend will have heard me say to the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), we are determined to manage the transition well and ensure that nobody is left behind.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, and I strongly agree with the essence of what he is saying. There is a war being waged in our communities and on our streets, and on local online forums as much as on national ones. When the recent by-election in Makerfield was triggered, overnight the targeting of people in my town of Wigan with misinformation and disinformation went through the roof. That is often deliberate, it is often triggered by foreign state actors, it can have an extremely disruptive influence on communities, and it is something that we need to deal with. The Green Paper deals with questions of media literacy and prominence, and other measures that we think will help, but nobody in this House should take this as the beginning and end of the conversation. I am working closely with colleagues across the House—including in Defence—to make sure we are equipped on every front for the war that we find ourselves in.
I am confident, having heard my hon. Friend championing his constituents in this House, that he would never allow that to happen, and neither will we. I am happy to offer him a meeting with the relevant Minister.
I will, of course, ensure that the right hon. Member gets the answer to his written question in a timely fashion—by tomorrow. I am also more than happy to follow up and discuss it with him.
I am really happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is why we are getting on the front foot now and working with industry to manage the transition. Access is obviously extremely important, but so too is affordability, and we are looking at that closely.
I am not going to take any lessons from him and his disgusting party, given the way that they spread misinformation and disinformation. This House has already come together to define what “public service media” is in law. The definition was passed by Parliament, and I do not recall there being a lot of concern about that; it has been enormously beneficial. One way that we could define “trusted news” would be to follow that definition, but we could also, for example, align with the editors’ code of practice. There are lots of different options, but to somehow claim that this is about the Government controlling what people see is absolute nonsense.
I agree. In particular, we are letting down a generation of young people, who, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), are often consuming media very differently from my generation and the generations before us. It cannot be right that my generation, who often watch and consume broadcasts on television sets, are able to easily and quickly find high-quality content and trusted news, but the younger generation are not.
The hon. Gentleman makes a similar point to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He is right to push us to think about how we can very rapidly adapt to this very rapidly changing landscape. There is a question for the whole House as to how much oversight the House will want to have and how much scrutiny will be given to any measures that we bring forward. The House will have to decide together whether the use of secondary legislation in this space is something that we collectively believe is acceptable. However, there is merit in what he proposes.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton earlier, during the Southport riots, there was an increase in people going to the BBC and the Liverpool Echo to get information; we saw something similar after the Manchester Arena bombing, when people sought out the Manchester Evening News as a trusted source of news. My hon. Friend will be aware that many of those trusted sources are under serious financial pressure, which is one of the reasons that we acted—particularly through the local media strategy—to ensure that they remain available. We want to ensure that those sources are more prominent and easier to find online, but in order to do that, we have to ensure that they are actually there in the first place.
That is partly what this TV Green Paper is designed to address, although, as I said earlier, it is one part of the whole. Getting regulation online right, getting the enforcement of that regulation right, and being far more proactive through Ofcom in enforcing the existing law, are essential parts of this, as well as the measures that we have proposed around prominence and other areas.
We have done a number of things in this space. AI summaries online put real pressure on existing publishers, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I have met the publishing industry to discuss how we can better protect original sources, which are often far more accurate than the AI summaries that draw on their work. As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, when it comes to media literacy, we need to equip not just the younger generation, but all of us with the skills necessary to navigate AI.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that any responsible Government will be careful about how we navigate this landscape, because the definition of “high quality” and “trustworthy” is contested, and we need to protect the plurality and diversity of our news and the broader media industry. I do believe, however, that we have for a long time failed to empower our citizens and equip them with the ability to navigate the new landscape that we are in. The Government are particularly concerned about the blurring of news and fact with polemic and opinion, and that is a space in which we intend to act.