Mr James Frith
MP for Bury North · Labour · United Kingdom
“Our AI skills boost programme is already delivering results. In an answer given to the House last week, I referred to the early careers funding and work on curriculum reforms to come, such as an AI-inclusive GCSE in computing.”
“The Government are committed to supporting the worker experience through the AI transition, and have a proud record of advancing workers’ rights.”
“We are doing so with the data and AI ethics framework, the AI playbook, and transparency standards that ensure the public can understand how systems are used. We are also supporting UK firms that provide third-party AI-assurance ecosystems, demonstrating that AI systems are safe and reliable as well as creating new jobs.”
“We see the potential of AI in everything from scientific discovery to better public services and stronger economic growth. The Government have a clear responsibility to make sure that the change at the heart of this debate reinforces rather than weakens the fabric of our society.”
“Programmes such as TechLocal are creating new jobs, traineeships and professional training, while scholarships and fellowships are supporting the next generation of researchers and innovators. Nobody is waiting 25 years to tackle the threats, however. AI harms are very real, and we do not sit idly by when it comes to tackling them.”
“The Government’s principle is to regulate at the time of deployment or at use. I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, but it is important that we strike the right balance between innovation and regulation.”
The complete record
Every one of 465 lines we hold for Mr James Frith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 10.
“It requires an initial leap of faith, the courage to embrace risk, the ability to adjust, the resilience to overcome failure and the perseverance to celebrate success. The role of government is to improve life and living for everyone in this country. The role of good employment is exactly the same. Small businesses are at the heart of this effort. That is why the Government are right to focus on skills, value for money with public spending, opening up public sector commissioning to SMEs and challenger companies, and, crucially, the Bill making employment a more positive, rewarding experience. Insecure work leads to insecure living, and neither will improve life in Britain. We should highlight and support those employers who are already leading the way. Much of this legislation simply catches up to their high standards.”
“I will make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman has said plenty already, and he came in only halfway through the debate. I am proud to stand on the Labour side of the House as someone who has founded a business, run businesses for others and run my own business. Fifteen years ago, I made a commitment to be the voice of experience for good small businesses in the proud Labour movement that we now have in government, not least to challenge the claim of the Conservatives that they alone represent business interests. I am proudly pro-business and pro-worker, just as this Government are. Fixing the foundations of our economy means fixing the foundations of our employment. Just as the Government are strengthening our economic base, they are now laying down stronger employment foundations. Running a business is hard work.”
“In particular, for some that means ensuring that AI enhances and expands prospects and prosperity in the employment market and the wider economy. Lastly, I am proud to highlight my support for extending bereavement leave to those who experience a miscarriage—a compassionate and essential measure that I proudly support alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). The Bill is not just about a legislative process; it is about our values. It is about recognising that a thriving economy and a fair society must go hand in hand with tackling our inequalities. It is about ensuring that whether employer or employee, the foundation on which our employment is built ensures strength for all.”
“I have had conversations with the vast majority of them. They support the general emphasis— [ Interruption. ] Actually, if the right hon. Gentleman has been listening, he will know that the argument I am making is that on much of the proposed legislation—giving rights on day one, being fair minded, making work pay—they are already doing that. The point I am making— [ Interruption. ] I have just named several. The most recent conversation I had was with MSL Solution Providers. Its challenges and arguments are around R&D tax credits, an argument I will make in due course. But the Conservatives’ claim of being the voice of small business and entrepreneurship is misguided, misrepresented and, frankly, out of date. Once we have laid the new employment foundations, we must support them in building their businesses further.”
“I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his leadership and the work he has done, particularly in keeping us abreast of the ongoing situation. It is right that the UK takes concrete steps to support peace, including through the revitalising of the Abraham accords, which are about normalisation of relations. Does the Minister agree that peacebuilding funds that rebuild Gaza are not just for humanitarian efforts but are a regional step towards the normalisation of peace and an independent Palestinian state free from Hamas? Does he agree that providing infrastructure, homes and hope will sustain peace efforts and normalise the reality of a two-state solution?”
“May I first wish the Leader of the House a happy International Women’s Day for Saturday? My constituent Chris is among many people affected by the loan charge, which applies to “disguised remuneration” schemes. While everyone should pay their fair share of tax, many, like Chris, used these schemes in good faith when they were legal and now face retrospective penalties. The Government’s long-awaited review is a welcome step, but Chris and many others who have been affected feel that its scope is too limited. They believe that it fails to examine how we got here, its implementation, or those who promoted and mis-sold these schemes. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a full debate on the loan charge and its consequences?”
“The human impact of the restrictions, and the testimony we have seen and heard from affected individuals, highlight the real-life injustices and consequences. In closing, I urge the Minister to consider what more the Government can do—not simply to rehearse the assessment we understand, but to progress to resolution. The direction of this ongoing conflict must be towards achieving peace and democracy in the region, and justice for the Jammu and Kashmiri people through self-determination. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s objectives in this Parliament for this historical and current conflict? The remarkable resilience of the Jammu and Kashmiri people demands action and a resolution.”
“Extended lockdowns have had severe consequences for civilians, restricting access to essential services such as healthcare, education and employment. These measures have disproportionately affected vulnerable populations and exacerbated their hardship. Additionally, religious minorities and migrant workers have faced targeted violence and repression, further marginalising already at-risk communities. It is fundamentally a matter for the Kashmiri people to be given and to execute their self-determination, but it is a matter for the UK to involve itself with Pakistan and India. We have a global role and reputation, as well as leadership that can inspire the change we wish to see. There are verified reports on human rights violations from credible organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.”
“This conflict is taking place thousands of miles away, but we must not, cannot and should not turn away from the human rights abuses, the stifling of democracy and free speech, the ongoing struggle for self-determination, the historic injustices, the need for reconciliation and, as with so many of these contentious issues, the UK’s role originally and our role in resolving it. Restrictions on free speech in the region have led to the detention of journalists, activists and political leaders under anti-terror laws. These measures supress dissent and limit public discourse. Laws such as the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act enable authorities to detain individuals for extended periods without trial, and often without formal charges, raising concerns about legal abuses and arbitrary detention.”
“We must not just stand in solidarity with them in these challenging times, but call out injustices. We must also move things along and make progress for them—not to constantly rehearse the objections and assessments but, now that we are in government, to see progress. As we speak, we are mindful that it is the holy month of Ramadan—a time dedicated to peace, reflection and charity. It is a period when we are reminded of our shared humanity and the importance of supporting those in need. The principles of Ramadan, as with so many of the values of our Abrahamic faiths, inspire us to advocate for justice and compassion—values that are essential in our discussion of human rights.”
“I am grateful in particular to Raja Najabat Hussain and Tamoor Shafique of the Jammu and Kashmir Self-Determination Movement International for engaging with me since my election; Lord Wajid Khan, who is a Minister and a long-time friend to me and Bury; and our wonderful Pakistan-Kashmiri diaspora. I also thank Councillors Tamoor Tariq, Babar Ibrahim and Tahir Rafiq for their counsel on this issue. Their interactions have deepened my understanding and commitment to advocating for the rights and dignity of the people in this contested region. These global issues have local resonance. Bury North is home to a proud south Asian community, and many continue to have familial ties to Jammu and Kashmir. Their stories, hopes and concerns resonate deeply with our community, and it is our duty to ensure that their voices are heard.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate. This topic is close to the hearts of hundreds of my constituents, and therefore close to my heart. On the doorsteps during the election campaign, and during my time in the House, I have promised to involve myself in it and continue to fight for it. Earlier this year I was proud to host the first Labour Friends of Kashmir event in Bury North, which brought together friends and colleagues from across my community and further afield to discuss the important issues that we seek to address and highlight today.”
“I thank the Minister for her diligent response to the debate. Is it reasonable for my constituents to hope that, within the next four and a half years—a single Parliament of this Labour Government—things will have progressed, rather than being simply being rehearsed and repeated? Her response has been sincere, but do the Government have a clear objective to move things forward and move the dial on this long-standing issue?”
“Can I add my voice to those around the country who have said how proud they are of our British Prime Minister, and how proud they are to be British? He has led from the front, and I hope very much that in the weeks and months to come, he will hold that in mind and strengthen his resolve as we move forward. He has already made reference to one of the priorities that Stefan Harhaj, the chair of Bury’s Ukrainian association, raised with me, which is the release of the 20,000 children who have been kidnapped and forcibly removed to Russia. Will my right hon. and learned Friend commit to securing their release and updating the House on a frequent basis on our achievements to this end?”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She speaks to the heart of the issue. It is often only people with the means, resources and time who can become experts in the service they are trying to access, a right that is enshrined in the Children and Families Act 2014. Will she join me in encouraging the Government’s instinct that, in moving to a more inclusive mainstream education system, we cannot simply say, “Everyone in,” without protecting the necessary resources centrally when we issue those instructions?”
“My wife and I regret ever getting a smartphone for our two eldest children. We have four, and we are wondering what to do when the third expects access to the same rights. Smartphone management is something we continually get wrong. My hon. Friend has talked about screen time. It cannot be beyond the wit of our smartphone creators to give parental controls better intuitive use, so that they cannot be undermined so easily by the smart children using the smartphones. Does she agree that while we need to strengthen the role of Ofcom in rooting out the toxic content that our children are pushed towards, the smartphone manufacturers also have a job to empower parents? It is a real concern, because children’s use of smartphones and their access to social media is a daily battle for their parents.”
“I thank the Minister; as ever, he has been very generous and is making excellent remarks. Away from the emergency—the toxicity and the worst aspects of this—the mundane sapping of hour after hour after hour is just as dangerous when we consider social media use and our ineffective guardrails for smartphone use. Yes, we all agree that the content the Minister has described should be done away with and prevented, but what is his reflection on the mundane drip and sapping away of the energy and attention of our young people and the doomscrolling ethos that has developed in their expectation of their everyday lives?”
“I am a great admirer of the Secretary of State, and I admire his belief in his cause today. The creative sector will have heard his commitment to listen, and I thank him for ensuring the openness and engagement of his Ministers on this issue. In the spirit of listening, will he agree from the Dispatch Box today to meet those creatives who are keen to have an audience with him on this significant issue?”
“I know the hon. Member fancies himself as a bit of a tech bro, but he should recognise that much of the anxiety in the creative industries sector is caused by the dither and delay of the Conservatives’ time in Government and their failure to grasp the issue. As ever, we on the Government Benches are doing the hard work.”
“The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, as ever, and I agree with much of what he is saying. Does he agree with me that we should be ready to point out where those who contribute to this debate are proxies or funded by tech companies not appearing in public to make the case, but instead making arguments through smaller organisations that can be a little bit more assertive and nimble-footed, and not quite as accountable?”
“Our focus must therefore be on its use, not on sweeping legal exceptions that weaken copyright and risk hollowing out the very industries we are committed to growing. If there is a technological answer—a digital fingerprinting solution or a pay-as-you-go AI model—we should keep an open mind, but it is a leap to expect these solutions to come soon enough for the urgent issues at hand. The anxieties I have outlined cannot be left unresolved while we wait.”
“I ask again: what progress are we pursuing if it undermines the position of strength that we start from? I have seen no economic impact assessment that states that exempting music and other creative content from licensing, or introducing AI training exceptions, will boost the economy. Yes, jobs in data centres will be welcome, but they are minimal in comparison to those sustained by our creative industries. At its heart, AI is about capability and capacity. It should not facilitate the casual but disastrous dismantling of copyright. The job gains must come from skilled input and employment that puts AI to work. The harnessing of AI must be human-tethered. We must remember that AI is a great enabler, and for our advantage. It is not a stand-alone sector; it is a transformative technology for all sectors.”
“This threat to creators’ livelihoods is particularly acute for smaller rights holders who lack the means to navigate complex systems or enforce protections against unauthorised AI use. These independent creators are the backbone of our creative ecosystem. More than 70% of them are based in our towns and regions, away from the cities, where for them, levelling up means making up. Without them, the UK’s creative engine will begin to fray and diminish. Creativity thrives not just through the marquee names but through the countless independent voices, expressions and creations that enrich our experiences. The argument that restricting AI’s access to copyrighted works will stifle progress and leave us trailing behind other territories is incorrect.”
“We risk making this about how we can protect their very existence if we do not take seriously the deep alarm voiced by creators over the threat posed by AI. We also risk losing the very things that make life richer. I urge the Government to introduce a requirement for transparency. If an AI system is trained on the works of thousands of musicians, authors and film makers, they have a right to know and a right to be paid. This could include a register. We do not tell manufacturers, energy providers or tech firms that their products should be freely used to build billion-dollar businesses without compensation. The same principle must apply to creative work. Copyright is not a barrier to innovation; it is the foundation that allows creativity to thrive.”
“The UK, with its proud creative industry, should not make flawed comparisons with a country without the same creative strengths, outputs and exports. Just as transparency is demanded in our supply chains, so too must it apply to our code chains. Arguments suggesting that transparency would be too burdensome feel disingenuous. In Select Committee hearings, the argument for transparency, which represents a giant step forward in resolving the tension between AI and creators, seems to have been deliberately opposed by those seeking to excuse themselves, as well as those they represent by proxy, from paying for the work of others. The Government’s commitment to an industrial strategy includes our brilliant creative industries, but discussions with those industries should focus on how we advance and enhance them.”
“No country has got this right yet, and this is our chance to learn from a blend of approaches. International examples should be observed. AI should be harnessed to be an honest broker, which is why transparency is key. In silicon valley, exceptions have been made to the US’s general approach, and the creative and tech industries are balanced accordingly. The UK should embrace transparency and maintain the strengths of both sectors. Europe understands the role of transparency, though there is little evidence that this has led to more licensing for copyright holders. We must not assume that one will automatically lead to the other, or that this will alleviate the concerns of our creative sector. Singapore has a broad AI training exception, but it has a minimal creative sector.”
“As it does so, we will gain insight from the Government’s ongoing and related consultation on copyright and AI. Today’s debate is concerned with the use of data to drive progress; it speaks to how we can live better, and how we can live best, with AI. We do not need to accept the false choice of innovate versus regulate. In considering the countries either side of us, it can feel as though there are only two options—one or the other; zeroes or ones—but the UK must act now. This is a national cause with international consequences. Faced with demands for innovation while others call for regulation, we should bid for harmonisation. Harmony is the language not of compromise, but of complement—a value greater than the sum of its parts. We must understand the strength of all contributions to that harmony.”
“It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute further on this important Bill. I thank Ministers, particularly the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, for their ongoing attention and for being in listening mode, particularly on the copyright matters that have been so dominant so far. The Bill rightly modernises data regulations, which will spur growth and improve public services, making everyday life better. When put to good use and used fairly and effectively, data can enhance efficiency across sectors, from food supply chains and commercial forecasting to healthcare. It is a powerful prospect with enormous benefits. The challenge is in ensuring that those benefits reach everyone. Given the demands placed on the Bill by the amendments tabled in the other place, I hope that it proceeds into Committee.”
“The future of AI must be built on trust, so I urge this House and this Government to ensure that AI innovation does not come at the cost of our world-leading creative industries.”
“The Minister got the memo. AI is giving the creative sector indigestion, frankly, and this is the problem we are facing, so aiming for a smoother future through collaboration is absolutely right. As with previous technological shifts, such as the introduction of the internet or indeed the printing press, laws should be based on use, not on the technology itself. The principle of tech neutrality should be reaffirmed as a guiding principle for our laws and culture. In the absence of a clear solution, we must return to first principles and stand for transparency, fairness and the fundamental right to be paid for one’s work. Or will we entertain the risks of an opaque system, built on unnecessary secrecy, freely extracting value from copyrighted works without payment? We are in a defining moment. Innovation should uplift, not exploit.”
“I thank the Minister for her statement and her even-handedness, both in stating the British Government’s position on increased aid to UNRWA and in confirming that there can be no role for Hamas in future governance. The UK has a strong track record of bringing people together across communities to build peace, no more so than in Northern Ireland. What lessons on support for civil society and peacebuilding in Israel and Palestine will the Government draw from the last Labour Government’s experience in Northern Ireland?”
“Let AI revolutionise our public services, productivity, precision and efficiency, but let the creative sector remain the authentic space that we all enjoy, as one of human expression. Creativity is not just a process; it profoundly connects us to one another and provides us with a shared humanity—not of just moments and movements but of memories that we live with forever. It falls to us to protect the muse, the struggle and the joys that define these marvellous creative industries. Let us ensure that creators, not algorithms, remain the first and last word in determining our cultural, economic and human advances.”
“I hope this debate will amplify the voices of AI leaders who are advocating for the transparency and copyright frameworks that favour creators. The Government’s consultation is absolutely right to highlight the need for transparency. AI firms should have to disclose what they are using in their training datasets. This will enable fair licensing arrangements, with the burden on the purchaser of creativity and not on the producers of it. This is a pivotal moment for our creative sector. It comes down to this: will we protect copyright and creators’ rights, or will we defer entirely to AI? We must not let proposals such as opt-out systems dismantle the protections that allow creativity to flourish.”
“That is absolutely fine, but legislators, policymakers and industry leaders must heed the creator’s voice and recognise the existential threat that AI poses to their livelihoods if we forfeit copyright as we know it. We must protect, cherish and celebrate the human spirit behind every brushstroke, investigation, edition, publication, note, verse and chorus, for they carry the joy, the struggle, the love and the loss, the hit and the miss. They express and emote. They relate and reflect to us our human condition: this human creativity—authentic, irreplaceable, deeply connected, often nebulous—defying the precise definition of AI. Artificial cannot replace authentic. Learned behaviour cannot replicate the human condition.”
“What advance are we willing on, if it undermines the position of strength we start from? We already have divergence between territories on copyright, and the UK leads with strength here. Innovation should uplift us, not exploit. We do not need to weaken our cultural integrity and creative capital for a technological right of way. All of us can find a space to love produced by our creative industries. In affirming this view, I wish also to distinguish between consumers and creators. Consumers engage with creations at the finish line; they need not understand the hours of labour behind their creation or the securities on which they are created.”
“The proposals are a threat to the livelihoods of creators, especially smaller rights holders who lack the resources to navigate complex systems or enforce protections against unauthorised AI use. Those smaller, independent creators form the bedrock of our creative ecosystem. Without them, the intricate web that sustains the sector will unravel. The richness of our cultural landscape depends not only on headline acts, but on the countless independent creators who bring diversity and depth to this sharing industry. Proponents of unfettered AI access to copyrighted works, who say that denying it will stifle progress, leaving us behind other territories, describe a false choice and present a regressive argument that suggests we should sacrifice creators’ rights for tech advances.”
“What connects us to our creative industries is the human emotion they embody. Yes, AI can, will and already does assist creators. Musicians and artists have embraced technological innovation throughout history, and AI holds exciting potential to help consumers discover and engage with creative works. But to forfeit the humanity it takes to create, and suggest that AI can replace it, insults and will ultimately cost those who pour their lives into their craft, as well as those of us who love to soak it all up. Proposals for new, broad exceptions to copyright, and the burden of opting out of having one’s life’s work taken without permission, undermine the very principles of copyright and, frankly, of trade and commerce.”
“Creators see it for what it is: an upheaval of the copyright protections they depend on, which threatens to do lasting damage to the sector. Copyright does not inspire hit songs, smash-hit movies or classical texts, but it is the lifeblood of our creative industries. It is what feeds investment, enabling musicians, writers, actors, designers, and businesses large and small, to earn a living from their work. Copyright is the foundation of what makes our creative industries what they are and could become. Creativity is not an easy, anodyne process, and we should not outsource it to a method that reduces it to such. It takes blood, sweat, tears and countless hours. It does not just carry the creator’s joys or perceptions, their struggles or vulnerabilities, but often speaks to our own.”
“Mutually supportive and interdependent, they are among the fastest-growing industries and have extraordinary potential to drive our nation’s No. 1 mission: economic growth. But the ecosystem is fragile and needs to be nurtured and supported in order to flourish, so we must take seriously, and respond to, the creative sector’s reaction to the Government’s consultation on AI in the sector. Those in the sector are confused, alarmed and deeply concerned. Central to their fears is the framing of “rights reservations”—an opt-out system that threatens to rip the rug from under our prized sector, with sweeping changes proposed to copyright law. What is “rights reservations”? That which we call an opt-out system by any other name will still sound the alarm.”
“It has been heartening to hear colleagues underscore the significance of the creative industries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer identified them as one of the eight drivers of economic growth, and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister here today have spoken passionately about their being our cultural and economic superpower. As representatives of the immense talent in Greater Manchester, the Secretary of State and I know well the enormous value brought by film, TV, gaming, publishing and, of course, music—a sector particularly close to my heart as a former musician, and singer of the only Manchester band nobody has heard of. Across the UK, our creative industries are an ecosystem.”
“My constituents Mandy and Bernie, along with many other homeowners in Bury North, are facing serious issues with Residential Management Group. Despite dutifully paying their service charges, residents of Wharfside Apartments and Broad Oak have been hit with additional fees and alarming practices that equate to neglect and exploitation: overpricing, sudden price changes, premature bailiff actions and non-compliance with fire safety and accessibility standards, to name just a few. This is not an isolated case; some 70 Members of this House have constituents across the country facing the same level of activity by rogue management companies. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that under Labour, these unscrupulous practices will be tackled, and will she provide time in the House for a debate on this urgent matter?”
“When all deaf children thrive, our society is stronger, more inclusive and more prosperous. This underserved issue can benefit from the Government’s mission to transform. As the campaign says, “Hear Us Now.””
“Official analysis found that total spending on consultancy in 2022-23 was £1.2 billion, with the Department of Health and Social Care among the highest spenders, at £281 million. I share this Government’s instincts: the money saved must now transform the lives of those accessing AVT. Does the Minister agree? For just £2 million a year, we can train more specialists in order to remove the barriers to opportunity, expand access through the NHS and ensure that every family makes informed decisions. We are not asking for those decisions today, but for a commitment to start this journey and to draft a plan that takes us from this underserved system to one that provides choice and opportunity for every deaf child and their family. With parents given every option to choose for them, their children are given the best chance to thrive.”
“We would reduce education costs, as early intervention means less reliance on one-to-one support, saving £3.4 billion. We would increase employment, with confident, independent deaf adults contributing £1 billion to economy. And we would improve quality of life, with thriving, independent individuals generate £4 billion in societal benefits. Without early intervention, the costs are far greater. Delayed support leads to unfulfilled promise or potential, higher unemployment, mental health challenges and long-term reliance on public services. The new Government have wasted no time identifying waste to be cut from their spending. The Cabinet Office has pledged to reduce the £7 billion per year spent on consultants.”
“That means training more therapists—supported by Government bursaries—to meet growing demand, building regional hubs, expanding telepractice services so that no family is left behind, and raising public awareness to ensure that families know that AVT is an option. If the heart of the argument does not move us, the head can. This therapy means economic growth and a sound investment in families’ futures and ours. This cause is transformational for not just them but the economy. For £2 million annually—a fraction, or a rounding error, when it comes to the NHS budget—we could ensure that thousands of deaf children access AVT. According to independent economic analysis, this investment would unlock £11.7 billion in benefits over 50 years, and here is how.”
“It is also the moment where we should ensure that parents learn that there is a therapy that could help their child to communicate on a par with their hearing peers. The option of AVT should be as freely considered as learning to sign, and traditional or developing means. Withholding this therapy after people have learned of its existence cannot remain the position, yet learning of AVT only to be told that it is unavailable, unaffordable or simply not an option where someone lives is the reality for far too many families. With only 33 certified auditory verbal therapists across the UK, access to AVT is exclusive and rare. Most families will never hear of it. By removing the barriers, we can give parents and their children the opportunity to decide for themselves.”
“Auditory verbal therapy enables deaf children to develop listening and spoken language skills and equips them to thrive alongside their hearing peers. With AVT, 97% of deaf children without additional needs achieve age-appropriate spoken language within two years. That is the transformation we seek. It is not a big ask, but it has giant implications for the impact that AVT can have if we can reach that whiteboard moment and have civil service teams working with experts to bring this therapy into NHS early years programmes. It is preventive healthcare at its best: cost-effective, compassionate and life-changing. For someone who learns that their child is deaf, navigating this new world is disorientating and complex, and they will feel unsure.”
“The argument for auditory verbal therapy is an argument for choice—choice for the child, their family and their future—and ensuring that families have the knowledge and support to choose the best path for them. It is not about competing choices, but having access to all of them. The demand is that these families’ cause is heard, and the majority of the country agrees. In a recent YouGov poll, 85% of UK adults believed that auditory verbal therapy should be available to all children via publicly funded services such as the NHS. The first years of a child’s life are critical. It is when their brains are most receptive to language and communication. For deaf children, early intervention is essential.”
“I know what we are asking for will not be green-lit today, but I know what we need. Former Health Secretaries I have met have spoken of the “whiteboard moment”, when we get the issue on to the whiteboard. That is the goal. It is the moment when the Minister asks their civil service teams to make something possible—to draft a plan to take us from where we are to where we need to be. It is a pilot, a tester, a starter for 10, where the Government do not just take our word for it, but see for themselves. Should there be concern among our deaf community, let me say that this is not about undermining the celebrated protected status of British Sign Language. We celebrate BSL as a language—a unique cultural identity—and the last Parliament’s recognition of BSL in law was a landmark achievement.”
“Each Parliament has the opportunity to help the underserved, and there are always issues that, with the right political heat and weight, can be transformed. Such issues have long been on the roll of Government successes, whatever the political weather. Think of the long-standing injustices, new medicines on the NHS, or social equalities we have addressed. The missions of this Government delivered their enormous parliamentary majority and a mandate to renew, reform and transform. Auditory verbal therapy takes the Government’s vital missions for health, for children, for the smashing of barriers to opportunity, and for growth, and it brings them to life. This cause gives the missions cause to blossom. There may not be a better example of a cause that, for such a fraction of an investment, can be transformational.”