Dame Chi Onwurah
MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West · Labour · United Kingdom
“T5. While knocking on doors in Denton Burn in Newcastle on Saturday, a resident said to me that we see these terrible images of families putting children on to small boats and of floods, wars and droughts all around the world, but we never hear what Britain is doing to help people stay and flourish where they are.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Two further key issues: we learned for the first time that the digital inter-ministerial group has been replaced by an official-level bimonthly digital executive committee, which sounds like a significant downgrade, just as digital is moved from the centre of Government—the Cabinet Office—to DCMS.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They agree it is an important tool against vendor lock-in, but reject our recommendation that public bodies prioritise open-source tools and technology over proprietary offerings, citing the “essential commercial accountability” offered by suppliers of proprietary software. So is open source a good or a bad thing?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are serious data hygiene failures across the public sector. Public bodies hold public data on trust; it needs to meet the highest standards. The fourth is delivery. We need a detailed and measurable plan to ensure the success of the digital transformation agenda.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am a tech evangelist; I believe that technology should make the world work better for people, and my Committee welcomes and supports the Government’s ambitions, but our report raised serious concerns about how achievable they are. In our report, we identified four building blocks for successful digital transformation.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The second barrier is legacy systems. Outdated, obsolete or unsupported IT infrastructure, systems, hardware or processes pose an unacceptable level of risk. Our report found that, without a plan to address legacy systems, the Government’s digital ambitions will struggle to be achieved. The third barrier is vendor lock-in.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
4,900 lines on record for Dame Chi Onwurah, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 1 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“T5. While knocking on doors in Denton Burn in Newcastle on Saturday, a resident said to me that we see these terrible images of families putting children on to small boats and of floods, wars and droughts all around the world, but we never hear what Britain is doing to help people stay and flourish where they are. I thought, “Well, he’s right actually.” Could the Secretary of State tell us what is the most successful or effective thing that the Department is doing to reduce migratory pressures?”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Without clear leadership that can drive and deliver the scale of change needed, we remain very concerned that there will be no successful digital rewiring of the state.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Finally on Palantir, the Government state that if a decision is taken not to extend Palantir’s contract, then the contract includes measures to support transition and continuity of services. I have since had a letter from the Minister for Health Innovation emphasising the significant costs associated with moving to another vendor while denying that there is vendor lock-in. I am seeking further clarification. The British people deserve a modern, flexible digital state designed to meet their needs, with public services that improve their lives. Trust is essential to achieving that and bad data hygiene, outdated systems, vendor lock-in, hyped solutions and lack of sovereign capability is a recipe for failure.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Two further key issues: we learned for the first time that the digital inter-ministerial group has been replaced by an official-level bimonthly digital executive committee, which sounds like a significant downgrade, just as digital is moved from the centre of Government—the Cabinet Office—to DCMS. Yet there is no commitment to appointing a dedicated Cabinet-level Minister responsible for driving effective digital transformation across the public sector. Yesterday in the Committee hearing with Ministers on the machinery of government changes, the diffuse nature of responsibilities was apparent. Ministers and officials spoke repeatedly about working together effectively, but it does not give confidence that digital transformation will be achieved when there is not one person accountable for it or able to impose digital standards.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They agree it is an important tool against vendor lock-in, but reject our recommendation that public bodies prioritise open-source tools and technology over proprietary offerings, citing the “essential commercial accountability” offered by suppliers of proprietary software. So is open source a good or a bad thing? The Government did not even engage with our request to provide impact assessments relating to the US CLOUD Act 2018, under which US headquartered companies can in principle be compelled to provide the US Government with access to UK customers’ data held in their UK data centres. The Government accept the need to strengthen sovereign capability and they promise updates, but reject a cross-Government strategy on sovereignty or a definition. They confirm efforts to support UK start-ups and scale-ups through procurement.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Every single Government Department might be buying the same cloud services from the same vendor, and we will not know or be able to assess our resilience or performance. Despite repeated data breaches, the Government refuse to share which public bodies and Departments meet basic data hygiene practices. That is due to “security considerations”. So we cannot hold Government to account for bad data management because it might alert the Chinese—I fear they know our limitations better than we do. Rolling out AI-driven public services over bad data infrastructure is a recipe for disaster and will require strong, rigorous standards and implementation to address it. On open source, the Government are inconsistent and contradictory.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government also reveal that 36 tech company employees have had access to either the federated data or specific datasets assigned by NHS England when initially Palantir said that none of its employees had access to it. So there is more transparency. Other parts of the response are less encouraging. Significantly, in response to our recommendation that GDS develop and publish a framework to evaluate the performance of digital spend, we are told that they cannot count spend by Department. So as we embark on a complete digital transformation, we do not know how much is being spent and on what. How can we ensure that Ministers make informed decisions and can be held to account?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our report called on the Government to commit to exercising the February 2027 break clause in the federated data platform contract. I thank the Government for their response, which came from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, although I understand other Departments were involved, so it is a welcome example of cross-Government working. Some parts of it are excellent, particularly the commitment to develop a strategy within the Government Digital Service to end vendor lock-in. That is a real step forward, as is the commitment to strong central co-ordination to drive progress on fixing legacy systems across the public sector, which is what we recommended. An action plan is promised, as well as a remediation plan, subject to security considerations.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While the over-reliance on a small number of foreign vendors exists, the Government cannot set out to deliver their own sovereign digital agenda for the United Kingdom or fully support a competitive UK tech ecosystem. The Government should set out a public sector definition of sovereignty. Palantir is a case study in three of the four barriers. Palantir’s relationship with the NHS began during the covid-19 pandemic when it was paid a nominal £1 fee to provide what its chief executive Louis Mosley described to us as “aggregating data”. It is now hyped as being uniquely essential to the NHS’s mission to save lives. It is a clear example of growing vendor lock-in as well as an over-reliance on foreign tech giants.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The second barrier is legacy systems. Outdated, obsolete or unsupported IT infrastructure, systems, hardware or processes pose an unacceptable level of risk. Our report found that, without a plan to address legacy systems, the Government’s digital ambitions will struggle to be achieved. The third barrier is vendor lock-in. If significant costs or reductions in functionality are associated with changing vendors, we have vendor lock-in, whereby vendors can hold the Government hostage, raise prices, require additional contracts or reduce performance. The public sector depends on a small number of large digital and technology providers—such as Palantir, Microsoft and Amazon Web Services—and the Government appear to be worryingly comfortable with that. The fourth barrier is lack of technology sovereignty.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are serious data hygiene failures across the public sector. Public bodies hold public data on trust; it needs to meet the highest standards. The fourth is delivery. We need a detailed and measurable plan to ensure the success of the digital transformation agenda. We also identified four barriers to realising the benefits of digital transformation. The first is hype. Both tech companies and the Government are guilty of this. Tech companies hype their solutions, often without reference to the problems, and the Government talk up the impact, such as the supposed £45 billion annual productivity saving from digitalisation. Hype undermines the credibility of the Government’s arguments, confuses and demoralises civil servants, and encourages the belief that over-optimism, rather than achievement and honesty, will be rewarded.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am a tech evangelist; I believe that technology should make the world work better for people, and my Committee welcomes and supports the Government’s ambitions, but our report raised serious concerns about how achievable they are. In our report, we identified four building blocks for successful digital transformation. The first is money. Money always matters, but we found that inadequate data on digital spend prevents the Government from making informed decisions or holding those responsible to account. The second is people. Do we have the right people and skills to deliver digital transformation and cultural change to ensure that skills are valued and embedded in leadership roles? For example, how many permanent secretaries have the digital experience required? The third is information and data security.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you so much, Ms Furniss. I am really grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement on the Science and Technology Committee’s report entitled “Rewiring the state: Delivering digital government” and to discuss the Government response. I place on the record my thanks to the Committee Clerks and specialists who supported this complex inquiry, as well as to all those who gave evidence, in person or in writing. Both the previous Government and the current one have spoken of their ambition to make the UK a truly digital state, transforming citizens’ experiences of the health service, the education and justice systems, and indeed all public services, increasing productivity and efficiency and reducing costs.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is one of the things we think that the Government’s response to our report, in terms of looking to ensure the end of vendor lock-in, should help to promote. On the interface with the public, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the public should not need to be digital experts or super-knowledgeable on AI. The responsibility falls within Government to ensure that people’s data is safe and secure and that the public can trust the Government in handling that data, and to ensure that we have the best digital infrastructure, and transparent providers and suppliers as well.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which go to the heart of the matter: the relationship between the public sector and business, and that between the public sector and the people it is meant to serve. On business, the public sector should be able to call on the support of businesses as they themselves adopt digital products and services. It should be able to include many different businesses, from Northern Ireland to the north-east of England and across the country, rather than being reliant on a small number of often monopolistic providers. That is a point that we make very strongly in our report. It is important that the interface between the Government and business be open and competitive and not be monopolised.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This should be a joint endeavour and ambition, and I was very pleased to meet with the French ambassador yesterday to discuss areas of shared ambition and concern when it comes to technology and its delivery and roll-out. Public trust is dependent on an understanding that the Government share the values of the public, and the public services do as well. Having a European technology offering in open competition with other countries and other offerings is a worthwhile ambition.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and the expertise she brings to this debate, particularly with regard to working with our European allies. I very much agree that we should be working with our European allies on this matter. As I have set out, there are concerns about Palantir, specifically with regard to vendor lock-in, hype and sovereign capability, but that underlines a wider desire for effective competition in the supply of technology. That is competition in terms of the companies and organisations but also the countries that offer the technology; we do not want to be dependent on one country. Europe should develop its own capacity, with companies that can deliver world-leading, excellent services.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Joint Committee for this report. I should declare an interest as the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. I guested on the inquiry, and I share the concerns regarding the potential harms to human rights and support the report’s call for effective principle-based regulation now. Does my hon. Friend agree with me, and with His Holiness the Pope in his “Magnificent Humanity” encyclical, that human rights are for humans, that the anthropomorphising of AI—going as far as ascribing human consciousness and human rights to AI—is an attempt by tech companies to limit their own liability as well as boosting the potential value of their shares?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the Minister to his new role as well as this Government’s emphasis on driving growth through innovation in every region of our country, as recommended by my Committee’s recent report, “Flying Blind”. It was called that because it identified a lack of data and information about the factors that drive growth and how to measure success in our regions and across clusters. The report called for a dashboard. Will the Minister tell me what progress has been made on that dashboard, and has he looked at the Cambridge x Manchester Partnership baseline report, which identified a number of indicators, including company stock, funded count, and disclosed funding by employee band?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“An extraordinary debate is going on right now inside and outside AI companies about whether the possibility of AI destroying humanity is more or less than 10%. The European Union is moving ahead with a comprehensive AI regulatory framework, but the UK continues to rely on existing regulation. What discussions is the Minister having with the European Union about aligning AI regulation, especially given that Anthropic has refused to submit its model to the AI Security Institute? How is he ensuring that we can keep European and UK citizens safe?”
House of Commons10 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome my right hon. Friend to her exciting new role and I welcome her emphasis on the importance of technical and technological education. I am always struck by the energy, intelligence and ambition of the young people I meet across Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, but after 14 years of Tory neglect they have been let down. The attainment gap between young people in the north-east and London is at its highest since records began. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to see how we can address that and ensure that young people in the north-east have the opportunities and the education they deserve?”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need to limit their power with our democratic power to protect our citizens. What better way to do that than by giving people the power to control whether we are being copied by companies looking to make money out of us? There is only one you, Madam Deputy Speaker—we need to keep it that way. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Dame Chi Onwurah, Jess Asato, Rachel Gilmour, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Graeme Downie, Gareth Thomas, Adam Jogee, Sir Roger Gale, Wera Hobhouse, Ayoub Khan, Dame Caroline Dinenage and Siân Berry present the Bill. Dame Chi Onwurah accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 144).”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Pope also highlighted how the billions of online digital twins constitute an unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of a small number of men. Among the many consequences of the 40 years of neoliberalism repeatedly called out by the Prime Minister is a libertarian attitude to technology. We are told that Governments are too slow and too stupid to shape tech, and that the market knows best—the market will ensure the best, most innovative products and services are delivered to the people who need them and keep them safe in the process. I hope that we can all agree now that neolibertarian complacency has not worked. The tech giants are hubs of amazing innovation but, as my Committee has heard, they are controlled by a small number of extremely wealthy men without the usual corporate governance or competitive constraints.”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I place on the record my thanks to the organisations and individuals from across academia and civil society who have contributed to ensuring that the Bill would protect as many people as possible. I am delighted to have the support of Equity, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, 5rights, the Online Safety Network, Professor Ghislaine Boddington from the University of Greenwich and Professor Luke McDonagh from the London School of Economics law school, among many others. I was also influenced by His Holiness Pope Leo’s recent encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas”. He chose protecting the uniqueness of real people from AI impersonation as the subject of his first letter to Catholics around the world.”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My social media feed was absolutely full of adverts showing Andrew Bailey and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) fighting on “Question Time”. There may be good reasons why they disagree, but the fact is that this kind of deepfake harms public trust in media, undermines democratic institutions and can be used by state and non-state actors to foment unrest. Last year, my Select Committee’s report on social media harms and algorithms called for the right to reset algorithms. We also recommended addressing the digital advertising that drives misinformation and for which so much data is collected. This year, my Committee has heard from experts in child development about the impact of digital devices and from the young people themselves.”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the arts, entertainment and tech industries, many performers are agreeing to the creation and use of digital replicas as part of their work—think of ABBA Voyage. But performers increasingly encounter unauthorised digital replicas of themselves, which pose a threat to their career, livelihood and reputation. There is no clear and reliable means of controlling and licensing likeness. Instead, performers must piece together a degree of protection from existing frameworks, all of which are uncertain and ill-suited. For those in the arts industry, the trade union Equity would like to see a contractual requirement. My Bill does not go that far, but it would establish the principle that someone cannot be impersonated. The current regulatory framework also does not address deepfake misinformation.”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Since then, deepfakes have proliferated. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) was shown crossing the Floor in Parliament to join Reform, to his constituents’ consternation and his own—it was a fake. Then there were the horrendous photos of naked women and girls that Elon Musk’s AI created on demand. I want to place on the record my thanks to the Government for taking action on that so quickly, but deepfakes in general are not illegal. My Bill would ensure that malicious deepfakes are tackled by protecting each of us from someone digitally replicating and altering our likeness without our consent. I want to be clear that this Bill does not ban digital twins; it simply requires that the actual human being who is being copied has to consent.”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The automated version of our kids will grow with them, using the power of AI to target advertising and products at them, and worse. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has heard about some of the tragic consequences of online grooming by algorithms and chatbots—a vulnerable boy persuaded to kill himself; a vulnerable girl fed more and more extreme dieting advice; children hooked and reeled into extreme behaviours and views. My Bill would expressly protect children from digital twinning. It is not possible for a child to meaningfully consent to the creation or use of a digital twin of themselves, and parental consent cannot provide a substitute for this. His Holiness Pope Francis was the subject of one of the very first deepfake memes when a fake photo of him in a puffer jacket went viral.”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But this stealth digital twinning violates the integrity, uniqueness and very personhood of our constituents and of all of us. Digital twins can take many forms, from content creation algorithms and deepfakes to chatbots that reflect aspects of our personalities back at us. It is particularly worrying when children are the target. These days, kids are exposed to tech literally from the cradle—an AI camera in their cot, a smart toy on their pillow, chatbots that listen to what they say, smartphones teeming with apps to track their every move. Imagine if your child had a stranger who wanted to make money out of them, following them around continuously from birth with a clipboard noting everything they say and do, what they smile at, what they frown at, what makes them angry, because that is what is happening.”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Think about it: who is best able to persuade someone to do or say something, if not an automated version of themselves? When tech platforms have processed every action that we make and applied AI to it, that is what they have. It is called a digital twin and this Bill will require explicit consent before digital twins of individuals can be made. In recognition of both the speed of technological change and the inventiveness of lawyers, the Bill will use a technology-agnostic definition to capture a range of technologies that may be used to create digital twins. I may on occasion have mentioned that I am an engineer. I also want to put on the record that I am a tech evangelist—I believe tech can and should make life better for everyone.”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regulation of software or algorithms which use or hold personal data for the purpose of modelling the preferences or behaviours of a person; to make provision about the rights of individuals in respect of the holding and use of their personal data by such software or algorithms; and for connected purposes. We know that tech companies collect data on everything that we do—every click we make, every photo we share, every sandwich we buy and every post we like. But now that data is being combined with AI to turn an individual—you, for example, Madam Deputy Speaker—into an algorithm to predict your behaviour, to target advertising at you and to persuade you to watch a particular video or believe a dodgy news report.”
House of Commons9 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My Select Committee’s report “Science diplomacy: Sovereignty, strategy and the global race” highlighted the risk of the UK being cut off from frontier AI models at the whim of other countries—one country in particular comes to mind. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact on the UK’s society and economy if we were unable to access those models?”
House of Commons3 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Businesses and individuals are increasingly discovering the advantages of living and working in the north-east—and no doubt the north-west, too—but unreliable train wi-fi means that journeys to the regions are too often dead time. I know that the Government are investing in technology to improve wi-fi services, but can the Minister tell me when we will see reliable wi-fi on LNER services, so that the whole nation’s productivity can be improved?”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is right that an investigation into these allegations has been confirmed, and I welcome reassurances that the grid remains stable. As an electrical engineer, I have always been in awe of the work of our grid, and of the challenges it faces: climate change, electrification, the demands of renewables and AI, and cyber-attacks. Could the Minister set out what steps the previous Government took during their 14-year tenure to invest in a more resilient grid, and what steps this Government have taken?”
House of Commons15 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his work with disability groups as part of the review. As I saw during the APPG on disability roundtable and at the roundtable in Newcastle that I organised, the lived experience of those affected by disability must drive the reform of the disability benefit system. The report highlights that that lived experience is also shaped by the misinformation, disinformation and confusion around disability benefits as part of the wider public debate, which can lead to the demonisation of those with disabilities. It can also lead to unrealistic assumptions and expectations in communities more broadly. What can he do as part of his review to address that misinformation, disinformation and confusion, and ensure a stronger, more rigorous and better evidenced public debate?”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Finally, on research security, and with the recent Biobank leak in mind, our report calls for stronger research security guidance, improved information sharing between Government and institutions such as universities, and a cross-Government plan to develop a sustainable domestic skills pipeline in critical scientific and technological fields. The UK’s excellence in research and innovation is a distinct strategic advantage. To sustain it, we urge the Government to outline a science diplomacy strategy. Through such a strategy, we can ensure that science diplomacy remains a driver of progress, as well as a pillar of soft power.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On strategy, we call on the Government to publish a coherent science diplomacy strategy, with clear criteria for decisions on science partnerships, and with explicit strategies for engagement with the US and the EU, Commonwealth partners, other middle powers and competitors such as Russia and China. On sovereignty, the Government should define what “technological sovereignty” means when it comes to critical technologies and particularly AI, identify key dependencies in supply chains, and use that analysis to guide investment and procurement decisions. To support innovation, we recommend improving scale-up capital, expanding specialist investment funds and using public procurement more strategically to help UK technology firms grow.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Too many UK-developed technologies are forced to look abroad to scale. The private sector needs clearer investment signals. Yesterday at the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s evidence session, the Secretary of State emphasised frontier models, computer chips and compute as parts of the AI tech stacks that she would like to have sovereign capability in. We need more clarity like that. To finish, we have four areas of recommendation. On global policy, our report calls on the Government to strengthen the UK’s international science and technology position through a clearer strategy, greater investment and improved resilience.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government must reflect on this when considering our ambitions for secure sovereign capability. Although the own-collaborate-access framework provides a useful foundation for prioritising the UK’s approaches to critical technology, it is applied at too high a level to actually influence and guide decision making. There are so many definitions of “sovereignty” circulating. That impedes our ability to give our international stakeholders clear signals, and prevents businesses from getting the signals that they need to apply their resources—skills, investment, research and development—to the technologies that the Government will procure on a sovereign basis. The UK is highly successful at generating world-leading research and innovation, but less so in turning that strength into the growth of high-tech domestic companies.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For the six frontier technologies in the digital and technologies sector plan, and for space, the Government should bring forward detailed cross-governmental strategies, accompanied by clear delivery plans. The forthcoming plan for space provides an important opportunity to do that. The report also describes the Government’s approach to international scientific agreements and science diplomacy as “opportunistic”. Thirdly, we found that in a geopolitical landscape that, as I said, has been turned upside down, the UK is in a global race for sovereign capability, whether it acknowledges it or not. The US’s decision to ban foreigners’ access to Anthropic’s most powerful artificial intelligence models was a watershed moment that proved—to mix metaphors, perhaps—that there is actually a kill switch.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although the global nature of the pharmaceuticals sector means that trade negotiations will inevitably have an impact on it, surely decisions about NHS spending, pricing and access to medicines should primarily be driven by the needs of UK patients, and balanced with the sustainability of the life sciences sector. Our second key finding was that there is a lack of overarching strategy. Witnesses consistently cited the strengths of the UK’s research base. Though we have less than 1% of the worldwide population, we have 6% of global publications and receive one 12th of global citations. We found that the Government have not articulated a coherent strategic framework for science diplomacy, despite those strengths. Such a framework should set out priority partners and technologies, and the intended outcomes of partnerships.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As of June this year, just 18 researchers had been announced as taking up new roles through the fund. That is not going to move any dials. Secondly, while the Committee recognises that overseas development assistance spending has been reduced to allow the defence budget to be increased, our report highlights the short-sighted nature of some of the cuts that followed, and the impact on ODA for research and development. Thirdly, the UK-US pharmaceutical agreement has secured benefits—notably, exemptions from tariffs—but it also appears to have involved significant commitments affecting core elements of UK domestic policy.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the topic is so broad, we chose to look at the issues through three lenses: health and life sciences, quantum, and space. We also chose to focus on the UK Government’s strategy for science diplomacy, and its implications for sovereignty and research security, as part of the wider topic. First of all, we found that the UK has failed to adapt to the pace of geopolitics. The geopolitical landscape has been turned upside down in recent years. Alongside rapid technological advancement, this has made science diplomacy more important than ever. I will give three quick examples to illustrate this. First, the global talent fund was the UK’s attempt to capitalise on the US retreat from science funding, but as it does not address the huge up-front costs faced by researchers, it is unlikely to have the impact that the Government desired.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In chairing this inquiry, I have learned much about the essential work of our diplomatic service and the international work of so many organisations and institutions, from the Royal Society to our armed forces. I thank them for their contribution. We found—the football analogy I am about to use was in the report even before England’s amazing win over Mexico—that the UK is in the premier league when it comes to scientific strengths and our global diplomatic network, but we do not know where we stand when it comes to science diplomacy. We launched our inquiry in April last year to examine how the UK Government should leverage scientific research and innovation to support its diplomatic goals, growth missions and national security. We held five public sessions and received over 50 written submissions.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on our report, “Science diplomacy: Sovereignty, strategy and the global race”. I am pleased to see members of the Committee in the Chamber. I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee Clerks and specialists who have supported this inquiry, as well as the many witnesses who gave evidence. I may have mentioned before that I am proud to be a chartered engineer with over 20 years of experience in industry, and for 16 years, I have been an engineer in the House, but as my friends, family and perhaps too many of my colleagues will attest, I am not a diplomat.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think China and Russia probably know our weaknesses quite well, and it is our tech start-ups and our great businesses and scale-ups that need to better understand our intended strengths, so that they can support them.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is one of the thrusts of the report that we need greater clarity on sovereignty. This is not an academic debate—we do not need philosophical discussions on what sovereignty may or may not mean—but as the shadow Minister indicated, on tech stacks, particular technologies and their supply chains, we need to understand what we are trying to achieve, so that business, academia and Government, and particularly Government procurement, can move in that direction. It is interesting, because it was almost implicit that we did not want to say where we were looking for sovereignty, or where we did not have it, as that might alert our competitors to weaknesses.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend highlights an important point in the report on investment and access to it, particularly for sovereign capabilities. That may be for what we call deep tech, which is tech that requires a long-term investment and that will not yield a return tomorrow, or even next year. We recommend supporting the setting up of funds that are dedicated to that, because it takes particular skills and particular access to investment vehicles to support that kind of long-term funding.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This issue is also important when it comes to negotiations on space debris and all sorts of matters, and it relates to planning permission and domestic issues as well. My hon. Friend is certainly right to advocate for greater clarity on the responsibilities for space.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend and Select Committee Chair for that excellent question, and congratulate Scotland on the proposed launch. The Committee chose space as one of the lenses through which to look at science diplomacy and all the issues associated with it. Though we did not recommend a Minister for space per se, evidence to the Committee highlighted the confusion about where the responsibility for space lies. Space is increasingly important in defence, and it is an area in which we already see covert, and sometimes explicit, conflict. There is a huge defence programme to consider. It is economically incredibly important as well; we see the role of Starlink and other private sector providers in Ukraine in supporting communications, and the roll-out here.”
House of Commons9 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗