Dame Chi Onwurah
MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West · Labour · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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…”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,139 lines we hold for Dame Chi Onwurah, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 103.
“I thank the hon. Gentleman—a fellow engineer—for allowing this intervention. As the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee—a number of fantastic Committee members are here—I would like to say that we have already looked at some of the challenges that AI presents to our regulatory infrastructure and our Government. Last week, we heard from the Secretary of State, who assured us that where there is a legislative need, she will bring forward legislation to address the threats posed by AI, although she did not commit to an AI Bill. We are determined to continue to hold her to account on that commitment.”
“Each of the Select Committees is looking at AI, including the Defence Committee, which has looked at AI in defence. AI impacts every single Department and security on cross-governmental issues. Although we are not talking about the process of scrutiny, we all agree that scrutiny is important.”
“There are many who seek the right and the ability to identify themselves, but who do not have it as it stands. We all have constituents who are experiencing that. My Committee has seen evidence that the figure cited by the hon. Gentleman is not recognised by the Secretary of State; it has been put forward by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Secretary of State will be writing to us to set out what costs she envisages and when they will be realised. It is also important to recognise that the level of digital hygiene across Government is not such that it could support a mandatory digital ID scheme, in my view.”
“The north-east has perhaps the strongest sense of regional identity in the country, and it benefits immensely from the brilliant Labour mayor, Kim McGuinness, who has the devolved powers and funding to make a real difference to the lives of the people in the north-east. I know that the Minister is working hard to devolve more powers and, critically, more funding. Does she agree it is critical that that sense of identity, the strong institutions, the funding and the powers are in place in order for mayors to be successful?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that response. My constituents expect me to spend their money and my time addressing their issues, not trying to manage an inbox flooded with lobbyist spam and by Russian and Chinese bots. Microsoft Copilot asks me if I want help writing emails to my constituents—I do not—but will not help me manage my inbox, despite repeated requests. Can my hon. Friend say whether this House is paying more money for Copilot functionality that we are not using, and if and when Microsoft Copilot will address the issues that I and other MPs face, rather than the ones that Microsoft thinks we should have?”
“Finally, the decision to scrap the two-child limit will change for the better the lives of 4,960 children in my constituency alone and put almost £7 million back in the pockets of local families. It is an honour and a privilege to support a Labour Chancellor delivering a Labour Budget in the interests of every region and of every working person in this country.”
“The last Government’s record on social justice stained our nation, with children growing up in households where heating and eating were daily sources of stress. Cutting £150 from the average household energy bill, extending the warm home discount to a further 3 million of the poorest households, expanding free school meals and breakfast clubs and improving nutrition will make a real difference to young lives and cut the cost of living for my constituents. The Chancellor’s high-value council tax surcharge will also go some way to righting the ridiculous situation of a family in a band D home in Newcastle paying more council tax than someone in a £10 million property in Westminster.”
“I am also excited by the Budget measures to support innovative businesses to grow and investors to invest beyond the start-up phase. My Committee’s inquiry into regional innovation and growth heard wide-ranging evidence that disparities in investment, access to capital, skills, infrastructure and integration of universities and local economies all need to be addressed if we are to ensure that our regions benefit from Britain’s scientific strengths. Unfortunately, the inquiry also revealed an enduring complacency and lack of regional focus in many Whitehall Departments. I urge the Chancellor to go further to address the barriers to regional growth, and I particularly echo the hope of our regional mayor, Kim McGuinness, to see more infrastructure investments in the coming months.”
“If we could just lift the north-east’s per capita GDP to the national average, it would increase UK GDP by over 1%, which is almost the same GDP growth as we had for the entire country in 2024. That is why the Chancellor chose to turn her back on Conservative austerity and make the tough decisions necessary to invest. Let me focus on just two areas, science and social justice, which are the twin passions of my personal politics. As a Geordie and as Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I am delighted to see the new £30 million facility in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), which will accelerate the development of novel RNA—ribonucleic acid—therapies from labs to market to tackle cancer, heart conditions and infectious diseases.”
“Despite having world-leading companies and research institutions, the north-east now has the lowest GDP per head in the UK, at £28,000. Every region in the country is below the national average of £39,000, except the south-east at £41,000 and London at a whopping £69,000. The Conservatives responded to the global financial crisis with the economic equivalent of leeches, with sustained austerity resulting in the slow strangulation of the economy and my constituents’ wages. Annual earnings for full-time employees in the north-east fell during that time and, despite Tory talk of levelling up, we see the same regional disparities in labour productivity, which is also, indirectly, a measure of capital investment, both physical and human.”
“It is like some Westminster edition of “The Bourne Identity” without Matt Damon—well, perhaps the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), thinks he is Matt Damon—but with a whole political party that wakes up not knowing where it has been for the past 15 years. But the north remembers, and particularly the north-east. We are a great and vibrant region, and the engine of the industrial revolution. It was growing up in Newcastle, surrounded by the legacy of great Geordie engineers and inventors, in a culture that championed making and building things, that inspired me to become an engineer. But the wealth created by our region’s industrious workforce has not been enjoyed by us.”
“Had our productivity grown at the same rate as media speculation, the UK would have been in a much stronger fiscal position ahead of the Budget. All the more credit is due, then, to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for delivering a Budget for working people, lifting children out of poverty and equipping our economy to grow, at the same time as delivering a master class at the Dispatch Box. There was another performance that was, well, magical in its way: that of the Conservative Members. They have managed to forget their economic vandalism, their fiscal incompetence and their social sabotage, and pretend that the UK’s economic situation is nothing to do with them, even as the OBR downgraded its productivity forecasts to reflect their past productivity failures.”
“T4. The north-east is a vital hub for clean energy supply chains, and my constituents in oil and gas want to be part of that transition, but years of under-investment by the Tories mean that many North sea ports cannot host modern turbine manufacturing. As the Government prepare their plan for the future of the north-east, will the Minister consider infrastructure investment to enable communities and workers in the north-east to better benefit from clean energy jobs?”
“My right hon. Friend is right to seek to bring order to the chaos at our borders—chaos instituted by the Tories—which undermines trust in our state and imposes such costs on communities. She is also right to address the pull factors that lure migrants to their deaths in our channel, with claims of cushy lives in five-star hotels. She is right to insist that our proposals must reflect British values and work in practice. On that, will she say a bit more about how reviewing refugee status every two years will work in practice, particularly in regard to Home Office capacity and in regard to integration?”
“The Minister says that the Government are looking deeply into this issue, but as part of my Committee’s inquiry into misinformation and algorithms, we heard conflicting evidence from Ministers and Ofcom as to whether generative artificial intelligence is covered by the Online Safety Act. The Government have refused to implement our call for legislation to bring generative AI under the same categorisation as other high-risk services. Under what circumstances is chatbot advice covered by the Online Safety Act, and will there be enforcement?”
“Under 14 years of Tory misrule, workers in the north-east saw their average annual earnings fall, causing a cost of living crisis for families across the region. We have fantastic, passionate and productive workers. Will the Minister promise to continue to turn back on Tory failure by investing in the industry of the north-east to deliver high-wage, high-quality jobs as part of a Budget for working people?”
“The ceasefire has been one of the few positive achievements in what has been an unending tale of misery, violence, and horrific suffering, and all those involved in achieving that ceasefire deserve the gratitude and recognition that has been received. Now as Israel continues to kill Gazan children, and Hamas refuse to disarm, will the Minister reassure us that everyone involved in achieving a ceasefire in the US, the UK, and the middle east is equally concentrated and focused on keeping the peace and making the ceasefire work as a beginning of a peace process? Can he further reassure us, given our recognition of Palestine, that the Palestinian voice will be heard?”
“I have visited the hotel in Newcastle where up to 400 asylum seekers are living. I have listened to local community concerns. I have spoken to the asylum seekers, the hotel owners, the programme managers, the police, and local stakeholders. It is clear that the policy of housing asylum seekers in hotel accommodation, instituted by the last Government, is failing everybody concerned, except for possibly the private providers profiting from the contracts. Newcastle city council is in discussions with the Home Office about alternative models for accommodation that better meet the needs of the city and of asylum seekers. Can the Minister tell us how those discussions are going and when we can expect to see progress?”
“As the Minister said, the life sciences are a strength of our country—they are often described as a jewel in the crown of the British economy—and we all know that success in life sciences leads to positive, wide-reaching benefits across the country for the economy and our health.”
“Labour published its plan for life sciences in opposition, which included 10-year funding commitments for key research bodies aimed at putting an end to the short-termism that undermines economic growth and scientific success. Now in government, I welcome Labour’s commitment to the life sciences sector plan—developed in close co-ordination with the Government’s 10-year health plan—which aims to support cutting-edge research and turn that into real-world results, with new treatments, faster diagnoses and more lives saved. It is about making sure that breakthroughs happen here in this country, creating jobs, improving lives in every part of the country and driving growth.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak to you on this occasion to welcome the ambition behind the life sciences innovation manufacturing fund and, indeed, the Government’s positive support for life sciences, with their belief that Government can act to support industry in general; it is not simply a matter of getting out of the way. That is in sharp contrast to the last Conservative Government’s approach to industry, allowing a gentle decline and deindustrialisation in our nation. To be fair, the series of Conservative Governments chopped and changed their approach to industrial strategy so often it was difficult to know exactly where they stood. Unlike them, Labour is committed to the life sciences sector.”
“We heard evidence that the UK spends less proportionately on medicines than other comparable countries and that that reduces the pull-through for innovative medicines. It would clearly be a difficult decision to spend more on medicines, as that would mean spending less elsewhere in our NHS. Does the Minister see the manufacturing fund as support in some way for investment decisions in the absence of progress on the NHS pricing discussions? Could he tell us whether the Secretary of State is involved in discussions between the Health Secretary and the pharma sector with regard to NHS pricing? I understand that discussions are ongoing, and I see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), conferring with him. Perhaps he can confirm that those discussions are ongoing.”
“Is £520 million enough to ensure that the UK is an attractive prospect for internationally mobile businesses? By contrast, a manufacturing plant such as Moderna’s recently opened vaccine centre in Oxfordshire might cost in the region of £150 million to £200 million. Is the fund the right size? Secondly, the Select Committee recently held a one-off session on life sciences investment, which was of such interest that we have decided to hold another one-off session next week on the same subject. We heard evidence from the pharma sector, including significant support for the life sciences sector plan and for the Government’s approach, but I think it is fair to say that we were told that, although NHS pricing is not the only factor in investment decisions, it is a significant one.”
“In Newcastle, including in my constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, the life sciences contribute £1.7 billion and employ over 8,000 people across more than 200 companies. We are home to the National Innovation Centre for Ageing, Newcastle Helix and The Biosphere. Our city is one star in a constellation of excellent life sciences clusters across the north of England. I really welcome the ambition of the innovation manufacturing fund. I ask the Minister in his response for more clarity in three particular areas. First, in regard to the size of the fund, in the face of increased competition, and as the shadow Secretary of State described—this will be in less sensationalist terms—we are seeing some reduction in investment in the UK.”
“Let me thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which pre-empts something I will say in a few minutes. She is absolutely right: Northern Ireland already plays an important role in the life sciences sector and life sciences manufacturing, and it will have an important role to play in the future. It is an incredibly exciting time to be involved in life sciences. I often think that if I were a young engineer now—I studied electrical engineering—I would be fascinated by the life sciences and, in particular, synthetic biology, which offers so many potential opportunities for growth and wellbeing. It is an enabling technology across so many different sectors.”
“I ask the Minister to give us an update on those negotiations to the extent that he is able to do so, and to say whether this manufacturing fund is seen as potential compensation for investment in medicines and pricing as part of the NHS future plan.”
“I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The Committee’s work is fascinating, so I certainly recommend he read the transcript. To summarise, we were looking specifically at the reasons for investment being pulled and, as I said, we asked the question in a number of different ways. The message that came back was significant support for the life sciences sector plan and the Government approach, but lack of certainty and clarity over NHS pricing and dismay about some aspects of NHS pricing and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decisions. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right to point out that there was concern over the current and likely future pricing of innovative medicines, but that was not the only factor in those investment decisions.”
“I hope that the extent to which the funds are regionally distributed will be monitored, but does he expect that this funding will be distributed across the country to drive growth in every corner of the country as he said, and that it will not perpetuate existing regional inequalities?”
“That brings me to the final question I want to put to the Minister, which is on the regional impact of the fund. The Minister mentioned on a number of occasions that the fund will drive investment and growth across our country. As part of the Committee’s inquiry into innovation and regional growth, we heard of significant disparities in investment, particularly in access to capital and research funding from UK Research and Innovation and in funding and investment between the regions of our country and the greater south-east, otherwise known as the golden triangle. Manufacturing is well distributed across the United Kingdom; we heard earlier about the opportunities in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell me whether there will be a regional dimension to how the funds are disbursed?”
“My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. My Committee has looked at some of the reasons for investments, such as those he sets out, and it is worth emphasising the strengths of the UK, some of which I have mentioned. We have a really strong life sciences sector, and specifically skills at every stage in the UK life sciences ecosystem, together with R&D tax credits, which is another point of incentivisation, and the fact that our NHS offers a fantastic opportunity to test and trial new medicines with a population that is heterogeneous and with population data records that are second to none. So there are many reasons why pharma and life sciences companies are continuing to invest in our country, and we have a fantastic ecosystem of life sciences start-ups and scale-ups.”
“The Secretary of State is absolutely right to champion access to a consistent, trusted digital ID. All of us online have digital IDs aplenty already—Facebook, TikTok, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Tesco—so she is right to bring the benefits of one digital ID to my constituents. But making digital ID mandatory for everyone seeking work is poking a stick in the eye of all those with security, privacy and/or Government capacity concerns, which my Committee will be examining as part of our work on digital government. For now, though, can she first confirm that people will be in control of their digital ID data and who accesses it? Secondly, will she say whether it will be procured externally from the private sector or developed in-house by Government digital services?”
“Could the Minister update us on how, and how quickly, he plans to revise that plan?”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate. This year, in June alone, 28 people in the north-east were left with cases of botulism from botched and unregulated botox injections. That is one of the reasons why the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which I chair, will be holding an inquiry later this year into hair products and unregulated beauty procedures. We follow this debate with interest.”
“I welcome the Minister to his place, but I wish it was under better circumstances. The loss of Merck’s investment, following the loss of AstraZeneca’s investment in January, will certainly be perceived as a blow to the UK’s life sciences sector, though we must not forget the amazing work that businesses, start-ups and researchers do in constituencies across the country, including my own. We also must not forget the importance of value for money in NHS spending. The Select Committee will hold an urgent session on Tuesday to examine the issues in the life sciences sector, including tariffs, investment incentives from the US, access to capital and the relationship with NHS pricing. In the meantime, it is clear that the life sciences sector plan, published in July, does not reflect market conditions.”
“My hon. Friend is making an excellent introductory speech on regional inequalities in transport. Buses are incredibly important in my constituency, and they need not only investment but support. Newcastle is yet to receive real-time bus information of the type that has been enjoyed in London for more than a decade, which makes transport more reliable and therefore more used. Does she agree that we need to ensure that the technology that supports these important services is also more equally distributed across the country?”
“I thank the outgoing ministerial team for their engagement as I congratulate the new team on succeeding to this important and inspiring brief. The Government are committed to transforming public services through the adoption of new technologies. At the June spending review, Departments published their plans to deploy technologies to achieve efficiencies, but we are yet to see the detailed and fully funded road map for delivery promised by DSIT for this summer. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing a road map that sets out what will be delivered, who will deliver it and by when, and how much it will cost, before her appearance before my Committee as part of our digital centre of government inquiry in November?”
“Will the Minister confirm my understanding that neither JLR nor Marks & Spencer are deemed to be providers of essential services under cyber legislation, and are therefore not required to meet the highest levels of cyber-security and reporting requirements? If that is the case, will that change under the new cyber-security and resilience Bill, which he mentioned? If not, how will he improve cyber-resilience in our industry and society without such measures?”
“I congratulate the Minister on his new role. I am sorry that we never had the opportunity to welcome him to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee when he was at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but I believe I see the new artificial intelligence and cyber Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), sitting on the Front Bench, and I look forward to welcoming and congratulating him. The devastating JLR cyber-attack is one of a series of cyber-attacks that have been wreaking havoc on British businesses and consumers and undermining public confidence.”
“I welcome the Government’s commitment to support for Ukraine, to our security and to our regional economies. The north-east sends proportionately more of its young people into the armed forces than any other region in the country, yet the Ministry of Defence spends less with our businesses and industries than it does with any other region, despite our fantastic, high-value advanced manufacturing. It appears that we have not been offered a defence growth deal, so will the Minister meet me and stakeholders to address this question urgently? My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) had agreed to do so; will he make that commitment?”
“I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate, which has clearly raised concerns across the country. It is clear that pavements should be for pedestrians to walk on safely. That benefits businesses and local authorities. However, many streets were designed in an era when we did not have two or three-car families. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to ensure that, as well as consistent regulation, we have good public transport so that we have better use of that and less dependency on cars?”
“Yesterday I had a lovely swim in the North sea off Bamburgh castle, and I would like to thank the Safer Seas and Rivers Service for telling me which beaches to avoid due to sewage spills by Northumbrian Water. Not all my constituents swim, but they all tell me that the current situation is disgraceful. They will not be reading a 500-page report, so could the Secretary of State explain to them whether it is: a) their fault for not accepting higher bills, as Tory former Ministers and Water UK say; b) the water companies’ fault for extracting so much more value—in the shape of dividend and bonus payments and loading the companies with debt—than they put into them; or c) because water is a natural monopoly and incredibly difficult to regulate effectively in the private sector? Or is it both b) and c)?”
“I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement with other Foreign Ministers, urging Israel to agree to a ceasefire and humanitarian aid. I say to my right hon. Friend, who I know is entirely sincere, that Members—and, indeed, the British people—have heard urgings, demands and outrage in this Chamber, yet the situation only gets worse, with more and more Palestinians dying, each life of incalculable value. In my Adjournment debate in April, I asked what more we could do to help the Palestinian people. When the Minister responded last week, he made some useful clarifications, including that Israeli settlement goods should be labelled so that British people can decide what they are spending their money on. When it comes to the actions of the UK Government, however, I have to ask my right hon. Friend: is this it?”
“On Friday, the Select Committee on Science, Innovation and Technology published its report on social media algorithms, following the Southport riots. Indeed, there is a Select Committee statement on the report this afternoon. Stakeholders have expressed concern that ongoing trade negotiations with the United States might prevent the Government from responding to the report’s recommendations, holding social media companies to account and keeping the public safe online. Can the Minister reassure us that that is not the case?”
“I thank the Secretary of State for this statement and for expressing his, and indeed this House’s, unwavering commitment to the Ukrainian people against Putin’s illegal war. I welcome the 50,000 drones that the UK has sent to Ukraine and express my admiration for the Ukrainian people, who are fighting on behalf of all of us. No one predicted the role of drones in this conflict and the astounding speed of the evolution of that technology in Ukraine, but also in Russia and China. What steps is the Secretary of State taking with our allies to ensure that we maintain or develop technological advantage in key defence capabilities and get it to the frontline?”
“We urge the Government to acknowledge that the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose; to adopt these five principles to build a stronger, future-proof online safety regime, with clear, enforceable standards for social media platforms; and to implement our recommendations. Without action, it is only a matter of time before we face another crisis like the Southport riots, or even worse.”
“The technology used by social media companies, including recommendation algorithms and generative AI, should be transparent, accessible and explainable to public authorities. Transparency is needed for participants in the digital advertising market. Basically, if we cannot explain it, we cannot understand the harm it may do. I am a tech evangelist: I believe that technology, like politics, is an engine of progress, but that does not mean we have to accept it as it is. Our report sets out detailed recommendations to ensure that we do not have a repeat of the violent and harmful riots last year.”
“That may sound obvious—indeed, it is not the first time that a Select Committee has said this—yet widespread uncertainty remains as to whether platforms have a responsibility for the legal content that they host and distribute. The report recommends that platforms be obliged to undertake risk assessments and report on content that is legal but harmful. New regulatory oversight, clear and enforceable standards and proportionate penalties are needed to cover the process of digital advertising. Our fourth principle is control. Critically, users should have control over both their personal data and what they see online. We recommend that users have a right to reset the data used by platform recommendation algorithms. Our fifth and final principle is transparency.”
“As a consequence, platforms should be compelled to demote fact-checked misinformation and establish processes to take more stringent measures during crises. We propose that the Government carry out research into how platforms should tackle misinformation and how far recommendation algorithms spread harm. Furthermore, all AI content should be visibly labelled. Our second principle is free and safe expression. Steps to tackle amplified misinformation should be in line with the fundamental right to free expression, and measures to meet misinformation must align with that right. Our third principle is responsibility. Users should be held liable for what they post online, but the platforms on which they post are also responsible and should be held accountable for the impact of the amplification of harmful content.”
“We were met with confusion and contradiction at high levels, and it became evident that the UK’s online safety regime has some major holes. After four public sessions, more than 80 written submissions and extensive deliberations, our findings are clear: the British people are not adequately protected from online harms. We have identified five key principles that we believe are crucial for the regulation of social media and related technologies and drive our recommendations to Government. Our first principle is public safety. Algorithmically enhanced misinformation is a danger that companies, Government, law enforcement and security services need to work together to address. That is basically saying that misinformation is harmful, which may sound obvious, but it has not been recognised as such.”
“Social media has made many important and positive contributions, helping to democratise access to a public voice and connect people far and wide. It also has significant risks. The advertisement-based business models of most social media companies mean that they promote engaging content, often regardless of its authenticity. That spills out across the entire internet via the unclear, under-regulated digital advertising market, incentivising the creation of content that will perform well on social media, as we saw during the 2024 unrest. This is not just a social media problem; it is a systemic issue that promotes harmful content and undermines public trust. Our concerns were exacerbated when we questioned representatives of regulators and the Government.”