Chi Onwurah MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  As so many parents know, and as my Committee’s ongoing inquiry into digital childhood has highlighted, British children have been the subjects of a malign mass experiment designed purely to optimise corporate profits, resulting in horrifying—though largely unmeasured—harms at an individual and population level. Successive Governments have been too ignorant, too ideological, or too in hock to big tech to act, so the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on taking action. However, my right hon. Friend knows that a ban is riddled with problems, including workarounds such as virtual private networks and services such as generative AI and WhatsApp not being included, with new ones popping up regularly. It does nothing to address the organised acceleration of misinformation, which harms our children and whose consequences we saw on the streets of Belfast. As such, can I urge the Secretary of State to revisit my Committee’s 2025 report and to go after the advertising-driven business model that incentivises these harms and is largely unregulated, and also to impose transparency requirements so that we understand the challenge we face?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps he is taking to help reduce energy bills in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West constituency.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  In the local elections, Reform told my constituents, who are worried about rising fuel bills, that drilling new wells in the North sea would bring down energy prices. Will the Secretary of State explain how long it would take for the oil to flow if we permitted drilling new wells tomorrow, who would benefit the most from that oil, and how that would bring down prices at the pumps or energy bills in Newcastle? Given that, I suspect, big oil companies would benefit the most, is he surprised that 70% of Reform’s funding comes from fuel investors?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position. On Wednesday, my Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will publish our report on the Government’s digital ambitions. My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that we will be raising serious concerns about data management, data hygiene and vendor lock-in. Many projects such as the single patient record have failed over the last 20 years. Will he confirm to me that he will ensure that patients can control when and how their data is seen, that he will be building on existing records such as the great north care record, and that this will be treated as critical national and sovereign infrastructure, not subject to capture by a single provider such as Palantir?

• 20 May 2026 · Child Protection Online · Hansard source

  More

  The original sin underpinning many of today’s digital harms is engagement-driven digital advertising. That is what incentivised the platforms to hook young people on infinite scrolling, as members of FlippGen explained to me when I met them on Monday. It is also what drives the “London is broken” misinformation that Sadiq Khan highlighted, and what rewards the fabricated clickbait AI Auschwitz images called out by the Auschwitz Museum. Will the Secretary of State take steps to regulate digital advertising, as the Committee called for in its report published almost a year ago?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition, who is no longer in her place, said that 1.5 million extra people were on universal credit. She will know that this is a deeply misleading number, because it is largely a consequence of the transition from legacy systems to universal credit—her background is in IT, so she should know how it works. In fact, more people are in work now than under the Tories, so given—

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I applaud the Government’s move to use the £400 billion of public procurement—almost one eighth of British GDP—in the interests of the British people and the British economy. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has often heard that a Government contract is worth more than a Government grant to the start-ups and spin-outs that are so important to our economy. Will the Minister confirm that this approach will be joined up with our strategy for sovereign capability, so that we do not find ourselves once again in the position where the Ministry of Defence awards a contract without competition to a large US artificial intelligence company, as happened with Palantir, when there are UK companies that are desperate for that kind of investment?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Neuroscience and Digital Childhoods · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship for the very first time, Ms Butler. As you know very well, digital technology is no longer simply a tool or a luxury plaything; it is a foundational part of our way of life here in Britain, like the electricity that powers our kettles or indeed the very air we breathe. Part of the environment in which our children grow, learn, play and communicate, it shapes how the next generation interacts with the world. However, like the air we breathe, digital technologies can be polluted. I am, as I may have mentioned at times, an engineer and a tech evangelist. I champion the benefits that these technologies bring, but I also recognise the profound concerns that they raise for children’s physical and mental health, as well as for their cognitive development. That is why the Select Committee for Science, Innovation and Technology is undertaking an inquiry to examine neuroscience and digital childhoods, and I am glad to see members of the Committee present. We want to move beyond the surface-level debate to ask the difficult scientific questions about what is happening inside young minds and the developing brain. The inquiry will build on previous evidence gathering. Last year, as part of our investigation into social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms, we went deep into the workings of the platform companies, particularly the business models that drive their social media operations. Meta’s market capitalisation is about equal to the entire UK public sector budget. With such financial power driving content into children’s lives, it is vital that we understand what drives those companies. Social media companies rely on advertising-based business models, where clicks and likes matter most. As a result, they are designed to push content that drives engagement to the point of addiction, often without sufficient regard for whether that content is accurate or trustworthy. The digital advertising that incentivises recommendation algorithms is under-regulated and highly concentrated, with Facebook and Google the dominant players. They encourage the creation of material built to perform on social media above all else, and that includes misinformation and disinformation. As part of that inquiry, we identified five key principles essential for public trust: public safety, free and safe expression, platform responsibility, user control and transparency. Although the Government accepted all our conclusions, they rejected all our recommendations, such as better regulation of how algorithms rank, recommend and amplify content, better regulation of digital advertising, the inclusion of artificial intelligence in the Online Safety Act 2023 and a right to reset. Had they been implemented, some of the harms we now face would have been at least partially addressed. In March this year the Committee held a one-off session to investigate the proposals for social media age restrictions. We took evidence from clinicians, experts in social media on both sides of the debate, bereaved family members, representatives of those with direct experience of harms and those monitoring the early implementation of the age restrictions brought in in Australia. During both inquiries, Committee members were struck by the extent of the evidence base for a wide range of significant harms from the use of social media—evidence that is consistent, strong and temporally linked to its use. We heard distressing testimony about media health impacts on children, including suicide and suicide ideation, exposure to and normalisation of sexual and violent content, eating disorders and body dysmorphia, health and nutrition misinformation, and physical health, brain development and sleeping disorders. Governments worldwide are currently debating social media and phone bans for children. In December last year Australia banned social media for under-16s. France looks likely to follow suit with votes for an under-15s ban clearing the French Senate in March. Spain, Portugal, Greece and Canada all have similar proposals under way, and the UK Government are consulting on various protective measures, yet there is a gap in our collective knowledge. Although there is lots of evidence on how much time young people spend on digital devices, we have far too little evidence on how the devices affect children’s development. We also lack clarity on the different impacts of different types of exposure, from social media apps to screen time more generally. Our objective is to map the existing evidence and, crucially, identify where the gaps lie. Our aim is to understand how digital devices influence brain development in children and adolescents. We will examine the resulting impact on physical health and mental wellbeing, behaviour and educational attainment. We will assess how the impacts vary based on individual characteristics, including age, sex, socioeconomic background and ethnicity. In our inquiry we will distinguish between active and passive engagement. Is there a neurological difference between a child playing a game and a child passively scrolling through an algorithmically driven auto-playing video infinite feed? We will look across activities—gaming, social media, television and messaging—and across various devices, whether they are hand-held, wearable or fixed technologies. A key focus of our inquiry is the short, medium and long-term effects on brain and eye development. We will explore neurological and hormonal processes, including the role of dopamine releases and potential links to behavioural conditions. We will also look at the indirect effects on sleep and vision and the impact on eye development. We want to hear from those at the heart of this—the children and adolescents themselves. Their views on their own digital lives are vital to our understanding. We also want to hear from experts, particularly experts in every stage of brain development. The ultimate goal of the Committee is to ensure that policymakers and parents have a better understanding of the evidence on the impact of digital devices on childhood. Then we can decide as parents and policymakers where we want to erect barriers, mitigate harmful impacts or extend beneficial impacts in order to optimise the physical and mental wellbeing of our children. We must ensure that the digital childhood supports development rather than undermines it. I look forward to hearing the evidence and the questions from Members today.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Neuroscience and Digital Childhoods · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her question and her contribution to the Committee, which is always driven by a desire to ensure that technology works for people in this country. Her questioning of the tech companies about their approach to children was very illustrative of a lack of concern about the outcomes on children. The financial rewards are certainly there in the long term. However, the companies should be doing the research that we are and understanding the impact of these vast money-making machines on young people and children. That we are having to do that, and that they cannot speak effectively to the safety of their products and services, is remarkable. I want to emphasise that they bring benefits as well, but it is not appropriate that this should be unregulated and that our children should be exposed to uncertain, unknown and uncontrolled harms.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Neuroscience and Digital Childhoods · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for his work on the Committee. It is always incisive and rooted in a desire to get the evidence. I agree with him. I understand the big tech companies are in No. 10 Downing Street this morning talking—or I hope listening—to the Prime Minister about this very subject: the importance of children’s wellbeing in digital technology. That in itself is testament to the fact that they have not done enough. We should not have got to this place, where our children are living through the harms that I spoke about and that the Committee heard about in its evidence. The companies’ incentives, driven by advertising revenue and profit making, should be in second place to children’s wellbeing and the safety of the products and services that they put out to our young people—and indeed to all our citizens.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Neuroscience and Digital Childhoods · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her contribution to the Committee, which is always rooted in and driven by her profound understanding both of biological and chemical sciences and of the life of a woman scientist in the research community. To the two points that my hon. Friend made, the industry has not learned from the examples of smoking and other harmful products and services. The sector is creating vast revenues and is responsible for the majority of the stock market capitalisation in the US. It has the resources to understand the impacts of its products and services. It also has the talents and fantastic research capabilities; we see that in its innovative new products and services. Yet the sector does not understand, or share its understanding of, the impact of its products and services on children’s developing brains. Every generation’s childhood is unique and different—the first generation to be literate, or the first generation to have television—so it is not necessarily that change is bad. Understanding what change means is in the interests of the sector as well as the interests of parents. To my hon. Friend’s final point, the Government clearly see the need for change, which is why we are having the consultation, and have been proactive in making that clear. It is important that as many people as possible, particularly young people, respond to that consultation. I would also encourage as many people as possible to respond to the Committee’s call for evidence, so that when change comes, which I hope will be quickly, we can ensure that we make the right decisions based on the right scientific evidence and the right understanding of what people in this country want to see happen in this important area.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Neuroscience and Digital Childhoods · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his question, as well as his valuable work and concerns in this area. I echo his concerns about mental wellbeing and eating disorders. The Committee heard evidence that a false account of a young girl aged 14 or 15 was inundated within a few hours with misinformation about unhealthy eating and, basically, the promotion of eating disorders. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about sharing the report’s findings with the Administration in Northern Ireland. We will certainly make sure that happens in terms of the regulatory environment. I am not sure that I fully answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) about Government action. We are looking for speedy Government action in response to this inquiry, and we hope that both our conclusions and our recommendations will be accepted by the Government in this case.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Tuesday evening, in the midst of a succession of votes, the technology supporting the world’s oldest continuous Parliament failed. I thank the Clerks and support staff for their speedy response and the quick transition to the old paper system, and the Whips for the effective communication. The Microsoft technology that runs our electronic voting system did not communicate effectively and displayed the message, “Cannot connect to essential module” or something similar. Despite successive reboots and the window of doom, that was all we could get out of it. Madam Deputy Speaker, can we expect a report on the reasons for the failure, whether Microsoft provided speedy and appropriate support, how resilient the technology is and whether other providers are available? The failure was time consuming for Members, but more importantly it reduced confidence in the democratic process.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has heard extensive and at times horrific evidence of the harms that AI chatbots can do, such as encouragement to suicide. I welcome Lords amendment 367, which gives the Government the power to amend the Online Safety Act, and I accept that the Government are seeking to reject amendment 368, tabled by the noble Baroness Kidron, to ban chatbots based on their content, but does the Minister accept that the harms of AI chatbots are evident, significant and hugely concerning, and that their regulation is unclear and consistent? Where chatbots are covered by the Online Safety Act, if those chatbots incorporate, for example, search functionality, enforcement is slow and ponderous or non-existent. Will the Minister commit to working with DSIT to take action on AI chatbots before the end of the year?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Homelessness Among Women · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce levels of homelessness among women in the Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West constituency.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Homelessness Among Women · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that response and welcome the increased investment in tackling homelessness in Newcastle, which is transforming lives. Homeless women are both more vulnerable and less visible. The Women’s Homelessness Alliance North East showed recently just how serious a problem this is. Through a proactive and concentrated survey, it identified 144 women sleeping rough—far more than councils were aware of at the time. Without accurate data, it is hard to plan effective support, leaving women at greater risk. What are the Government doing specifically to ensure that women’s homelessness is better measured, monitored and dealt with?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Fresh from a weekend knocking on doors, I can confirm to the Prime Minister that on the streets of my constituency there is no appetite for further involvement in this war. There are some—including, apparently, the Leader of the Opposition—who say that while they might not have chosen to start the war, now that the bombs are flying we have no choice but to support our allies. Will the Prime Minister confirm that President Trump’s America is not a reliable ally, that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Israel is not a reliable ally, and that we must work with our reliable allies in Europe to end the conflict and ensure that working people in this country do not pick up the bill?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  In his excellent report, Sir Philip Rycroft specifically references the amplification of divisive content on social media. Yesterday my Committee heard from TikTok, Meta and X how in each case the design of their algorithm is determined by a foreign billionaire with a political agenda. Certainly when it comes to Mr Musk, that agenda does not reflect our democratic values—he has called for civil war in the UK. Unlike traditional press, social media algorithms are hidden, inaccessible and use personal data to target content, as Rycroft observes. Will the Secretary of State consider whether political bias in algorithms constitutes a donation in kind, and will he work with colleagues to address the algorithmic, advertising research and transparency failures that our Committee gave detailed proposals about in our report last July?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Rural Broadband · Hansard source

  More

  Starlink is a US telecoms company owned by a South African American who advocates civil war in the United Kingdom. OneWeb is a European satellite telecoms company, which is part-owned by the UK. Yesterday the Science Minister told my Committee that OneWeb could be used to ensure domestic communications resilience in remote areas. Can the Minister tell me whether our critical rural broadband infrastructure is more dependent on Starlink or on OneWeb?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  Fresh from the doorsteps of Arthurs Hill, West Denton and Blakelaw, I can confirm that this is an issue of real concern and some fear across Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, and that there is overwhelming support for the Government’s decision not to join Israel and the US in initiating an un-thought-through war in one of the world’s most complex and unstable regions. The Foreign Secretary has emphasised how closely Iran and Russia are allied; Iran provides the drones for Russia to use in Ukraine. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the US lessening sanctions on Russia on Russia’s ability to support its ally Iran?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Technology Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my right hon. Friend that we certainly need to work with like-minded countries. The third area is cyber-security and data governance. Some argue that we are already at war in the cyber-sphere. Last year’s strategic defence review emphasised cyber and electromagnetic domains, and established a new UK cyber and electromagnetic command to enhance that, with £1 billion in new funding for homeland air missile defence and cyber-security initiatives. Should these be British suppliers? Should they be European? Should they be exclusively NATO suppliers? On data governance, the foreign direct product rule allows the United States to restrict access to advanced computing chips and AI-related software. By adding UK companies to the entity list, the US can immediately cut them off from cloud services, software and AI tools, while the Cloud and Patriot Acts expand data access powers to compel US companies to hand over data even if held overseas—that is, in the UK. Has the Minister discussed those powers with Microsoft, AWS and Palantir? Fourthly and finally, we have the UK’s reliance on global supply chains. Critical minerals are an obvious example, but because I am a bit of a geek I want to mention the common information models that enable the things in the internet of things to talk to each other. By 2030, there will be 6 billion CIM connections globally. China controls 70% of the market, creating a huge possibility for the disruption of everything from traffic systems to energy grid operations. That is a really quick canter through just a few of the technology sovereignty issues. I want to look at two specific examples in more detail. First, the NHS has the largest and most comprehensive longitudinal and structured patient level datasets in the world. I support the push for digital integration as we transition the NHS from analogue to digital, with interoperability and standardisation bringing faster access and better analytics, yet a growing share of NHS data flows through US companies. The federated data platform contract places core NHS data operations on Palantir’s proprietary systems. Why? There have been numerous reports of irregularities in the way the contract was awarded. In addition—this, for me, is a key point of sovereignty—Palantir’s founder and controlling stakeholder, Peter Thiel, has a political worldview which is at odds with British values. The same is true of Elon Musk. It does our constituents’ sense of agency no good to see their Government so dependent on these companies. Nearly half of adults say that they would opt out of NHS data sharing if the platform was operated by a private foreign provider. The second example is also to do with Palantir. Its recent defence contract also raised many questions. The strategic defence review emphasised AI as a core enabler of military capability. Reports suggest that Palantir serves primarily as a vehicle for integrating Anthropic’s AI models. The US has just declared Anthropic a supply chain risk for US companies, so will Palantir break UK workflows that are using Anthropic? I am certain that President Trump would not allow British companies to control US defence datasets, so why are we allowing American ones to control ours? I could go on about civil nuclear, telecoms infrastructure, subsea cables, quantum, space and drones, but I will stop there, and finish by looking at possible solutions. Technology sovereignty was a big theme at the Munich security conference, and the US-Europe trust gap was a yawning chasm following the shock realisation that we could not always count on the US as an ally. Technology sovereignty solutions that focus on technological leadership, such as in the Secretary of State’s definition, reflect the basic idea that if the UK leads on, say, protein folding then Google may be less inclined to switch off ChatGPT if we side with Denmark when the US tries to seize Greenland. Whether I agree with that approach or not, it certainly resonates with the evidence that the Committee heard from witnesses in so many domains regarding how important it is for the science and business community to understand where the Government are seeking to lead, so that resources can be focused and skills built there. Can the Minister say whether the Government plan to decide which aspects of AI, quantum, space or bioengineering we will seek to lead in? AI is often thought of as having three layers: infrastructure, data and applications. Can the Minister tell us where in the AI stack we are aiming for control, leadership, sovereignty or whatever we want to call it? Also, does he agree that weak competition in the AI and digital sectors, caused by giant incumbents, reduces our ability to lead? Open source is often cited as at least part of the solution to sovereignty. I am a huge advocate for open source, open interfaces, transparent code and standard protocols, which can reduce or minimise dependence. Despite the policy ambitions, three quarters of NHS trusts’ development teams do not use open source approaches. None of the AI models currently being deployed within the public sector is an open ecosystem; all are proprietary in nature. The Minister’s Department has sign-off on all significant IT procurement. Is open source a requirement of it? Finally, can science diplomacy help us to negotiate technology sovereignty? A number of Members have raised the issue of collaboration. Can we build on our human capital strengths by collaborating and working with partners who have respect for our values, take collaborative approaches, and can share with us the financial capital needed to make our sovereign objectives a reality? Are we happy to share leadership, and perhaps sovereignty, with our allies?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Technology Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  It is an important question. I am not in a position to choose our allies, but I agree in principle that we should be working with the European Union. I do not think it should be a choice between the European Union and the US, though they may make that the choice. I certainly think that we should be working with our European allies in order to form a large market for secure and ethical technology, which is in the interests of everyone. Finally, we need to monitor the future sovereignty implications of current research, so that that can influence our investment and mergers and acquisitions policy, and so that key technologies and companies are not easily allowed to go abroad. This debate has attracted a large amount of interest, so I have tried to be as brief as possible. I have asked the Minister many questions; if he cannot answer them all, he can write to me. In summary, we need to understand what we can own, control or lead on ourselves, what we can access that is in the hands of allies we trust, and how we can manage the things we must get from those we do not trust. We must always remember that how we develop and deploy our human capital will be critical to our ability to achieve any kind of technological sovereignty. I urge the Minister to be honest about where we are. We do not want to sleepwalk into technological serfdom and/or some kind of techxit—a technology Brexit.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Technology Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered technology sovereignty. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We are four years into the Ukraine war and 10 days into the latest Iran-Israel-US conflict. At the start of this year, the US seized the President of Venezuela. A few weeks later, President Trump was demanding Greenland from Denmark. The world has never felt more insecure and unsecure. For the first time since I was elected as an MP, global insecurity is an issue on the doorstep in Newcastle. As if that were not enough, we are also undergoing two technology revolutions: one in data and the other in AI automation. Add to that the geopolitical restructuring across different dimensions—Europe and the US, the global south and Russia/China, Europe and Russia, and Iran and the Gulf states—and a green industrial revolution that is driving competition for knowledge, resources, land and people. Is it any wonder that people are feeling insecure? In the face of those challenges, we must be honest with our constituents about what we can and cannot control, and about the implications for our industrial, civil and defence policy. Technology sovereignty is a key part of that and a placeholder for larger fears. Too often, people feel that big tech is controlling, not empowering, their lives. Techno-feudalism and techno-serfdom may not be commonly discussed in the pubs and playgrounds of Newcastle, but they are a fear that many have. The previous Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), said that big tech needs to be treated as a state, not as companies. If so, who are their citizens? Us? We certainly did not elect them, so are we just their serfs? What should the relationship be between those companies and states? Technology sovereignty matters, but what is it? The current Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology told the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee: “Sovereign capability is about ensuring the UK has what it needs to become a global leader in AI.” The Digital Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), told the Committee: “Sovereignty is a huge issue that we always discuss. Security, safety and resilience are all parts of that, and the digital spending controls that DSIT puts in on behalf of Government, which examines individual contracts on that basis, very much examines these issues as well.” He also said: “It is about building those capabilities and supply chains here.”

• 10 Mar 2026 · Technology Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  The level of interest shows just what an important issue this is. I will come on to discuss some aspects of collaboration as it relates to sovereignty, but I observe that the last time our sovereignty as a mid-sized power was seriously debated was during Brexit, and the slogan “Take back control” reflected the sense that too much sovereignty had been ceded to the European Union without an honest debate with the British people. As a member of the Labour party, I know that we are stronger together and that that can require some loss of autonomy to deliver results, which actually make people more secure, but that must not be done without an honest debate. Let us look at the four specific sovereignty challenges, the first of which is critical infrastructure and cloud data dependency. The Competition and Markets Authority found that cloud services in Britain are dominated by AWS at 40% to 50%, and Microsoft at 30%. Crown Hosting is meant to be our sovereign hosting capability, but it only hosts 4% of Government legacy services. Both Amazon Web Services and Oracle claim to offer a sovereign cloud—they do say to deal with the difficult part in the title! The second issue I want to look at is the hot topic of AI. There is no Brit large language model but there is the ambition to transform our public services and industry through AI. The AI opportunities action plan repeatedly references sovereign AI and sovereign compute without defining them. The major AI companies Google, Anthropic, OpenEye, Microsoft and DeepSeek are all headquartered abroad. DeepMind formed Google’s AI capability and was founded right here in the UK before being bought. What capability does the UK now have in AI? What minimum capability does the Minister think we need? How do we respond to the EU Cloud and AI Development Act, which may exclude UK companies?