Chi Onwurah MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Mar 2026 · Technology Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  My fellow member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee makes a very important point about the definition of sovereignty. I do not want to get too bogged down in the actual definition, but I agree that control matters, and I will say a little more about that. I will raise the definition of digital sovereignty cited in the House of Commons Library briefing, which accompanies this debate, which is “the agency and capacity of any organisation to make intelligent, informed choices to shape its digital future by design.” On that basis, choosing between Amazon Web Services and Microsoft for our data centre is technology sovereignty. I also think that if British sovereignty depends on our leaders’ ability to make intelligent choices, they spent a lot of our history not having sovereignty. The Library definition came from a global consultancy called Public Digital. Emily Middleton, the interim director for digital transformation in DSIT, was previously a partner at Public Digital. It rules out digital independence and says that our goal should be intelligent dependence. Can the Minister say whether he is aiming for intelligent dependence? The definition I like best, however, is that sovereignty is whatever a sovereign power says it is—that is what sovereignty means. The UK has extraordinary technological human capital resources, particularly in AI, where we are probably third in the world, but also in clean energy, quantum synthetic biology and much more. Our human capital means that we are not just any mid-sized country; we can aim higher than intelligent dependence. Elon Musk chose to turn off Ukraine’s Starlink capacity at a critical time in Ukraine’s defence of its sovereignty against Putin’s illegal aggression. None of us wants the UK to be in such a position of dependence.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Technology Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right, and that support should take the form of access to investment, but also procurement and procurement decisions, which I will discuss in more detail. The Digital Minister also told the Committee: “There is no single internationally recognised definition of digital sovereignty” and: “DSIT is working to develop a comprehensive definition that can be used across the UK”. We have not received an update, but yesterday, the Government launched the AI sovereignty unit with £500 million, so it is to be hoped that we know what we are spending our money on.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Technology Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for setting out his sovereignty stack. Just as an example, is an LLM a critical input or another level in the stack—and does it need to be British?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Technology Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot help but give way to the hon. Member.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Technology Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly agree that we need to be able to defend ourselves against AI attacks.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Digital ID: Public Consultation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s decision to remove the mandatory element of digital ID, so that we can all focus on the benefits that easier access to public services should deliver for everyone. Usefulness, security and inclusivity are good principles, and I urge my constituents to take part in the consultation in any way they can. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which I chair, has heard really worrying evidence of lax data practices across Government, persistent IT failures and lock-in to expensive proprietary systems. Digital ID will be built in-house, as I understand it, by the Government Digital Service in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Can my right hon. Friend commit that it will not be built on bad data and bad data practices?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. It was a pleasure to see the Foreign Secretary at last month’s Munich security conference, where, despite warm words on all sides, the trust gap between the European Union and the United States was absolutely palpable, impacting discussions on defence, procurement, technology, sovereignty, Greenland, the middle east and so on. Could she tell me how she sees the UK’s role: should we be trying to restore trust, because we have our own trust gap, should we pick a side—the European Union versus the United States—or do we forge an independent path dependent on neither?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  There are direct flights from Newcastle to Dubai, and many Geordies in the region, including in the armed forces, so I thank the Prime Minister for the steps he is taking to support and protect them, and particularly for acting within international law. Iran is a murderous, despotic state that has frequently threatened, and does threaten, UK security, but the sight of bombs raining down across the Gulf will not make my constituents feel more secure, especially when the impact on democracy and human rights in the region—and, indeed, on the Iranian regime itself—is unclear, to put it mildly. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to help bring this conflict to an end and restore some semblance of security in the region?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Productivity: Technology · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps the Commission is taking to help improve Members’ productivity through technology.

• 26 Feb 2026 · Productivity: Technology · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that answer. I believe that Parliament can—indeed must—use AI to improve our productivity, but it must be used securely, ethically, effectively and in the public interest. A poll by Brunel University has said that 80% of the public reject the idea of AI assisting parliamentarians or replacing our judgment. What progress has been made on shaping Copilot—the only AI that we are allowed to use—to reflect Parliament’s priorities, rather than Microsoft’s? I am thinking specifically about inbox management, which I have raised and the hon. Member has mentioned.

• 26 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Northern industries built this nation, but the previous Government did not care about our industrial heritage, which is one reason why Newcastle’s iconic swing bridge no longer swings. On her recent visit, the Minister for Heritage encouraged us to take the steps necessary to safeguard its future, but what help can the Secretary of State provide to support the funding necessary to get the swing bridge swinging?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point; the insight she brings from her career in the media is critical. For many years, while the platforms were just that—platforms on which other people placed content—there was an argument that they should not be regulated and that they did not have a responsibility for the content on them, but they are at the very least active curators of that content now. Algorithms effectively form digital twins of individuals and then drive individualised content at them. That requires a responsibility. The time is right, as our Committee recommended, to ensure that platforms have responsibility for their content. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will be holding a one-off session on social media age restrictions on 11 March to feed into the Government’s consultation on measures to keep children safe online and to hear from social media companies on their progress in the last year. We will also gauge the strength of the evidence for and against an age-based ban on social media, as well as any evidence relating to proposed alternatives to a ban. In doing so, we will hear from experts and representatives of those with direct experience of harms. We want to hear from both sides of the debate in the UK and will be seeking evidence from Australia on the first few months of the ban that is already in force there. We will be hearing from major social media and technology companies in a follow-up to our algorithms and misinformation inquiry, and we will ask for their views on the proposed age limits. Finally, the work on social media age restrictions will feed into a larger inquiry on the neuroscience of digital childhood, which we will launch in the coming weeks. We want to find out how young people spending their formative years online affects their brains and what the Government should do to protect them from any negative impact. That could cover the impact of social media and other screentime on brain development, behaviour, and physical and mental health, whether positive or negative. It could also cover the physiological impact on eye development, the impact on socialisation and what actions Governments should take. There is a consensus on the need to do something, but not on what needs to be done. That is why we are seeking to provide evidence. I always say to the platform companies that the opposite of regulation is not no regulation, but bad regulation. More regulation is coming. Several US states, such as California, have brought in new regulation on big tech. The Spanish Prime Minister has called social media a “failed state where laws are ignored and crimes are tolerated”. There is also the increasingly significant issue of technology sovereignty and whether we are too dependent on foreign companies for our online environment. I call myself a tech evangelist, and I am, but I also know how much an engineer costs. The starting salary of an AI engineer—if companies can find one—is well over £100,000 a year. Tech companies are not going to put them to work on protecting and keeping our children safe unless the House puts the right incentives in place. With all due respect to the Minister and the Online Safety Act, which he inherited, they are not in place now.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is for that exact reason that I support a consultation: this is part of a debate, and we all need to improve our understanding of the impacts of this technology. Parents are in a difficult position. I do not believe parents should have to be technology experts in order to give their children the best start in life, but unfortunately there is so much pressure in the online world that that seems to be the case right now, and that is why it is right that Government take action and consult on the action they take. Let us think about the evolution of these technologies. I remember that when I joined Facebook in 2005 I had to use my university email address to join—that meant I had to be over 18. Some 20 years later, 13-year-olds and younger are having their lives and brains formed by almost uninhibited access to social media. In the UK, the number of social media users has gone from practically zero to four fifths of the population. I have worked with the Molly Rose Foundation, a charity established by the Russell family after their daughter Molly took her own life at the age of 14 following exposure to self-harm content online; I have spoken to the bereaved parents of children bullied to death online; and I have spoken to the Internet Watch Foundation about the horrendous images its staff see of child exploitation. The fact that the Conservatives did nothing in all those years in government is, in my view, a form of political negligence of the highest order. As part of my Committee’s inquiry into social media and algorithms, Google, Meta, TikTok and X told us that they accepted their responsibility to be accountable to the British people through Parliament, which I thought was quite a step forward from previous utterances, and ongoing utterances, by some tech billionaires who shall remain nameless. Our inquiry found that our online safety regime should be based on principles that remain sound in the face of technological development. Social media has many important and positive contributions, including helping to democratise access to a public voice and to connect people far and wide, but it also has significant risks—and those risks can evolve with the technology. We spoke about AI as an evolution, and one of the main failings of the Online Safety Act is that it regulates particular services rather than establishing principles that remain true and can be part of a social consensus as technology evolves.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that AI chatbots are a further evolution, and I think we should learn from the lack of effective regulation under the Conservatives during that critical period in the evolution of the internet in how we approach AI. I agree with the hon. Lady that AI chatbots should be brought into the regulatory environment of the Online Safety Act.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that, in this debate on protecting children from some of the most obscene abuse, not one Reform Member is present?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I really thank the hon. Member for that intervention, because that is exactly one of the recommendations of the Committee’s inquiry. As he says, the advertisement-based business models of most social media companies mean that they promote addictive content regardless of authenticity. This 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 following the horrendous Southport attacks. This is not just a social media problem, though. It is a systemic issue that promotes harmful content and undermines public trust. The Committee identified five key principles that we believe are crucial for building public trust. The first is public safety. Public safety matters; I hope it is not necessary to debate that. The second is free and safe expression, which is also very important. The third is responsibility on the part of the platforms. Right now, they have no legal responsibility for the content they amplify; they just have to follow their own processes in certain specific cases. Our fourth principle involves control, and the fifth and final principle is transparency. We made detailed recommendations on regulating the advertising-based business model so that amplification would not be incentivised in the way that was outlined by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). We also recommended a right to reset—the right of a person to remove their data from any algorithm. Our report came out not long before the Minister took up his position. The Government accepted all our conclusions but none of our recommendations. I urge them to look again at our recommendations and to consider implementing them, or at least to respond and tell me why they are still not to be implemented. I welcome the Government’s recent actions and interventions and their readiness to intervene. As I said, the consultation is critical. I welcome the desire to promote a consensus and to take measures to ensure swift delivery of the consultation conclusions through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The consideration of the inclusion of AI chatbots is important, as is addressing the risky features in certain models, as well as providing support for bereaved parents. The Committee looks forward to working with the Government to try to achieve their aims. We need evidence to drive policy and regulation based on principles that the public can have confidence in.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can I assess what is orderly for my contribution to the debate given that the substance of the motion is about process? To be frank, I do not want to speak about process; I want to speak about protections for children.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for bringing forward this debate on protecting children from online harms, although I remain uncertain as to the measures they are proposing. This debate is happening up and down the country, in homes and at school gates—indeed, wherever people gather—so it is right that we debate it here. If the Conservatives had done something during their critical 14 years of power, our children would be better protected now, but they did not, so it falls to us to take action. I am going to speak about three things: online platforms, their history and approach; the work of my Select Committee, the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, on algorithms; and the work of the Committee on digital childhood, all within the context of protecting children from online harms. The key online players range in age from pre-teen—TikTok was founded in 2016—to their late 20s, as Google was founded in 1998. In human terms, these platforms are just entering or leaving adolescence, and it shows. As hon. Members across the House may have heard me mention, I am an engineer—chartered, as it happens; thanks for asking—and my last job before entering this place was head of telecoms technology for Ofcom. I remember meeting people from a US platform, which shall remain nameless, around 2005. The company executive commented that they had come to the UK from silicon valley on a six-month contract to sort out Government affairs, and they could not understand why, two years later, discussions were still ongoing. Did we not realise that Government had no role in what they did? I say that to illustrate that tech platforms have their origins in a libertarian, small/no-government tech bro bubble that has spread globally. TikTok, as a Chinese company, has a different background, but public accountability is not necessarily part of it. Unfortunately for all of us, the Conservative-Lib Dem Government of 2010 and their successors shared the view that Government should not be a part of it, which is how we arrived in 2024—20 years later—without online harms regulation, while at the same time the use of social media and life online has exploded. That is why I consider the Tory position in this debate to be a superb example of hypocrisy.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Green Energy Sector: North-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that response. For 100 years and more, skilled workers in the north-east have relied on high-paid energy jobs, be they in coal, gas or oil in mines, factories, ports and rigs. Labour’s clean power mission can bring new jobs to existing supply chains, but companies and workers need help to transition. Will the Minister tell me how she plans to future-proof the north-east’s energy supply chain and deliver secure, well-paid and unionised jobs?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Green Energy Sector: North-east England · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps he is taking to support the green energy sector in the north-east.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Teenagers’ Use of Social Media · Hansard source

  More

  One year ago, Meta, TikTok, X, and Google all confirmed to my Committee that they hold themselves accountable to the British people through Parliament, and before Easter we will revisit the findings of our social media and algorithms inquiry in an evidence session with them. I mention that because it is clear that Governments across the world are urgently seeking ways to make tech platforms more accountable. As the Secretary of State consults on children and social media, will she confirm that any eventual ban should be in addition to and not instead of more effective regulation of those powerful platforms?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State knows just how disappointing many will find this statement, particularly the WASPI women who feel so strongly the injustice that they have suffered. I appreciate that the he has set out the reasons in principle and in practice and explained how the Labour Government will support low-income pensioners, but I want to talk about the personal aspect. I suspect that the Secretary of State, like me and many other Members, started full-time work in his twenties that was not physically arduous. I think of a constituent of mine who started work aged 15—hard, physical work—and found herself required to continue working many years after she expected to have retired and as her health deteriorated. What help and support can the Secretary of State offer her?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. The three-year local government funding settlement is a welcome return to long-term planning. Newcastle city council faces a 34% rise in adult social care costs, compared with only a 15% rise in core spending power. That is taking more and more money away from the many services that my constituents depend upon. Will the Chancellor work across Government to consider changes to the adult social care funding formula and/or an increase to the recovery grant so that Newcastle city council can meet the costs of adult social care?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on freeing so many of my constituents from the historical and, indeed, feudal injustice of the leasehold system. I urge him to ignore the clarion complaints of those freeholders who predicated their business model on the continued exploitation of working people through extortionate ground rents. The Minister is familiar with the predicament of my constituents who are unable to extend their leasehold or buy their freehold because of the actions of the St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust. What hope can he offer them?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Water White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I see that Tory MPs are too scared to turn up to hear how we are cleaning up their mess. As a Newcastle MP, as an engineer and as a cold water swimmer—the North sea is very cold—I welcome the Government’s new vision for water, which will deliver the water my constituents deserve at a price they can afford. I am, quite frankly, tired of the continual chorus that whatever the failure, whatever the fault, the costs must be passed on to the consumer. In a competitive market, consumers can go elsewhere if they do not like the service they are receiving. With water, we have no choice. Will the Minister confirm that if there is a failure or a mess-up by the companies, either they, their shareholders or their management will pay for it, not my constituents?