Chi Onwurah MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Historical Forced Adoption · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the Prime Minister’s powerful tribute to the women—the mothers—and the families who suffered and struggled for so long for this apology, and who suffer still the legacy of such state failure and, indeed, state cruelty. It shames us, but never them. The moral outrage targeted against unmarried mothers has largely passed, but the Prime Minister spoke about the lack of compassion that enabled the state cruelty; still today, we too often see, increasingly in bureaucratic processes, in technology and in under-resourced state capability, a lack of compassion and understanding. What can the Prime Minister say to reassure us that action can be taken to ensure humanity and compassion from the state?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of times that nobody should be left behind by this legislation. My constituents suffer from the actions of the St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust, a supposed charity that refuses to allow them to extend their leases and is using a loophole in the current legislation, leaving them—as one constituent put it—as prisoners in their current homes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation should address those concerns and liberate my constituents?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Ofcom: Crisis Response Protocol · Hansard source

  More

  It is almost exactly a year since my Select Committee published its report on “Social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms” in the wake of the Southport riots. It was truly distressing and disturbing to see misinformation playing such a role in the Belfast riots, and my thoughts are with all those affected. Will the Minister confirm what conversations he has had with Ofcom about misinformation being included in its crisis response protocol, as recommended by my Committee?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  With every expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements and with every horrendous act of settler violence, the prospect of a two-state solution recedes, and my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West lose faith in the capacity or the will of the rules-based international order to deliver some measure of justice for Palestinians. The Minister and I have corresponded about what we could actually do in this country, so does he agree that regardless of the technical issues that he has outlined, as a matter of principle, goods from Israel’s illegal settlements should not be traded with the United Kingdom?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the increased investment in defence, which should not only ensure our security but drive economic growth. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend reassure me, first, that the Ministry of Defence is capable of innovatively procuring innovation, with the support of our nation’s start-ups and scale-ups, rather than focusing on the bureaucratic long-term processes with which my Committee is so familiar? Secondly, the north-east sends the largest proportion of young people into the armed forces of any region in this country, yet it has the lowest proportion of defence spending. That is unacceptable. The defence investment plan has no place-based programmes apart from the defence growth zones, and the north-east is missing out on those. What will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that the north-east’s commitment is rewarded with investment?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her comments. Life sciences are one of the country’s great strengths. We have world-leading universities, brilliant researchers, innovative companies, NHS experts and public investment. The life sciences support high-skilled jobs, drive growth and, most importantly, transform patients’ lives. The UK invented the covid vaccine, pioneered in vitro fertilisation and sequenced DNA, but we are slower than many other nations at diffusing innovation. The NHS spends £27 billion a year buying stuff that should be helping to give British patients access to innovative treatments, guaranteeing high-tech start-ups and scale-ups their first contract, and enabling clinical trials and exciting new drugs. However, in evidence to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, we have heard that bureaucratic processes and a culture of inertia mean that adoption is far quicker in the US, for example. My Committee was told that the NHS has more pilots than British Airways, but innovation still is not getting through. Sometimes it can seem easier to be locked into tech giants such as Palantir. My Committee has warned against that, but we do want the UK to be a great place to grow life sciences businesses. Last year, following a series of cancelled investments, we held an emergency inquiry into this area. Witnesses were clear that the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth, or VPAG, was a big issue, but there were also deeper questions on whether the UK is spending enough on medicines, whether patients are getting timely access to innovation and whether companies have confidence to invest for the long term. I very much welcome that the UK has secured zero tariffs on pharmaceuticals and an exemption from the US’s most-favoured-nation pricing policy, but the arrangement is not treaty-based and is therefore not subject to scrutiny. The final cost is not clear. It depends on which medicines the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approves and what the actual NHS uptake is. We all agree that the NHS must get value for money. Every pound spent on one part of healthcare is precious and cannot be spent elsewhere, but innovative treatments can reduce healthcare demand, and companies need to know that they have a market if they are to invest in research and development, clinical trials and manufacturing in the UK. The Minister needs to explain how these figures, such as the 0.6% of GDP, were arrived at. What international analysis has the Minister commissioned to justify them? In particular, where does the UK sit internationally? We heard from President Trump that the UK does not pay enough, but the US system is one of the most bloated and overpriced in the world, with health accounting for 18% of GDP, with worse outcomes than the NHS, which accounts for 10% of UK GDP.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Trump Administration’s decision to deny access to Anthropic’s most powerful AI models to all foreigners—including the British state—has emphasised concerns over technology sovereignty. Will the Minister ensure that as part of the UK-EU summit, our leading technology sector works closely with European Union allies to ensure that we have greater competition and resilience in our technology stack?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent’s father, who worked all his life in public service, died tragically a year ago. Capita is withholding from his family the provision that he thought would make them secure. Another constituent was having his pension paid until Capita took over, and now he is receiving nothing. It is a tragic shambles, but the problem is not rocket science; it is the IT system. If Capita cannot make this work in the time that it has already had, it should surely not be given the chance to do it any longer, and perhaps its other Government contracts should be reconsidered.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Regional Innovation and Growth · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank the hon. Member for his contribution to the Select Committee while he served on it. He is absolutely right to trace the link between research funding and key issues such as health inequalities, from which we also suffer in the north-east of England. He is right to identify the need to address the differences in health research funding, but without the appropriate data and information, it is hard to do so. He is also right to look for that to be addressed by the Government, and we shall be looking at the actions of both DSIT and the Department of Health and Social Care in this area.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Regional Innovation and Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement. On behalf of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I put on the record our thanks to the Committee Clerks and specialists who supported this inquiry. We are told on a daily, if not hourly, basis that the source of all our political, public service and economic woes is the lack of economic growth. The Labour Government were elected on a platform of delivering economic growth across the country through their “unashamedly place-based” modern industrial strategy. Across the UK, we have world-class scientific research institutions and universities, two of which are in my constituency: Newcastle University and Northumbria University. Indeed, the importance of the innovation ecosystem is reflected in the Government’s pledge to spend £86 billion of public money on R&D by 2030, and to leverage at least £3 of private investment for every £1 of public investment. The Committee launched its inquiry in December 2024 to assess the role of our innovation ecosystem in achieving this Government’s wider economic growth mission across the UK. Our call for evidence assessed the role of structural factors in influencing the success of start-ups, spin-outs and other innovation-focused enterprises; these included the tax system, regulatory requirements and standards. Across six sessions, we heard from innovators, investors, local and regional leaders, universities, Ministers, UK Research and Innovation, and Innovate UK. I place on the record my thanks to those who gave evidence. By doing so, they helped us to shape our report, and we are very grateful. Our report, entitled “Flying Blind: Innovation, Growth and the Regions”, was published in March. Profound policy mistakes have led to a multi-decade failure to foster even economic growth geographically. From a productivity and GDP per head perspective, we are two nations: Greater London and the south-east, and everywhere else. Last year, GDP per head in the UK averaged just over £39,000. Every region in the country is below that figure, apart from the south-east, at £41,000, and London, at a whopping £69,000. My Committee’s report found that if the £86 billion of public funds is accompanied by unlocking private investment across the country to commercialise innovation, it could deliver regional economic growth and therefore better living standards and quality of life for all our constituents. Although we welcome the Government’s commitments, including a £500 million fund for regional innovation clusters, that is less than 1% of our public research spend. The work of our Committee member and former Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), rightly emphasised the power of clusters. Our report found that there is still untapped potential for innovation-driven activity across the regions, with an increase in the number of innovation-led clusters. Regional inequalities continue to persist in R&D funding. The golden triangle between Oxford, Cambridge and London receives significant public R&D funding and private investment, absorbing 46% of non-business R&D despite having only 36% of the population. The Minister for Science has asserted that cutting-edge research is best carried out in centres of excellence, and we found such centres in Cardiff, Durham, Edinburgh, Leeds, Manchester, Milton Keynes and Newcastle, among many others. Geographic clusters can drive productivity, foster concentrated networks of expertise, infrastructure and collaboration, and support regional growth. Their success relies on sustained investment, established infrastructure and skills concentration. We have said that the Government should establish a national framework for cluster development that embeds regional key performance indicators. We have said that the Government should take a data-driven approach and comprehensively monitor, map and support the growth of innovation-led clusters across the regions. We have also said that the Government should publish annual data covering the performance and impact of innovation clusters. The data should set out any gaps in infrastructure, skills, and commercialisation outcomes, and detail how public investment is being used across different parts of the country. Throughout our inquiry, we heard of major shortfalls in gathering and sharing data relating to innovation policy, meaning that there is currently no clear way to track the pipeline from R&D research to capital investment, company growth and wider economic benefit. There is no system that brings together the data on all research and innovation spending across the public sector. The Public Accounts Committee noted in July last year that UKRI aimed to link up all such data across Government but had not given a target date, and that “significant limitations” in its data systems make it hard to manage its budget strategically. We concluded that the UK is flying blind when it comes to public and private R&D spending, and it is unacceptable that we cannot measure and map R&D spending and private sector investment. The Secretary of State rightly told us of her desire to leverage public funds to unlock private investment in innovation- led activity across the country, but without clear and transparent measures of what is being done and its impact, it is impossible to assess existing policies or identify improvements. I thank the Government for their response, which was published on Tuesday. There is much to welcome in it, particularly the Government’s joined-up contribution from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Education, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. I welcome the Government’s agreement with the key thematic areas highlighted in our report, and their acceptance of the need for better data. More specifically, the promise of “a more robust and joined-up approach to monitoring the development of innovation clusters over time” is a step in the right direction. The Government also committed to doing more to help innovators access public funding and, crucially, to prioritise the procurement of innovation, which is the best way for the Government to support the development of sovereign UK alternatives to global technology providers. I note and welcome the Chancellor’s recent directions to Ministers on this topic. However, I am disappointed by the Government’s rejection of our call to establish a framework for monitoring cluster development, and by the fact that they will not designate a Minister responsible for championing innovation in each region of the UK. That leaves us with only a Minister with responsibility for Cambridge and Oxford innovation—the Minister for Science. The Government have argued that they should not be supporting the establishment of a Midlands Mindforge or a Northern Gritstone, and they have not accepted our recommendation to establish regional branches of the British Business Bank. By failing to accept these recommendations, the Government are depending too heavily on an industrial strategy that does not have appropriate regional data. We chose to call our report “Flying Blind” because that was the best summary of the approach of successive Governments to innovation policy. Regional growth and development can transform a region and rebalance our nation’s economy, helping to address the inequalities that drive division. Greater Manchester is an example. Under Mayor Andy Burnham’s leadership, we have seen 3.1% annual growth sustained over 10 years, which is faster than London and twice that in the UK as a whole. That shows the power of regional leadership and investment. The current Government deserve credit for backing our national research and development ecosystem, but without a clearer picture of what works for different regions and a greater engagement with local leaders on what support their local innovation ecosystems need, we will continue to be flying blind.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Regional Innovation and Growth · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I join him in paying tribute to Frasers Group. Innovation and its benefits are for everyone across our country, and that is particularly important in towns that may traditionally not have seen those benefits, or may have done so in centuries past but not recently. Having a local employer and business drive innovation and innovation-sustained jobs in his town is of particular benefit to his constituents, not just now but in the future.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Regional Innovation and Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is always a champion of Northern Ireland, and I congratulate him on the examples of innovation and its contribution to economic growth that the Committee found in Northern Ireland. We did not have a specific discussion about that when the Minister for Science came before the Committee, but the hon. Member raises very good points, and I am very happy to take them up with the Minister.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Regional Innovation and Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her question, and she is absolutely right. As I highlighted in my concluding remarks, we have seen how in Greater Manchester, where the mayor has had over 10 years to make such a difference—we see this in Liverpool as well—having local leadership that values innovation and knows the local economy’s needs, skills and strengths can really drive regional growth. I know that the mayor f the North East combined authority, Kim McGuinness, is fully seized of the importance of innovation in driving great jobs and a sustainable economy in the north-east, particularly on Tyneside.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Regional Innovation and Growth · Hansard source

  More

  One can never bang on too much about towns and innovation and growth. That is what all our constituents across our country deserve, because it is only by having growth in every town across the country that we will address the cost of living crisis and the economic conditions that we need to improve. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to understand, in concert with local leaders, what innovation is happening around Redditch and what works best to ensure that Redditch and the towns in his area get the innovation support they deserve and which they can put to the best use for his constituents and all our constituents.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Regional Innovation and Growth · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the north-east, our great history of industrial innovation and growth was based around towns as well as cities, and that is what we must aspire to again. The focus on clusters and data would enable us—through the industrial strategy, which has so much to be welcomed and supported—to ensure we can drive innovation across a region and in particular look at hubs that are based around towns, as well as cities. We found that there is much good work done by universities. Having hubs in towns and around the region can drive innovation and therefore, with the right support, growth.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Regional Innovation and Growth · Hansard source

  More

  We looked at innovation in the ecosystems around Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and we found fantastic examples of world leadership in scientific research and innovation in Scotland. Official Report , 06 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 2WC. (Correction). However, we did not find the collection of regional data at a level that would have enabled us to measure effectively what works best. There were some concerns about the funding of research, particularly high-intensity research, across Scotland, but I would be willing to discuss that in more detail with my hon. Friend.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  The Spicer review of 2018 into the handling of the widespread sexual exploitation of children and vulnerable adults in Newcastle found a culture that enabled and did not investigate the exploitation and rape of children and vulnerable adults, and a culture of victim blaming. It also praised Newcastle city council and Northumbria police’s actions following the investigation. I have repeatedly contacted Northumbria police to raise issues around child exploitation and to seek reassurances about its actions. Given the comments in the Casey review, how can I ensure that Northumbria police has the resources and support it needs to identify and support victims, believe them and encourage them to come forward, and to create a culture of investigation, openness and transparency to reassure my constituents?

• 18 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the young Northumbria police officer who so sadly and tragically died last week while protecting and serving our region. The A1 motorway forms the boundary of my constituency at Etal Lane. There is an open play area next to cars racing past at 60 mph or more. For a decade now, my constituents have been raising concerns about the unsightly and—more importantly—unsafe fencing there. For the past five years, led by former Labour councillor Alex Hay, they have been passed from Newcastle city council to the Highways Agency. In the meantime, the fencing has fallen into total disrepair; in some places, it no longer exists, forming a clear and present danger to a whole generation of Geordie children. The Highways Agency has finally accepted responsibility, but now says that it may or may not fix it next year—at the earliest. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can ensure a culture of taking responsibility among Government agencies, rather than passing the buck?

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

  More

  The right hon. Member does well to remind us that the impact of hostile action using CIMs, such as by turning on a kill switch, would be devastating across multiple sectors, including potentially the consumer sector, as well as security, automotive, transport and finance. That is why it is so important to consider this. I particularly draw the Minister’s attention to the list provided by the US Federal Communications Commission—the equivalent of Ofcom—of equipment and services covered by section 2 of the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act. The list dictates what technology is legally permitted to be authorised for import and sale in the US, and many companies on the list are owned or controlled by the Chinese state. I thank the Minister in the other place for meeting me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), whose amendment I also support, and hearing our concerns about the supply of IOT devices. It was unfortunate that the Minister did not see the need for action, particularly given that the US has taken action against Chinese-made goods and that, during a trip of the British-American Parliamentary Group to the US just last week, we heard that further action is likely to be taken against cellular IOT modules specifically. That could mean UK products being banned from import into the US if they contain such CIMs. We have seen a rapid growth of those devices across transport, as we have mentioned, as well as energy and, importantly, water and health. I am concerned about the ability of our domestic British businesses to export into the US given those restrictions, as well as the impact on our security. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could set out whether he is looking into that concern. As was eloquently emphasised in the personal statements made by the recently resigned Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), and Armed Forces Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), the first duty of Government is the security of their citizens. That is true when it comes to our armed forces and our defence in the real world, and it is also true when it comes to our security in the virtual world. Those two overlap so much more than in the past. I welcome the Bill, but I have real concerns about the need to bring retail businesses such as M&S within its scope, the concentration of the UK’s public sector data in a small number of US-owned providers, the implications for technology sovereignty that that raises, and the risks posed by foreign state ownership of providers of cellular internet-of-things modules. I hope that the Minister will address those concerns and deliver the cyber-security and resilience that our constituents deserve.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). I would like to start by making two relevant declarations of interest. I worked for the Office of Communications before entering Parliament and I am currently a fellow of the Institution of Engineering and Technology. Madam Deputy Speaker, you might have heard me mention on occasion that I was an engineer before coming into Parliament. As such, in 2010, I was desperate for issues around technology to come up in Parliament, as it was a subject I actually knew something about, but they rarely did. In the intervening 16 years, however, things have changed, and technology issues such as online safety, wi-fi on trains, sovereign technology and infowars are now raised regularly. I welcome the increasing role of technology in all our constituents’ lives, but this must go hand in hand with rigorous cyber-security to protect against threats from state and non-state actors. As I highlighted in my speech on Second Reading, the UK’s only cross-cutting cyber-security legislation is currently that inherited from the European Union. The previous Conservative Government failed to update these regulations, leaving us working under an outdated framework. I therefore really welcome this Bill, which seeks to expand the scope of existing cyber-security regulations to new sectors, strengthen the role of regulators and grant the Government new powers to respond to the threats posed by cyber-security breaches. We are only as secure as our weakest link, but I am afraid we still have a number of weak links left. Cyber-attacks are having a real financial impact on the UK and are happening at an increasing rate. According to the Institution of Engineering and Technology, cyber-attacks cost UK businesses an estimated £64 billion annually, with £37 billion in direct costs and £26 billion in indirect costs. Last year we also saw the well-documented cyber-attack that hit Marks & Spencer, leaving shoppers unable to buy online from the company for months. The company’s profits were almost wiped out, down from £390 million to £3 million for the first half of 2025. As a Sparks card holder myself, I was unable to use my card for six months and I fear I may have contributed to those figures. This brings me to my first amendment, new clause 20, which seeks to designate retail businesses as an essential activity, bringing them within scope of part 3 of the Bill. Retail is the UK’s largest private sector employer. It holds large amounts of consumer data but often relies on dated IT systems. Yet, as I noted on Second Reading, the existing scope of the Bill would not have prevented or even had an impact on the attacks on Marks & Spencer or Jaguar Land Rover, despite the significant disruption they caused to our constituents and our economic activity. Indeed, in November, the Bank of England cited the cyber-attack on JLR as a factor in its decision to hold interest rates. The Government’s plan to promote the new cyber governance code of practice to improve pre-operative preparedness in sectors such as retail is welcome, but voluntary measures alone will not deliver the consistent adoption of good cyber governance across economically significant sectors such as retail. According to the Government’s figures, only 9,680 Cyber Essentials Plus certificates were issued to small and medium-sized businesses between November 2023 and October 2024. There are an estimated 6 million small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK, so this is not going to address that challenge at the rate at which it needs to be addressed. I welcome the Opposition amendments that would bring retail businesses within the Bill’s scope, but I am concerned that they might be too extensive in bringing small and medium-sized businesses into its remit and placing a disproportionate burden on them. The revenue threshold of £12 billion in my new clause 20 provides the necessary specificity to ensure that only large retail businesses, including Marks & Spencer and Jaguar Land Rover, would fall under the expanded Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018. This would lead to faster incident-reporting responses and customer notification, alongside stronger powers, including those to deal with non-compliance. Turning to my new clause 18, we have already heard that the concentration of the UK’s public sector data within a small number of US-owned providers—Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure specifically—presents a structural risk to national resilience. Combined, AWS and Microsoft account for 70% to 80% of the public cloud market, according to the Competition and Markets Authority. Part of the issue is that that figure is an estimate. I have put down a series of written parliamentary questions over the last seven years to find out just how dependent the Government are on AWS and Microsoft. This data is not tracked across Government. Can the Minister say how he intends to assess a threat that the Government are not measuring? As set out in my Committee’s report entitled “Rewiring the state: Delivering digital government”, our national resilience is put at risk by the strategic lock-in that these companies have in many of our public services and Administrations. Major Departments, including His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the NHS, are under multi-year agreements that further entrench these cloud infrastructures within the Whitehall ecosystem. Included in my Committee’s report was evidence we heard from the Open Cloud Coalition, who suggested that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology should consider a period of over-correction, including the mandatory re-competition of high-risk or large-scale contracts, to break cycles of vendor lock-in. The Government are rightly seeking to co-ordinate cloud contracting, but I believe that this should be done in a way that would ensure more, not less, competition. We would like to see the detail of how the all-of-Government cloud contract will prevent vendor lock-in, and I would like the Minister to outline his engagement with the CMA on the contract’s development. Not only does our reliance on these two cloud services raise practical issues—as seen with the AWS outage in October—but there are questions around data protection. Under the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act and the Patriot Act, the US Government can compel US companies, including AWS and Microsoft, to hand over data if held overseas—that is, in the UK. I am aware that the Minister might reference our sovereign hosting capability, Crown Hosting, but it hosts only 4% of Government legacy services. Will he please outline how the Government intend to ensure protection so that the public sector makes better use of the services provided by Crown Hosting? Could he also set out how he will ensure that the Government’s digital transformation ambitions cannot be derailed at any time by decisions based on the narrow interests of a foreign, commercial or state actor? He might choose to argue that this is highly unlikely, but I would point him to the recent decision of the US Government to withdraw foreign nationals’ access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 model. Finally, my new clause 19 calls on the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the risks posed by foreign state ownership or control of providers of cellular internet-of-things modules. I always like to mention that I was the first Member of Parliament to speak about the internet of things, in my debate back in 2011. Having worked in technology as an engineer, the threat posed by cyber-attacks on the internet of things was very real to me from the start of my parliamentary career. Indeed, in 2017 I wrote an article highlighting the threat of cyber-attacks on sex toys, in a vain attempt to raise the profile of the issue.

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

  More

  Let me take the Minister back to the question of bringing the retail sector into the provisions of the Bill. He seems to be saying that cyber-security and resilience require Government intervention only when there is an immediate threat to life. Will he clarify whether that is what he is saying? My understanding is that we need to keep our economy and citizens secure in all circumstances. On the question of proportionality, my new clause 20 seeks to bring in only very large businesses, so that the requirements of cyber-security on them are proportionate. We know that such businesses are not taking the measures to keep cyber-secure, as we have seen recently with Marks & Spencer, Jaguar Land Rover and others.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to say in his eloquent speech that raising awareness and having a debate about this issue is important, but the problems may not necessarily be the result of hostile actors. If the providers of the modules were to stop providing software updates, the modules would be more likely to fail and then become the subject of hostile attacks. So not only could the technology be killed by a hostile actor, but an increased dependency on software updates puts us at risk.

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for generously giving way again. I have no desire to test the House by pushing my amendments to a vote, and I will be happy if I can receive his assurance. I take his points on not having technology-specific regulation where possible, but can I have an assurance that the Minister will work with me, my Committee and other hon. Members to look at the need to safeguard where there are technology-specific risks?