Chi Onwurah MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2025 · Artificial Intelligence: Schools · Hansard source

  More

  AI is already prevalent in the workplace and in the education system, and we need to equip the next generation to be able to use AI tools productively and securely while also delivering on their unique potential as human beings. How is the Minister working with the Department for Education to ensure that the AI tools that are used in our education system support this kind of learning? Specifically, what advice has she given to the Department with regard to the procurement of edtech tools, which are widely available? Some are free and some need to be paid for, so how are schools to decide which to use?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The all-party parliamentary group for Africa, which I chair, recently published its report on Africa’s just energy transition to accessible and renewable clean energy. What assessment has the Minister made of the report’s nine recommendations, including the recommendation on reforming carbon markets so that they work in Africa’s interests, and the recommendation on ensuring that international development funding is blended with private sector funding for investment in that transition?

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Modern Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  As Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee,, I really welcome this modern industrial strategy because it delivers on the promise Labour made in opposition to put science, innovation and technology and the skills they require at the heart of the drive for growth and industrialisation. I also welcome the strategy as a north-east MP because of the emphasis on regional growth and regional strengths. My Committee found that one of the major barriers to regional growth and innovation was access to capital. The industrial strategy commits to doubling business investment by 2035. Will the Secretary of State say a little about how the north-east—just for example—might benefit from that?

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not take any interventions, thank you. I particularly fear the impact on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged—those without the social capital of so many arguing for the Bill. There seems to be an assumption that those who have been most unequal in life will suddenly be rendered equal in death, but the least valued by society are often those who value themselves the least. We know that the last year of life is so often the most expensive for the NHS and the most distressing for friends and family; why not save everyone the trouble of being a burden? This Bill lacks the safeguards, which we must have, to deal with the reality that there are powerful economic and personal incentives for both the state and family members to encourage the vulnerable into taking their own lives. We should specifically consider the impact on ethnic communities: we know the prism of racist assumptions through which healthcare has too often been administered —the huge inequalities in maternal health and mental health, to name just two examples. There is nothing in this Bill to protect the vulnerable and those whose experience of life and death has already been biased. Finally, to vote against this Bill is not to accept the status quo. It is not our job now to propose a better Bill—that was on Report and at Committee stage—it is our job to judge the Bill as it is, and that is why I say to hon. Members, please, do not vote for this Bill.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In general, this debate has shown Parliament at its best: informed, considered and passionate. I have not spoken in it before; I have listened, reflected, read, and sought to understand the intention and the impact of the Bill, particularly on the most vulnerable. I will now take five minutes to say four things. First, I was brought up on the right to die. My mother, who was disabled, often in great pain and a cancer survivor, was a member of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society and Exit, as Dignity in Dying was previously called. I can honestly say that Newcastle United, feminism, and the right to die were mother’s milk to me. My position is not based on ideological, cultural or religious reasons. I urge colleagues not to vote for the Bill, because it is without the rigour or scrutiny necessary to make assisted dying work in practice. I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock). They have said that the Bill has received more scrutiny than most Government Bills. But this is not your average Bill. It fundamentally changes the relationship between state and citizen. It allows the state to take the life of a citizen. Yes, it is on request, but that is still a huge change. We say that it is the first duty of any Government to keep our citizens secure. But now the state will also be able to kill them. Our NHS was set up to secure improvement in physical and mental health, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) has so powerfully argued, the Bill could change the founding principles of the NHS. Clinicians are trained to save lives; now, they will also be able to kill people. The job of our police and armed forces is to protect life and liberty; now, they will also protect those who take people’s lives. Because this marks a fundamental change in the relationship between state and citizen, it requires much more public and parliamentary debate. We have not even begun to interrogate all the social implications of this change. All of human life is here. It will change the ethos of the NHS. It will enable private companies to kill private citizens. There will be an information campaign so that everyone is aware that the state is able to kill them.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise for not being here earlier. I commend the Government for engaging in a cross-party discussion about AI, which is what the country needs to do, but the key issue is ensuring from the beginning that the tech companies understand that transparency in copyright and AI is not a “nice to have” but an absolute requirement, and that if they will not deliver it, the Minister will.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. On Saturday, residents in Westerhope told me how nuisance vehicles, illegal and modified e-bikes, off-road bikes and speeding cars are making their lives an absolute misery, and I have had similar complaints from residents in Slatyford and Newbiggin. The chief constable of Northumbria tells me that his force has already tripled the number of vehicles impounded over the past few years, so it is keen to enforce the laws, such as they are. Will the Minister set out how her new proposals will make life better for residents in Newcastle?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  There is much in this strategic defence review that will be of interest to my Committee. I welcome the report and in particular the recognition that science, innovation and technology are an opportunity as well as a threat. Can he confirm that the numerous references to AI in the report are to a sovereign AI capability, whether publicly or privately developed? Having spent last week in Brunei as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, observing the amazing work of the Royal Gurkha Rifles, will he also confirm that despite this tilt back to NATO, he recognises the contribution and strategic importance of that base in the South China sea?

• 20 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  A trade deal with the world’s fastest-growing economy, which the Tories failed to achieve; a trade deal with the world’s richest economy, which they also failed to achieve; and a trade deal with the world’s biggest trading bloc, which the Tories and Reform would tear up, despite the enormous benefits for British businesses, consumers and tourists—does the Prime Minister agree that all that, plus financial stability, investment in key public services and our national security and infrastructure, makes the UK the best place to start and grow a business in the world? Would he further agree that given our fantastic quality of living, our great universities and our skilled and passionate people, the north-east should be the destination of choice for such investment?

• 14 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 14 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 14 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 14 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to Lords amendment 43B, which deals with the safeguarding of scientific research and ensuring that the exemptions in the Bill are used for the purposes of such research alone. On Second Reading, the Minister was unable to address the points that I raised; he ran out of time because of the length of the debate on AI and copyright, and I rather feel that the same has happened today. In the meantime, however, he wrote to me extensively to address my concerns. Although I do not think all of them were fully addressed, I was convinced that the Minister and, indeed, the Government did not intend this measure to widen the circumstances in which data could be reused for scientific research without consent. I am thinking of circumstances in which data would be reused for the training of AI models which were in themselves not contributing to new, creative scientific research. I believe—let me emphasise this—that all scientific research is creative, and that even if it is simply reproducing existing findings, it is creating confidence in the stock of scientific knowledge. I understand that the Minister does not intend to create a wild west, and I hope that he can confirm specifically that it is not the policy, intention or effect of the provisions to enable the reuse of personal data for AI.

• 14 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his inadvertent intervention, and I look forward to my future happiness. Given his reassurances, I think the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee can work with the Government to ensure that the Bill enables scientific research through the use of the fantastic datasets that the UK is proud to have, without exposing the public to the reuse of their data for the purposes of training AI models or for other commercial purposes that are not within the remit of scientific research. I will be pleased to accept the Minister’s reassurances, and on that basis I do not wish to engage in further ping-pong between the Houses.

• 14 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way, which has made this a real debate. I commend him for his determination to bring together the tech sector and creatives to develop a solution—I know that many creatives are technical, and many technical people are creative. May I urge the Minister to ensure that he works with a wide range of tech companies? As I have said to him, I do not believe that large tech platforms have the right incentives to develop an appropriate tech solution to this, and I urge him to be transparent about how he engages with them. Finally, the tech platforms refused to appear at a joint sitting of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but it is through transparency that we can ensure competition to identify the best technical solution.

• 14 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  On the point that Lord Winston made in the other place, will the Minister explain how setting a test for scientific research, so that data could be reused, would have prevented in vitro fertilisation?

• 14 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister makes a hand signal, but I am of the view that hand signals are not reflected in Hansard . The Minister has far greater knowledge of proceedings in this House than I do, so I suspect he knows that too. If he would like to intervene on me, I would be very happy for him to do so.

• 14 May 2025 · UK-US Trade Agreement: Digital Services Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I really welcome the US-UK trade deal and the fact that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister kept their commitment not to put online safety on the table in those negotiations. My Committee’s inquiry into social media misinformation and algorithms has heard evidence that the algorithms in social media drive the spread of misinformation, and we saw the consequences of that in the summer riots. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as well as not watering down the Online Safety Act, he will look to strengthen it and is discussing how to do so with our allies in the US?

• 13 May 2025 · Mansion House Accord · Hansard source

  More

  The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee inquiry into the innovation and growth of the regions has repeatedly heard evidence that the lack of access to investment, particularly outside London and the south-east, is a barrier to scaling up our fantastic science and tech start-ups, so I welcome the commitments to put more of our pensions and savings into the productive economy—and I am rather surprised by the response of the shadow Chancellor. Will the Minister say a little more about how these commitments will support growth through innovation?

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  The Tories promised net migration in the tens of thousands and left it at about 1 million. Reform’s predecessor, the UK Independence party, promised that Brexit would fix immigration—that didn’t work out, did it? The Home Secretary is therefore absolutely right to take a reasoned, evidence-based approach to fixing the immigration system. I welcome her emphasis on the contribution that immigrants make—national health service workers in Newcastle from different backgrounds and those starting up great businesses in this country must still feel welcome—but she is also right to critique our country’s dependence on immigration for growth and the impact that has on productivity. Will she say a little more about how she will break that link?

• 8 May 2025 · Trade Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on the second major trade deal in a matter of days? Our agricultural sector, our automotive sector and our steel sector will all be grateful. I have learned to be wary of enthusiastic posts from President Trump on the subject of trade, but this really does seem to be a win, win, win. As my right hon. Friend said, there is more to be done and negotiations carry on. Will he confirm, as the Minister for Future Digital Economy and Online Safety did to my Select Committee, that online harms are not on the negotiating table? Can he say whether the digital services tax is on the negotiating table? Can he also say a little bit about the issues about labour practices that he mentioned in his statement?

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to thank colleagues in the other place and in this House who have worked so hard to improve the Bill. By modernising data infrastructure and governance, this Bill seeks to unlock the secure, efficient use of data while promoting innovation across sectors. As a tech evangelist, as well as the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I welcome it, and I am pleased to see colleagues from the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), here for this debate. Having spent many unhappy hours when working for Ofcom trying to find out where British Telecom’s ducts were actually buried, I offer a very personal welcome to the national underground asset register, and I thank the Minister for his work on this Bill as well as for his opening comments. I agree with the Minister that there is much to welcome in this Bill, but much of the Second Reading debate was consumed by discussion on AI and copyright. I know many Members intend to speak on that today, so I will just briefly set out my view. The problem with the Government’s proposals on AI and copyright are that they give all the power to the tech platforms who—let us be frank—have a great deal of power already, as well as trillions of dollars in stock market capitalisation and a determination to return value to their shareholders. What they do not have is an incentive to design appropriate technology for transparency and rights reservation if they believe that in its absence they will have free access to our fantastic creators’ ingenuity. It is essential that the Minister convinces them that if they do not deliver this technology—I agree with him that it is highly possible to do so—then he will impose it. Perhaps the Minister could announce an open competition, with a supplier contract as the prize, for whichever innovative company designs something. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, sitting with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, heard from small companies that can do just that. The tech giants might not like it, but I often say that the opposite of regulation is not no regulation—it is bad regulation. If the tech platforms do not lead, they will be obliged to follow because the House will not allow the copyright of our fantastic creators to be put at risk. The Minister knows that I think him extremely charismatic and always have done, but I do not believe that “Chris from DSIT” can prevail against the combined forces of Björn from Abba and Paul from The Beatles. The prospects for human advancement opened by using data for scientific research are immense. As a world-leading science powerhouse, the UK must take advantage of them. That is why, despite being a strong advocate of personal data rights, I welcome the Bill’s proposals to allow the reuse of data without consent for the purposes of scientific research. I am concerned, however, that the exemption is too broad and that it will be taken advantage of by data-hungry tech companies using the exemption even if they are not truly advancing the cause of scientific progress but simply, as with copyright, training their AI models. Huge amounts of data is already collected by platforms, such as direct messages on Instagram or via web-scraping of any website that contains an individual’s personal data such as published records or people’s public LinkedIn pages. We know it can be misused because it has been, most recently with Meta’s controversial decision to use Instagram-user data to train AI models, triggering an Information Commissioner’s Office response because of the difficulty users encountered in objecting to it. Then there is the risk of data collected via tracking cookies or the profiling of browsing behaviour, which companies such as Meta use to fingerprint people’s devices and track their browsing habits. Could the data used to create ads also be freely reusable under this exemption? The US tech firm Palantir has the contract for the NHS federated data platform. Amnesty International has already raised concerns about the potential for patients’ data being mishandled. Does the Bill mean that our health data could be reused by Palantir for what it calls research purposes?

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I will leave it to the Minister to address his point. The concern that is probably of most interest to my constituents is reflected in the recent report by The Sunday Times that Chelsea football club claims research and development tax credits. Will the Minister confirm that if Chelsea were to collect data on Newcastle United fans attending an away match at Stamford Bridge, it could be reused for whatever research it is undertaking as a consequence of the exemption? My amendments 37 and 38 would incorporate into the Bill two clarifications to help reduce the potential misuse of the scientific research exemption. I thank the Ada Lovelace Institute for its help in drafting the amendments. Amendment 37 proposes placing in the Bill a basic definition of scientific research based on the “Frascati Manual” used by the ICO, enabling the “reasonably described” test to be assessed against an objective standard.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Minister referred to that briefly, describing it, in relation to AI, as a pipeline where bad data in would mean bad data out. My hon. Friend knows that the definition of sex and gender has been controversial and contested. The Supreme Court brought some clarity and it is important that data collection reflects consistency and clarity. If we have bad data definitions, we will undoubtedly have bad consequences. As I said, it is important that we have consistency and definition when it comes to the collection of data for these purposes, and I look forward to hearing how that will be achieved. I also want to speak briefly in support of clause 125, which introduces rules allowing researchers to access data from online services for online safety research. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s inquiry into social media algorithms in misinformation heard considerable evidence on the role of algorithms in pushing misinformation generally, and particularly to children. I very much welcome this clause, which will increase transparency, but could the Minister clarify that it will fully cover the recommender algorithms used by social media platforms, which drive new content to users? My constituents often feel that advances in technology are done to them rather than with them and for their benefit. Critically, our constituents need to feel that they have agency over the way data impacts their lives. Rather than feeling empowered by digital innovation, too many feel the opposite: disempowered, undermined, dehumanised, tracked and even attacked. Delivering the improvements promised by the Bill must therefore go hand in hand with respecting the rights of citizens to control and manage their data and driving innovation and scientific research benefits to them.