Chi Onwurah MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Nov 2025 · Incomes of Working Families: Newcastle · Hansard source

  More

  Under 14 years of Tory misrule, workers in the north-east saw their average annual earnings fall, causing a cost of living crisis for families across the region. We have fantastic, passionate and productive workers. Will the Minister promise to continue to turn back on Tory failure by investing in the industry of the north-east to deliver high-wage, high-quality jobs as part of a Budget for working people?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing · Hansard source

  More

  I have visited the hotel in Newcastle where up to 400 asylum seekers are living. I have listened to local community concerns. I have spoken to the asylum seekers, the hotel owners, the programme managers, the police, and local stakeholders. It is clear that the policy of housing asylum seekers in hotel accommodation, instituted by the last Government, is failing everybody concerned, except for possibly the private providers profiting from the contracts. Newcastle city council is in discussions with the Home Office about alternative models for accommodation that better meet the needs of the city and of asylum seekers. Can the Minister tell us how those discussions are going and when we can expect to see progress?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Gaza and Hamas · Hansard source

  More

  The ceasefire has been one of the few positive achievements in what has been an unending tale of misery, violence, and horrific suffering, and all those involved in achieving that ceasefire deserve the gratitude and recognition that has been received. Now as Israel continues to kill Gazan children, and Hamas refuse to disarm, will the Minister reassure us that everyone involved in achieving a ceasefire in the US, the UK, and the middle east is equally concentrated and focused on keeping the peace and making the ceasefire work as a beginning of a peace process? Can he further reassure us, given our recognition of Palestine, that the Palestinian voice will be heard?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak to you on this occasion to welcome the ambition behind the life sciences innovation manufacturing fund and, indeed, the Government’s positive support for life sciences, with their belief that Government can act to support industry in general; it is not simply a matter of getting out of the way. That is in sharp contrast to the last Conservative Government’s approach to industry, allowing a gentle decline and deindustrialisation in our nation. To be fair, the series of Conservative Governments chopped and changed their approach to industrial strategy so often it was difficult to know exactly where they stood. Unlike them, Labour is committed to the life sciences sector. Labour published its plan for life sciences in opposition, which included 10-year funding commitments for key research bodies aimed at putting an end to the short-termism that undermines economic growth and scientific success. Now in government, I welcome Labour’s commitment to the life sciences sector plan—developed in close co-ordination with the Government’s 10-year health plan—which aims to support cutting-edge research and turn that into real-world results, with new treatments, faster diagnoses and more lives saved. It is about making sure that breakthroughs happen here in this country, creating jobs, improving lives in every part of the country and driving growth. As the Minister said, the life sciences are a strength of our country—they are often described as a jewel in the crown of the British economy—and we all know that success in life sciences leads to positive, wide-reaching benefits across the country for the economy and our health.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund · Hansard source

  More

  Let me thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which pre-empts something I will say in a few minutes. She is absolutely right: Northern Ireland already plays an important role in the life sciences sector and life sciences manufacturing, and it will have an important role to play in the future. It is an incredibly exciting time to be involved in life sciences. I often think that if I were a young engineer now—I studied electrical engineering—I would be fascinated by the life sciences and, in particular, synthetic biology, which offers so many potential opportunities for growth and wellbeing. It is an enabling technology across so many different sectors. In Newcastle, including in my constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, the life sciences contribute £1.7 billion and employ over 8,000 people across more than 200 companies. We are home to the National Innovation Centre for Ageing, Newcastle Helix and The Biosphere. Our city is one star in a constellation of excellent life sciences clusters across the north of England. I really welcome the ambition of the innovation manufacturing fund. I ask the Minister in his response for more clarity in three particular areas. First, in regard to the size of the fund, in the face of increased competition, and as the shadow Secretary of State described—this will be in less sensationalist terms—we are seeing some reduction in investment in the UK. Is £520 million enough to ensure that the UK is an attractive prospect for internationally mobile businesses? By contrast, a manufacturing plant such as Moderna’s recently opened vaccine centre in Oxfordshire might cost in the region of £150 million to £200 million. Is the fund the right size? Secondly, the Select Committee recently held a one-off session on life sciences investment, which was of such interest that we have decided to hold another one-off session next week on the same subject. We heard evidence from the pharma sector, including significant support for the life sciences sector plan and for the Government’s approach, but I think it is fair to say that we were told that, although NHS pricing is not the only factor in investment decisions, it is a significant one. We heard evidence that the UK spends less proportionately on medicines than other comparable countries and that that reduces the pull-through for innovative medicines. It would clearly be a difficult decision to spend more on medicines, as that would mean spending less elsewhere in our NHS. Does the Minister see the manufacturing fund as support in some way for investment decisions in the absence of progress on the NHS pricing discussions? Could he tell us whether the Secretary of State is involved in discussions between the Health Secretary and the pharma sector with regard to NHS pricing? I understand that discussions are ongoing, and I see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), conferring with him. Perhaps he can confirm that those discussions are ongoing.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The Committee’s work is fascinating, so I certainly recommend he read the transcript. To summarise, we were looking specifically at the reasons for investment being pulled and, as I said, we asked the question in a number of different ways. The message that came back was significant support for the life sciences sector plan and the Government approach, but lack of certainty and clarity over NHS pricing and dismay about some aspects of NHS pricing and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decisions. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right to point out that there was concern over the current and likely future pricing of innovative medicines, but that was not the only factor in those investment decisions. I ask the Minister to give us an update on those negotiations to the extent that he is able to do so, and to say whether this manufacturing fund is seen as potential compensation for investment in medicines and pricing as part of the NHS future plan.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. My Committee has looked at some of the reasons for investments, such as those he sets out, and it is worth emphasising the strengths of the UK, some of which I have mentioned. We have a really strong life sciences sector, and specifically skills at every stage in the UK life sciences ecosystem, together with R&D tax credits, which is another point of incentivisation, and the fact that our NHS offers a fantastic opportunity to test and trial new medicines with a population that is heterogeneous and with population data records that are second to none. So there are many reasons why pharma and life sciences companies are continuing to invest in our country, and we have a fantastic ecosystem of life sciences start-ups and scale-ups. That brings me to the final question I want to put to the Minister, which is on the regional impact of the fund. The Minister mentioned on a number of occasions that the fund will drive investment and growth across our country. As part of the Committee’s inquiry into innovation and regional growth, we heard of significant disparities in investment, particularly in access to capital and research funding from UK Research and Innovation and in funding and investment between the regions of our country and the greater south-east, otherwise known as the golden triangle. Manufacturing is well distributed across the United Kingdom; we heard earlier about the opportunities in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell me whether there will be a regional dimension to how the funds are disbursed? I hope that the extent to which the funds are regionally distributed will be monitored, but does he expect that this funding will be distributed across the country to drive growth in every corner of the country as he said, and that it will not perpetuate existing regional inequalities?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is absolutely right to champion access to a consistent, trusted digital ID. All of us online have digital IDs aplenty already—Facebook, TikTok, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Tesco—so she is right to bring the benefits of one digital ID to my constituents. But making digital ID mandatory for everyone seeking work is poking a stick in the eye of all those with security, privacy and/or Government capacity concerns, which my Committee will be examining as part of our work on digital government. For now, though, can she first confirm that people will be in control of their digital ID data and who accesses it? Secondly, will she say whether it will be procured externally from the private sector or developed in-house by Government digital services?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent introductory speech on regional inequalities in transport. Buses are incredibly important in my constituency, and they need not only investment but support. Newcastle is yet to receive real-time bus information of the type that has been enjoyed in London for more than a decade, which makes transport more reliable and therefore more used. Does she agree that we need to ensure that the technology that supports these important services is also more equally distributed across the country?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Non-surgical Aesthetic and Cosmetic Treatments · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate. This year, in June alone, 28 people in the north-east were left with cases of botulism from botched and unregulated botox injections. That is one of the reasons why the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which I chair, will be holding an inquiry later this year into hair products and unregulated beauty procedures. We follow this debate with interest.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Life Sciences Investment · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to his place, but I wish it was under better circumstances. The loss of Merck’s investment, following the loss of AstraZeneca’s investment in January, will certainly be perceived as a blow to the UK’s life sciences sector, though we must not forget the amazing work that businesses, start-ups and researchers do in constituencies across the country, including my own. We also must not forget the importance of value for money in NHS spending. The Select Committee will hold an urgent session on Tuesday to examine the issues in the life sciences sector, including tariffs, investment incentives from the US, access to capital and the relationship with NHS pricing. In the meantime, it is clear that the life sciences sector plan, published in July, does not reflect market conditions. Could the Minister update us on how, and how quickly, he plans to revise that plan?

• 10 Sept 2025 · New Technologies in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the outgoing ministerial team for their engagement as I congratulate the new team on succeeding to this important and inspiring brief. The Government are committed to transforming public services through the adoption of new technologies. At the June spending review, Departments published their plans to deploy technologies to achieve efficiencies, but we are yet to see the detailed and fully funded road map for delivery promised by DSIT for this summer. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing a road map that sets out what will be delivered, who will deliver it and by when, and how much it will cost, before her appearance before my Committee as part of our digital centre of government inquiry in November?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Minister on his new role. I am sorry that we never had the opportunity to welcome him to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee when he was at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but I believe I see the new artificial intelligence and cyber Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), sitting on the Front Bench, and I look forward to welcoming and congratulating him. The devastating JLR cyber-attack is one of a series of cyber-attacks that have been wreaking havoc on British businesses and consumers and undermining public confidence. Will the Minister confirm my understanding that neither JLR nor Marks & Spencer are deemed to be providers of essential services under cyber legislation, and are therefore not required to meet the highest levels of cyber-security and reporting requirements? If that is the case, will that change under the new cyber-security and resilience Bill, which he mentioned? If not, how will he improve cyber-resilience in our industry and society without such measures?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s commitment to support for Ukraine, to our security and to our regional economies. The north-east sends proportionately more of its young people into the armed forces than any other region in the country, yet the Ministry of Defence spends less with our businesses and industries than it does with any other region, despite our fantastic, high-value advanced manufacturing. It appears that we have not been offered a defence growth deal, so will the Minister meet me and stakeholders to address this question urgently? My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) had agreed to do so; will he make that commitment?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Pavement Parking · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate, which has clearly raised concerns across the country. It is clear that pavements should be for pedestrians to walk on safely. That benefits businesses and local authorities. However, many streets were designed in an era when we did not have two or three-car families. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to ensure that, as well as consistent regulation, we have good public transport so that we have better use of that and less dependency on cars?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement with other Foreign Ministers, urging Israel to agree to a ceasefire and humanitarian aid. I say to my right hon. Friend, who I know is entirely sincere, that Members—and, indeed, the British people—have heard urgings, demands and outrage in this Chamber, yet the situation only gets worse, with more and more Palestinians dying, each life of incalculable value. In my Adjournment debate in April, I asked what more we could do to help the Palestinian people. When the Minister responded last week, he made some useful clarifications, including that Israeli settlement goods should be labelled so that British people can decide what they are spending their money on. When it comes to the actions of the UK Government, however, I have to ask my right hon. Friend: is this it?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Independent Water Commission · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday I had a lovely swim in the North sea off Bamburgh castle, and I would like to thank the Safer Seas and Rivers Service for telling me which beaches to avoid due to sewage spills by Northumbrian Water. Not all my constituents swim, but they all tell me that the current situation is disgraceful. They will not be reading a 500-page report, so could the Secretary of State explain to them whether it is: a) their fault for not accepting higher bills, as Tory former Ministers and Water UK say; b) the water companies’ fault for extracting so much more value—in the shape of dividend and bonus payments and loading the companies with debt—than they put into them; or c) because water is a natural monopoly and incredibly difficult to regulate effectively in the private sector? Or is it both b) and c)?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Social Media: Misinformation and Algorithms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I also thank him for highlighting the particular issue of young people, their cognitive development and the lack of protection they enjoy from misinformation as a consequence. The Committee did not recommend that the Government should commit to a review, but we are considering a further inquiry into the impact on the cognitive development of young people. I am sure that we will have recommendations with regard to that as a consequence.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Social Media: Misinformation and Algorithms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for championing safe and effective technology, and for the points she has made. She is absolutely right. First, it is essential that the technology be properly regulated, and that regulation be based on principles, so WhatsApp and user-to-user communication should be subject to the same principles-based regulatory environment as content communication. Secondly, we must be able to opt out, and to reset the algorithms that drive the advertising we receive. Thirdly and finally, digital advertising is unfortunately a free-for-all, with very little regulation or control. If consumers are to be adequately protected, that needs to change.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Social Media: Misinformation and Algorithms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution to the Committee’s report—her understanding and knowledge of AI have been invaluable. She is absolutely right that AI content must be labelled, and that the platforms and content generators must take action to address this issue now, because the risks are only going to increase. I look forward to the Government ensuring that enforcement has teeth for those platforms that do not take action or are too reckless in the action they take.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Social Media: Misinformation and Algorithms · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement. Today I speak on behalf of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, but also the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives were profoundly affected by last year’s riots, as well as everyone impacted by the long shadow of social media misinformation. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Committee Clerks and specialists who have supported this inquiry, and the many witnesses who gave evidence. They have helped to shape our report, and we are very grateful, particularly to those who shared their real-life experience of the riots and the online hate that accompanied them. The Committee would also like to extend our deepest sympathies to the families of the three little girls murdered in Southport, and everyone affected. Like many nations, the UK is grappling with the immense challenge of regulating global tech giants—companies whose platforms shape our societies, economies and democracies, often with resources that dwarf those of Governments. For example, the UK’s entire public sector budget is about equal to Meta’s market capitalisation. As the representative of the British people, it is essential that Parliament understands the impact of these companies, and is able to scrutinise their actions and regulate them in the public interest, where necessary. However, the Committee experienced significant challenges in seeking to do that during the course of the inquiry. We were reassured by statements from Google, Meta, TikTok and X in our evidence session that they accepted their responsibility to be accountable to the British people through Parliament, and we hope to see that in practice as our work in this area continues. The horrific attacks in Southport on 29 July 2024 and the violent unrest that followed are a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of the viral spread of online misinformation. Hateful and misleading content spread rapidly, amplified by opaque recommendation algorithms. Protests turned violent, often targeting Muslim and migrant communities, driven in part by the spread of these messages. These events provided a snapshot of how online activity can contribute to real-world violence and hate. Many parts of the long-awaited Online Safety Act 2023 were not fully in force at the time of the riots, but the Committee found little evidence that they would have made a difference if they were. Moreover, the Act is out of date. It regulates at a technology and content level, rather than on principles or outcomes, and therefore fails to adequately address generative artificial intelligence —ChatGPT, deep fakes and synthetic misinformation—even as it becomes cheaper and easier to access. Generative AI will make the next misinformation crisis much more dangerous. Having spent six years working for Ofcom before entering Parliament, I believe strongly that regulating technology does not work. Our online safety regime should be based on principles that remain sound in the face of technological development. Social media has made many important and positive contributions, helping to democratise access to a public voice and connect people far and wide. It also has significant risks. The advertisement-based business models of most social media companies mean that they promote engaging content, often regardless of its authenticity. That spills out across the entire internet via the unclear, under-regulated digital advertising market, incentivising the creation of content that will perform well on social media, as we saw during the 2024 unrest. This is not just a social media problem; it is a systemic issue that promotes harmful content and undermines public trust. Our concerns were exacerbated when we questioned representatives of regulators and the Government. We were met with confusion and contradiction at high levels, and it became evident that the UK’s online safety regime has some major holes. After four public sessions, more than 80 written submissions and extensive deliberations, our findings are clear: the British people are not adequately protected from online harms. We have identified five key principles that we believe are crucial for the regulation of social media and related technologies and drive our recommendations to Government. Our first principle is public safety. Algorithmically enhanced misinformation is a danger that companies, Government, law enforcement and security services need to work together to address. That is basically saying that misinformation is harmful, which may sound obvious, but it has not been recognised as such. As a consequence, platforms should be compelled to demote fact-checked misinformation and establish processes to take more stringent measures during crises. We propose that the Government carry out research into how platforms should tackle misinformation and how far recommendation algorithms spread harm. Furthermore, all AI content should be visibly labelled. Our second principle is free and safe expression. Steps to tackle amplified misinformation should be in line with the fundamental right to free expression, and measures to meet misinformation must align with that right. Our third principle is responsibility. Users should be held liable for what they post online, but the platforms on which they post are also responsible and should be held accountable for the impact of the amplification of harmful content. That may sound obvious—indeed, it is not the first time that a Select Committee has said this—yet widespread uncertainty remains as to whether platforms have a responsibility for the legal content that they host and distribute. The report recommends that platforms be obliged to undertake risk assessments and report on content that is legal but harmful. New regulatory oversight, clear and enforceable standards and proportionate penalties are needed to cover the process of digital advertising. Our fourth principle is control. Critically, users should have control over both their personal data and what they see online. We recommend that users have a right to reset the data used by platform recommendation algorithms. Our fifth and final principle is transparency. The technology used by social media companies, including recommendation algorithms and generative AI, should be transparent, accessible and explainable to public authorities. Transparency is needed for participants in the digital advertising market. Basically, if we cannot explain it, we cannot understand the harm it may do. I am a tech evangelist: I believe that technology, like politics, is an engine of progress, but that does not mean we have to accept it as it is. Our report sets out detailed recommendations to ensure that we do not have a repeat of the violent and harmful riots last year. We urge the Government to acknowledge that the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose; to adopt these five principles to build a stronger, future-proof online safety regime, with clear, enforceable standards for social media platforms; and to implement our recommendations. Without action, it is only a matter of time before we face another crisis like the Southport riots, or even worse.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Social Media: Misinformation and Algorithms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman, my fellow Committee member, for that question, as well as for his contribution to this report and the work of the Committee, which has been exceedingly valuable. He has raised a really important point; we heard evidence from Meta about Facebook content checking, and how outside the UK and the US it was moving from fact-checking to community notes, which X has also done. The Committee has recommended adopting the principle that platforms are held accountable, which must go hand in hand with those platforms setting out how they can demonstrate that accountability. The report also recommends that the Government undertake research into what effective fact-checking looks like and how misinformation is spread, because one of the things that the Committee—which is a scientific Committee—observed was the lack of real evidence in thar area. That is partly because the algorithms and platforms are so opaque and secretive about how they operate.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Social Media: Misinformation and Algorithms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for highlighting this incredibly important issue and for the work that she does in this area. She is absolutely right to say that. The Committee heard very moving and distressing evidence that suicide and self-harm content can be and has been amplified by social media algorithms and that that can play a role in suicide and self-harm, including by young people. Promoting suicide is illegal, and the Online Safety Act introduced an offence of promoting self-harm, but it does not do enough to tackle legal content that promotes suicide or self-harm, as with the rest of legal but harmful content, such as misinformation. The Committee’s recommendations that platforms should be held accountable for the algorithmic amplification of misinformation would address part of what my hon. Friend is concerned about. We hope that in implementing those recommendations, the Government would set out how they would fully address her concerns.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Social Media: Misinformation and Algorithms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend, both for his outstanding contribution to the report and the Committee’s work and for his question. He is absolutely right—we should not have to force the online companies to take action. They can see the evidence, and they can read this report. They know what is happening to the brains of young people. They should be able to implement the recommendations of the report without waiting for Government action, although I very much believe that Government action will be necessary to ensure those recommendations are implemented across all platforms.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for this statement and for expressing his, and indeed this House’s, unwavering commitment to the Ukrainian people against Putin’s illegal war. I welcome the 50,000 drones that the UK has sent to Ukraine and express my admiration for the Ukrainian people, who are fighting on behalf of all of us. No one predicted the role of drones in this conflict and the astounding speed of the evolution of that technology in Ukraine, but also in Russia and China. What steps is the Secretary of State taking with our allies to ensure that we maintain or develop technological advantage in key defence capabilities and get it to the frontline?