Oral Answers to Questions
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The whole House recognises—certainly, the Government’s industrial strategy does—that in order to drive growth we need innovation clusters across the country. The last Government committed to increasing R&D spend outside of the greater south-east by 40% by 2030 as part of the failed levelling-up strategy. Will the Secretary of State say whether he intends to maintain that target, and/or what steps he will take to ensure that funding is available to drive regional growth and innovation?
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and I congratulate her, on behalf the whole House, on her election as Chair of the Select Committee—I look forward to appearing before it soon and regularly thereafter. She raises an incredibly important point. I can say that this Government are committed to working with local and regional mayors to ensure that local growth plans and the partnerships with UKRI will benefit all regions. These include a £100 million innovation accelerator pilot and £80 million in launchpad programmes, all of which will meet the needs that she outlines.
Technology in Public Services
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Women in business could add £200 billion to the economy if they were invested in at the same rate as men in business. The female founders community has been in uproar since it was announced that Innovate UK would award only half of the 50 £75,000 grants from its women in innovation fund, even though almost 1,500 women applied for them. Innovate UK has since reversed that decision. Would the Secretary of State meet those from the community to understand their experiences, find out what went wrong and ensure that Innovate UK better supports the Government’s growth mission by better supporting female founders?
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful for that intervention; my hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. First, on the broad themes of under-represented communities in the tech sector, the issue is multifaceted. It is not just about some people being excluded from the products that are emerging from the tech sector; it is also about access to the great jobs that are being created in the tech sector itself. It is clear that there is regional and socioeconomic imbalance, and that there are other equality issues. I remember very well in the 1990s trying to get into university, and the system back then diverting people like me away from it. I had to apply four times and go back to secondary school at the age of 25 to get into university. Now I see a tech sector that is not dissimilar—sometimes it diverts people from certain backgrounds away from it or fails to attract into the sector those people with great potential.
We need to do better than that. We need to lead from Government. When I saw Innovate UK’s decision, I was unsettled, but I was very pleased that it then came out so rapidly—not only reversing the decision and going back to the full 50 grants but issuing a forthright apology for the mistake that led to the problem in the first place. Such issues should not emerge. I know that Innovate UK will learn those lessons, but we need to ensure that the Government are at the forefront of delivering support for the sector and creating the jobs and technology of the future, and making sure that it does so in an equitable way. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to put that on the record, and I look forward to meeting the community she mentioned.
A missions-led approach to reforming our public services will harness the power of technology to make them more productive. Let us take artificial intelligence. It is not just doctors and teachers who are using AI to change the lives of the public they serve. In Greater Manchester, citizens advice centres are using Caddy, an AI-powered co-pilot tool developed with my officials to help staff and volunteers provide more helpful advice to the people who need it. Digital experts in my Department are thinking about how we can use AI to connect clean energy projects to the grid more quickly. Stories such as these are just the starting point, but they remain all too rare. Why should any citizen be denied cutting-edge healthcare, clean energy or a world-class education? Why should a vulnerable person struggling with eviction or debt struggle to get the help they need?
Adopting AI across health, education and policing could boost productivity by almost £24 billion a year. If we fail to do so, the benefits of AI could become the preserve of the privileged few. The urgency of our task demands decisive action, because people should not have to wait for better public services. Rightly, they expect that we will fix the public finances fast. That is why we will publish the AI action plan, led by Matt Clifford. The action plan will work out how we can make the very best use of AI to grow the economy and deliver the Government’s national missions. Then we will set up the AI opportunities unit to help make the action plan’s recommendations a reality.
My Department will transform public services for the people who use them, by working with Departments across Whitehall to pioneer safe, new and innovative applications for AI. Every one of those applications will depend on two things: digital infrastructure and data. These will be the driving force behind Britain’s digital transformation, better hospitals and schools, safer streets and transport that works for working people.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate on technology in public services. Many new Members are waiting to give their maiden speech, so I shall try to be brief on this subject, which is dear to my heart, and on which I am very passionate.
The Labour Government understand the importance of technology and its potential to transform our lives. In a speech just last week, the Prime Minister promised to harness the full potential of artificial intelligence for the public good. As the Secretary of State laid out, we are already making progress. A few days ago, the Government released a bank of example lesson plans and curricula to help train generative AI tools—not to undermine teachers or try to replace them with large language models, but to free them up to spend more time teaching the next generation. Only two months in, that is not bad.
It is really important that we have good news stories to tell about technology in public services; indeed, I want to start by praising technology generally. I consider myself a tech evangelist, and I know that many of the new intake consider themselves tech evangelists, too. We cannot count how many lives have been saved by remote medicine; how many businesses have been started, enabled or grown through technology; how many marriages have been saved by couples not arguing about how to get directions; and how much joy has been shared through cat memes.
Technology can and should be a force for good, which is why I went into engineering—to make the world work better for everyone. As the Secretary of State laid out, the opportunity that technology offers public services is huge. In opposition, I shadowed digital, technology and science briefs. Given the dire mess that 14 years of Tory government has made of our country and our finances, praise for anything that happened under the Tories’ multiple and ever-changing regimes is rare, but I want to give credit where credit is due. The creation of the Government Digital Service back in 2011 was world-leading. It was a Labour idea, and it delivered real benefits to both the public and the civil service. From online tax returns to driving licences, the GDS model of user-centred, agile service development reaped some big wins, which saved the Government money and saved people time. The report I commissioned in 2014, “Technology for Everyone: The Prize of Digital Government”, highlighted the opportunities, as did the “Our Digital Future” report, published in 2020.
But the Conservative Government did not follow through. They did not succeed in driving change through every Whitehall Department, or outside of Whitehall into local government, so they squandered the promise of GDS. Digital government lost its way between departmental silos, Conservative factionalism, a lack of investment, and a focus on woke lanyards, rather than technology adoption, so we have not made the progress that we should have. My constituents spend too much time trying to interact with public services in ways that are repetitive, time-consuming or plain hostile, and I have had constituents in tears in my surgeries because they cannot make a benefits claim or are put on hold by some service for hours on end.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and for highlighting the lack of progress by the last Conservative Government—and indeed their failure to roll out acceptable digital infrastructure across our country.
Good news stories about technology have been replaced by tech horror stories—about workers imprisoned unfairly because of Post Office software failures, and about students being treated unfairly by exam algorithms. This entrenches opposition to technology. Too many of my constituents feel that they are being tracked, monitored, surveilled and analysed. They do not want to go online without feeling safe and secure.
Work by the Collective Intelligence Project highlights that safety, participation and progress must go hand in hand, because only public confidence in AI will enable us to drive adoption in public services and improve productivity. That is why the Government are so right to emphasise safe deployment. Pre-deployment evaluation of foundation models by our world-leading AI Safety Institute will boost public confidence, and provide transparency about when AI is used in the public sector, and how it will help to maintain trust.
I have worked in technology deployment for many years, and bitter experience has led me to the conclusion that whatever the problem might be, technology is not the answer on its own. You cannot force technology on people. Co-creation is an overused term but an underused reality, so engagement, participation and partnership working need to be part of the plans for adoption. The group Connected by Data has great examples of this type of participatory decision making. Camden Council, which was led until recently by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), has done excellent work in this regard.
I am sure that I do not need to tell the House that AI is the subject of hype as well as hope. In partnership with the What Works centres, we need to evaluate different uses of AI in our hospitals and schools, for example, so that we can scale up the most cost-effective solutions while avoiding expensive failures. The private sector has driven the adoption of so many of the technologies that have transformed our lives, but we must build state capacity in tech by recruiting more diverse science and technology experts to the civil service, so that Government can innovate. We need fair, open and transparent procurement processes that will enable British start-ups as well as big tech companies to bid for Government contracts.
Given the previous Government’s responses to my parliamentary questions, I am concerned that our digital infrastructure may be too dependent on single or dual suppliers, or on proprietary systems. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that, and the role of start-ups and open source in ensuring resilience. Digital inclusion was neglected by the previous Government. Age UK estimates that around a third of over-75s—that is 1.7 million people—do not use the internet. We must tackle the barriers, which include infrastructure availability, cost and the skills gap, but we also need to recognise that some people may never be comfortable with digital access to Government services.
Finally, we should remember that we too are a public service. I have raised the adoption of technology in this place many times. Indeed, I worked closely with the House authorities during covid to deliver a remote Parliament by introducing Zoom into the Commons. We must lead by example when it comes to adopting technology to improve our performance. I am standing to be Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee because this is so important to all our constituents, but they often feel that technology is something that is done to them, rather than with them and for them. The benefits of technology have not been shared fairly. Under a Labour Government, this will change, and public services will lead the way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Layla Moran.
Space Industry
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray, and to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing the debate; as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for space, I can bear witness to what an excellent chair he is and what a great champion he is for the industry.
We all know that space is not just for the stars. Members from constituencies in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England have all emphasised—I am sure Members from Wales would, too—the potential and actual contribution that it makes to their economies. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) particularly emphasised that point. The space industry impacts everybody and everything, from climate change monitoring and rural broadband to transport and agriculture. It is vital for security—just look at Ukraine—and for telecommunications.
In 2021 I spoke in a debate on space debris, which has been mentioned. That creates challenges and opportunities that literally go over most people’s heads. Labour’s first mission in Government is to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, and space provides key opportunities for growth. Our aerospace research and development is a long-term endeavour, and our industrial strength is the result of decades of support by successive Governments—and Labour would build on that legacy.
Although there remain challenges to overcome, our regulators must be responsive to innovation in the space sector, from in-orbit manufacturing, as we have heard about, to space-based renewables. Labour’s regulatory innovation office would rewire regulators to support innovation, including the space sector. The office would set and monitor targets for approvals, benchmarked internationally, and give regulators steers from Labour’s industrial strategy, which would help ensure that space was seen as an industry and not as a project, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest suggested. We would also support the Regulatory Horizons Council, with deadlines for the Government to respond to its work. On that subject, when the RHC reports on space, will the Minister commit now to a timeframe for the response from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology? Will he also set out what specifically the Government are doing to support pro-innovation regulation for space?
As well as proper regulation, the industry needs greater stability from this Government, which has been in somewhat short supply, and not just at the macro level. We have seen the National Space Council that was set up by one Prime Minister cancelled by the next, and then reinstated by the one after that. We left the Galileo Project, and the U-turn on the rival system cost a further £60 million. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has also expressed concerns over the lack of coherence in the space strategy, and we heard about the ambiguity and the harmful speculation over the OneWeb deal after the Eutelsat merger, and the impact that has had.
The space industrial plan was three months late, and it is unclear how the Government see space relating to the key technologies in the science and technology framework, so could the Minister speak specifically to that point? I obviously welcome the Minister to his place, but he is the eighth Science Minister in five years. Does he concede that uncertainty is bad for business and bad for space? Labour’s industrial strategy, with our statutory industrial strategy council, will provide the stability and partnership that the industry needs, and enhance our sovereign capabilities, building on the work of the Satellite Applications Catapult and the UK Space Agency.
My final point is on skills, which Members have mentioned. The space industry is so important and it inspires the next generation of engineers. One of the reasons that I went into engineering was because I wanted to design spaceships. I never got to—not yet, but maybe that is still to come. Labour is proposing a national body that would be called Skills England, to provide leadership and bring together Government, businesses, training providers and unions to drive local skills needs. Expanding opportunities in this industry should create good jobs for people of all backgrounds. In February I visited Space Park Leicester, where the university, local government and industry work together to make space more accessible to all. Labour is pledging an action plan for diversity in STEM. I hope the Minister will support that, and I hope that we can see space as an opportunity for all.
Animal Testing
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline.
I acknowledge the strength of public feeling about animal testing. Together, the petitions that we are debating today received more than 140,000 signatures, including 114 in Newcastle upon Tyne Central. I thank everyone who signed the petitions for bringing these important issues to be debated in Parliament once again. The petitioners are calling for an end to the use of dogs in testing and research in the UK, an end to the use of animals in toxicity testing, and the prioritisation of non-animal methods, which are key issues.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on his expert introduction to the debate, and all those who have made speeches or intervened. All the contributions have been very well informed and thoughtful.
As the Opposition spokesperson in the debate, I state clearly and emphasise that the Labour party believes that the unnecessary suffering of defenceless animals is unequivocally wrong. The Labour party was founded to support the rights of working people, and I believe strongly that human rights and animal rights are intrinsically linked. Those who are cruel to animals or ignore their rights often do the same to humans, so recognising and standing up for the rights of animals is an important part of Labour’s record. From the Hunting Act 2004, which banned the cruel practice of hunting with dogs, to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which put in place strong domestic protections for pets, livestock and wild animals, we have used the power of Government to protect animals. We introduced the offence of causing unnecessary suffering, mutilation and animal fighting, and we banned the testing of cosmetic products on animals in 1998. The last Labour Government had a record to be proud of and, if we are privileged to form the next Government, we will build on that legacy.
The British people expect nothing less because, as Members have pointed out, we are a nation of animal lovers. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, the RSPCA was founded in 1824—60 years before the founding of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I do not think that reflects a hierarchy of concern, but it does reflect the extent to which we are concerned about the welfare of animals, and it is no wonder. Animals improve the welfare of humans in many ways, ranging from providing companionship and improving mental health, to facilitating rescues during natural disasters. Animals serve as the best companions, offering emotional support and reducing feelings of loneliness. Domesticated animals can help people to recover from severe illnesses, and they help us in speech therapy, occupational therapy and further physical rehabilitation.
On Thursday, I visited St Paul’s CofE Primary School in Elswick, Newcastle. I asked them what they wanted from Parliament, and top of the list was an end to food poverty and a support dog. Animal welfare and the love of animals are at the heart of British society and culture. As the shadow Minister for science, research and innovation, my priority is to enable the best possible science in this country, which will deliver the best possible outcomes for people across the UK, people across the world and, I believe, animals as well.
Since the introduction of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, animal testing practices have improved. The three Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement—have already been mentioned, and they remain worthy principles. As the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) emphasised, however, many people are rightly distressed and concerned by the scale and, at times, severity of animal testing. Over 1.5 million experimental procedures involving animals were carried out in 2022; 4% of those were assessed as non-recovery—that is to say, the animal died—and almost 4% again were classed as severe.
There are real reasons to foresee a better future. We are in the midst of a scientific and technological revolution that is transforming the economy, society and the conduct of science itself. Non-animal or new approach methods—NAMs—for scientific research are developing at great pace, enabled by advances in artificial intelligence and engineering biology. It is true that there are currently limits to the efficacy of NAMs, but that is becoming less true with each passing year and, as has been pointed out during the debate, there are clear limits to the efficacy of animal testing. Cell cultures, advanced modelling and donor tissues are already helping to reduce the use of animals in testing. In cosmetics, we have seen great success in using NAMs to predict skin sensitisation. A 2018 study found that they were even better than the once-standard mouse test.
One of the petitions calls for an end to the use of dogs in testing. Dogs currently cannot be used in testing if any other species could be used, but in 2022 4,122 dogs were experimented on. I thank the 31,350 people who signed the petition, including 18 of my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne Central. The other petition calls for an end to toxicity testing in favour of NAMs, and I thank the 109,378 people, including 96 of my constituents, who signed it. The two petitions naturally overlap. For example, beagles are used for toxicity testing; they are injected, fed poisonous chemicals and asphyxiated in their numbers. It is impossible not to feel for these animals.
At the same time, we must recognise that advocates of that type of testing will argue that it is necessary to save human lives, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) highlighted so powerfully.
Tracey Crouch
For the record, I do not advocate or support any testing on dogs, particularly in the manner that the hon. Lady described. My point was that some past research on animals has enabled a great many positive outcomes for cancer patients, such as myself.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I was not implying support for a specific type of testing, but making a general point: some have argued in the past that animal testing has been necessary to save human lives, and groups such as Understanding Animal Research argue that currently. Understanding Animal Research also gives the example of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a lethal childhood disease, as a condition where canine models are effective.
Science and innovation can show the way out of this moral maze. To take the example of testing on dogs, NC3Rs, the UK’s National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, has established a project to develop a virtual second species—a virtual dog—using historical data. On toxicity testing, the UK-based company XCellR8 has developed the AcutoX test as a humane alternative to the LD50 test, which involves giving increasing doses of toxic substances to groups of animals until 50% of them are killed.
Just this month, Newcells Biotech, a spinout from Newcastle University based in my constituency, raised over £2 million from the North East Fund for its models of the retina, kidney and lung, which are used in drug development and which reduce reliance on animal testing. The chief executive officer, Dr Mike Nicholds, told me:
“Over the last 10 years, advances in stem cell biology, 3-D bioprinting and high-content analytical methods such as transcriptomics have revolutionised our ability to build laboratory mimics of human tissues that can reduce the use of animals in the early stages of drug discovery. Pioneered in academia, these approaches are now established in mainstream biotech and importantly the regulators have moved to increasingly accept these non-animal models as reliable. Innovations such as retinal organoids, produced by Newcells Biotech, are being used globally to support the development of drugs that cure blindness, demonstrating the power of these new alternatives.”
He went on to say:
“While the prospect of fully replacing animal testing is likely to be at least a decade away, that prospect is no longer beyond the horizon and certainly significant reductions in animal testing will be driven through innovation and awareness within this timescale.”
George Eustice
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Although these technologies are developing year on year, they have been around for some time. She said 10 years, and some would say that some of them have been around for closer to 20 years. Why does she think we have not seen a corresponding fall in the number of animal tests to date? Does she believe that the current project licensing regime is rigorous enough?
Chi Onwurah
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I thank him for it. In his speech, he talked about some of the challenges around the existing regime. We have seen a huge growth in science, and in biotech specifically, which may, unfortunately, have led to increases in animal testing. But it is also true that the regulatory regime needs to reflect the advances in technology, and I will go on to talk about that.
As well as chips and organoids, we have techniques such as proteogenomics, single-cell sequencing and access to human cell types that we did not previously have. For example, bit.bio, a leading UK cell-coding company, is able to manufacture human neurons that were previously available only through brain surgery. With such advances, I am certain that our brilliant scientists and innovators can help provide workable alternatives to animal testing. Given our country’s strengths in artificial intelligence and data science, Britain can be at the forefront of this scientific revolution, which will make animal testing a thing of the past.
I would, however, like to ask the Minister whether he considers that a priority. Estimates show that NAMs receive as little as 0.2% to 0.6% of UK medical research funding. Being a first mover in this field will bring with it jobs, investment, economic growth and better animal welfare. Will he therefore explain what the Government are doing to support British scientists and to incentivise them to proactively seek to use NAMs in British labs, creating a customer base to pull through new labs?
Before I entered Parliament, I worked for the regulator Ofcom, so I know that regulation can drive innovation and open up competition—or be a barrier to it. Labour is proposing a regulatory innovation office to help ensure that regulation does the former, not the latter. We need to take a proactive approach to ensuring that regulation reflects emerging methods of research if we are to drive forward scientific discovery and trials while reducing animal testing.
With these new technologies, there is a huge opportunity to create new drugs much faster and for less money. Today, in the US, it takes an average of 12 years and $1 billion to create a drug, from initial filing with the FDA to FDA approval. These tools can provide significantly better possible targets for a therapy, reducing time and therefore costs.
Responsive, proactive regulation will help to improve the uptake of new NAMs in accordance with the current regulations’ principles of replacement, thereby eliminating avoidable tests as soon as is practical. That would help to assure the public that their Government are moving in the right direction and doing things proactively.
At the same time, our pro-innovation approach will create opportunities for entrepreneurs and innovators to develop and bring to market new NAMs, with a stable business environment and a path to market. Our ambition is clear, and the views of Members here today are well known. The opportunity is there to support NAMs development, drive the replacement of animal testing and support the welfare of all life—animal and human alike.
That will not happen overnight, and animal testing in human health has long been embedded in our pharma sector. However, we will not advance human therapies and cures, as we should, if we continue to rely on animals that do not get the diseases that humans suffer from.
Draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, in this important debate. I thank the Minister for setting out the context for the regulations and their intended effect. I declare an interest: as the Minister is aware—I certainly talk about it enough—before I entered Parliament I worked in tech for 23 years, with the last six at Ofcom as head of telecoms technology, which included internet security.
My experiences at Ofcom and as a chartered electrical engineer gave me a strong awareness of the immense value of new technologies, such as IOT, but also of their potential harms. In 2011, I was the first Member of Parliament to mention the internet of things in this place, in a Westminster Hall debate I secured on machine-to-machine communications. Since then, the market for connected devices has grown exponentially; with smart phones in so many pockets, smart appliances in so many homes and wearables on so many wrists, there is a clear need for robust consumer protections. Let me be clear that the Labour party welcomes the introduction of the regulations, which will provide long overdue protection for users of consumer connectable products.
Although a step in the right direction, it has been a long while coming. According to Cisco, in 2010 there were 12.5 billion devices connected to the internet. Strategy Analytics found that in 2018 that had risen to 22 billion, with much of that growth driven by smart phones and IOT devices. It was only in 2016, when the Government published their national cyber-security strategy, that they set an ambition for the majority of online products and services coming into use to be secure by default by 2021.
Responding to a question I tabled in December 2016, I was told that cyber-security was a top priority for the Government. It was a top priority, however, that inspired almost no action—a little like online harms, where legislation is still to be passed. By the time 2020 came around, the Government had acknowledged the failure of their voluntary code of practice, and were instead proposing a new regulatory regime. As the Minister said, having legislated on the issue in 2022, we now stand to see regulations finally coming into effect in 2024.
It is clearly a case of better late than never. I understand the challenges involved in delivering a set of tech regulations on a complex and technical subject. It is right that there has been an extensive consultation on the subject, which no doubt created a wealth of information that required careful analysis. The reason I bring up the delay is that while the Government were asleep at the wheel, criminals were not. In 2016, hackers used domestic IOT devices, including televisions and baby monitors, to bring down major websites such as Twitter and Spotify. That style of attack poses huge risks to businesses and critical national infrastructure, such as our electricity grid.
Individual consumers have also been left vulnerable. Whether it is smart toys, which enable hackers to target our children, or smart alarm systems that leave people’s properties vulnerable to break-in without forced entry, these are massive and hugely damaging threats for individuals, families, businesses and our national security. In delaying action on the matter, the Government have effectively given hackers the head start.
Recent years have seen a surge in the popularity of smart devices in the home, such as smart speakers and doorbells. In 2016, Ofcom estimated that there were 13.3 million IOT connections in the UK, including 5.7 million categorised as consumer electronics. It is estimated that by 2024, that figure will have increased to 40 million. Globally, we expect that there were 14 billion connections in 2022.
There was an opportunity for the UK to get a consumer protection regime in place ahead of this recent acceleration in the uptake of smart devices. Doing so could have meant that millions of devices being bought by British consumers in the intervening period were sold securely, and it could have given a boost to our innovative businesses in that area by giving clarity of regulation. Instead, consumers and businesses have been left relatively exposed to risks. I ask the Minister, could the Government have delivered this regime more quickly?
Acting faster would have carried significant upsides for British businesses, as I have said, in adapting to the new requirements. These regulations translate the three most critical measures from the voluntary code of practice into the statute book, and, as I have said, we welcome them. However, given that mandating these recommendations seems to have remained the Government’s intention from 2020 onwards, it is more confusing as to why that was not legislated for in primary legislation, as Labour called for during the debates on the Bill in 2022. I fear that in pursuit of maintaining the Bill’s flexibility, despite expert consensus on the importance of the requirements, the Government have kicked the can down the road on providing certainty, which our businesses need in order to drive the economic growth that we all hope to see.
As the impact assessment for the SI notes, the proposals will have significant consequences for thousands of businesses, including around 170 manufacturers and thousands of retailers and charities involved in the sale of these products. In many cases, the cost of compliance would have been hard to avoid, but businesses would have benefited from earlier clarity about the scope of the regulations. That is particularly true when non-compliant equipment will need to be disposed of.
Now that the scope of the regime is finally confirmed, businesses will need guidance to ensure that the benefits of the new requirements are felt by consumers and that the detrimental business impact is minimised. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the SI promises non-statutory guidance for industry. Will the Minister commit to a timeframe for delivering that guidance, or give businesses any sign about when that might become available? As we know, small businesses do not have chief technology officers, and they need the support and help of Government.
I would also like to query some of the inconsistencies that I see in the regulations. As the Minister said, computers, laptops and non-cellular tablets, except those designed for children under 14, have been exempted. The reason seems to be that the situation, particularly the supply chain, is complicated. Could he say a little more about that?
I would also like clarity on the relationship between these measures and cellular internet of things modules or SIMs , which I think is what the hon. Member for Windsor was referring to when he spoke about vehicles. SIMs power much of the consumer connected device landscape by enabling internet access, and are often embedded. China is currently attempting to corner the global market in SIMs, which could have immense national security implications. For example, when it comes to cars, they can transmit location, the route and even videos of the driver and passenger. Will the Minister say clearly whether this legislation is applicable to SIMs? If not, why not, and what protection is to be brought forward in that regard?
Further, while the Product Security and Tele-communications Infrastructure Act gave the Government the power to create requirements on manufacturers, importers and retailers, those seem unevenly applied by this SI. To give just one example, there is no requirement for distributers of these products to publicise the defined support period, but there is such a requirement for manufacturers to do so, even though it is the distributers who often provide the direct interface with the consumer. Will the Minister explain why the Government are taking that approach, and whether they are considering further regulations applicable to distributers?
There is also very little in the SI about enforcement, but the parent Act allows for recall notices, stop notices, penalty fines and forfeiture of products, and the impact assessment says that the Office for Product Safety and Standards will be the enforcing agency and will need to buy devices to test. Will the Minister assure us that the office will have the resources it needs to do this, given the global and, as he said, complicated nature of the market for these products and the embedded nature of the connectivity modules?
I have the greatest respect for the Minister. He knows, and I am sure that he wishes it were otherwise, that his Government’s record on digital inclusion is not the best. There has been no digital inclusion target since 2014, and that has resulted in 10% of our population being excluded. Is he certain that consumers will be adequately protected by the three basic measures—as he himself referred to them—that the SI brings in? He says they will give a minimum level of security, but he also implies that they will keep our citizens safe from cyber-attacks. Does he really think that that is the case?
Regardless, we want to see consumers empowered to understand and assert their rights in this area. My final question to the Minister is whether, in addition to guidance for industry, the Government will issue guidance to consumers on digital inclusion and literacy. To conclude, we support the introduction of the regulations, which will establish much-needed protections for users of connected devices and address significant gaps in our national cyber-security. However, the Government must act fast to communicate the new requirements to businesses and consumers well in advance of commencement, and I hope the Minister will address my questions in his remarks. It is important that these regulations are a success, and I urge him to do all he can to ensure that that is the case in the build-up to April next year.
George Freeman
Tempted though I am to delay the Committee with long, exhaustive answers to all those points, which were well made, perhaps I could reassure colleagues on both sides of the House that we have thought about them. Some important points were made for the record, and I will try to keep my speech as short as possible. I thank you, Mr Hollobone, and the Committee: the feedback is incredibly helpful. I would value a chance to continue this discussion with those who have spoken today, many of whom have taken an interest in this subject for a long time.
Let me start with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, speaking for the Opposition. I congratulate her on returning to the position that I like to think of as my shadow. It has been a pleasure working with her. I also congratulate her on being the first to mention the internet of things in this House if indeed that is verifiable—I am sure it is, digitally as well as in many other ways. On the accusation that the Government were a bit slow to move in 2021, I will just gently point out that there were some other things going on, not least the pandemic, and that we are in fact, with this, quicker than the EU that we have just left. This is an example of us being more agile and more forward-leaning.
I will also make this point. Many of us have sat through and nodded through European legislation, knowing that there is really nothing we can do to change it. This is a good example of Members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, raising important points and the Minister listening, to ensure that we get our own legislation right. I think that if we had done that a bit more, we would not have had the frustrations that we did.
On the point about the hackers having a head start, I think the truth is that technology is moving at such a pace that of course those who want to harness technology for ill generally tend to move much more quickly than the Government. That would be true were the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central in my position. What we are doing today is moving to shut down that head start. There are genuine questions about how quickly we move and how we get it right. I make the commitment to all colleagues that this is a start and we intend to have an annual process of listening to colleagues in the House, listening to the industry and asking whether we should not be going further faster to keep up with technology. The Opposition, I know, have the monopoly on hindsight, led as they are by the extremely able Leader of the Opposition, often referred to as Captain Hindsight. I will just point out that none of us quite foresaw the pace at which this would all move. I know that Government are often not the fastest mover, but we are, here, moving more quickly than partners in Europe.
George Freeman
I am on a roll. I have to say that no one cheered more loudly than when I heard the hon. Member talk about business certainty. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is a member of the Committee, I cannot help but point out that the biggest business certainty was making sure that he never became Chancellor, with his agenda of radical socialism and neo-communism. I notice—for the record—that he is no longer in his place, which is probably a good thing for business certainty.
Let me turn to the points that were raised. Perhaps, with your permission, Mr Hollobone, I can write to everyone with an update on our thinking about the timetable. We are looking to get the regulations in place as quickly as we possibly can. Perhaps I can come back to the point about the timetable, because it requires a detailed answer.
As I said, I will deal with the various points that were made. On the question of exemptions, this is a start. The Government are initially mandating security requirements that, in the opinion of the National Cyber Security Centre—this is not just my whim; it has been consulted on deeply—will have the most fundamental impact on the risks posed today by insecure consumer connectable products. We are confident that the requirements are robustly evidenced, are proportionate and are appropriate to mandate in law at this time. That is not a step we take lightly. The real key is to change the culture and to create a culture in which distributors and all those involved in the supply chains know that they are required by law to do this; they have a responsibility to consumers. However, should the Government deem it appropriate, the parent Act empowers Ministers to introduce further measures in the future, to keep pace with the changes in technology and the threat landscape. Those are powers that we intend to use, in consultation with the House.
Let me turn to the point about security updates, which a number of colleagues raised. The Government do not yet consider it appropriate to mandate and specify minimum security update periods for relevant connectable products, before the impact of the initial security requirements is known. Our mandating necessarily broad regulation across a sector as inherently complex as technology security will always run the risk of imposing obligations on businesses that are disproportionate to the associated security benefits, or leaving citizens exposed to cyber-threats. There is no consensus yet in the industry. One of the things that we hope this measure will do is trigger a broader conversation, on the timescale that we need—each year—to talk to industry about what is happening and ensure that we are keeping up to date.
Let me pick up the point about digital exclusions. A number of people asked, through the consultation, why conventional computers and non-cellular tablets were exempt. We do not have evidence at the moment that including them in the scope of the regime would significantly reduce risk. There is a mature anti-virus-software market that empowers customers to secure their own devices and, alongside this, mainstream operating system vendors already include security features in their services. As ever, we legislate in a way that we think is timely, appropriate and proportionate, trying to deal not with every single risk that one might envisage, but with those that are faced by consumers today. The result is that those devices are not subject to the same level of risk as others.
Let me turn to the point about Northern Ireland made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and others. Customers across the UK will be able to benefit from the security protections that the regime aims to deliver. For selected product categories, honouring the UK’s international commitments has necessitated that the regime will apply differently in Northern Ireland. I stress that, in practice, the exemption applies to limited types of products, such as lifts, pyrotechnic articles and personal watercraft, which are regulated already under legislation contained in the Windsor framework.
We are required to ensure the smooth flow of trade under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. The Prime Minister has also committed to ensuring smooth-flowing trade within the UK. The House should be reassured that the Government’s position on that is unchanged. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet made another, equally important point that we need to ensure that that does not inadvertently allow in a flow of products that would not be compliant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked about how we are dealing with automotive vehicles and the internet of things in cars. As we indicated in the April 2021 call for views on the regime, the Government intend to introduce separate regulation to cover the cyber-security of connectable automotive vehicles. To minimise an unnecessarily duplicative regulatory burden on industry, our position remains that cars should be exempted from these draft regulations, because we will be introducing a different framework. Developments in the legislative landscape have precluded the Government from including an exemption for connectable automotive vehicles in this, but we intend to bring forward that legislation as quickly as possible.
George Freeman
I will finish these points, if I may.
On enforcement, astute colleagues have observed that it falls under the Department for Business and Trade. The previous Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Minister for Small Business Consumers and Labour Markets, approved the recommendation for the OPSS to adopt the enforcement role for part 1 of the 2022 Act. The OPSS is part of the DBT and will therefore simply be enforcing the product security regime as the Secretary of State. It will begin enforcement functions as soon as the draft regulations come into force. To the question, I am reassured that the OPSS is properly resourced.
I have some final points. On the international aspect of the IOT security measures, the proportionality of implementing a given cyber-security measure for a product depends on a huge range of factors, from the product’s technical architecture to the settings in which it is ultimately deployed in. The Government are therefore mindful of the risk of imposing obligations on businesses that may in many cases be disproportionate. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Deputy Prime Minister, and the National Cyber Security Centre are keeping an active watch on the importance of updating that.
On SME information, I am absolutely delighted to undertake that we will provide tailored information and guidance to assist small and micro-businesses. As colleagues have observed, they do not always have the relevant bandwidth to keep abreast of technology.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet asked whether the self-certification and compliance mechanism—the duty placed on manufacturers—is sufficient to cover the risk. My answer to that would be that the draft statutory instrument is in our judgment the right place to start, but it is a start. We did not want to introduce heavy-handed legislation on day one, which would undermine business confidence and trigger huge fears in the industry. We wanted to start with something that everyone could at least acknowledge—our very important basic standards—then develop that, through consultation with the House, in a proportionate and agile way. I reinforce my comments on how that is a rather different approach from the EU one.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow made an important point about consumers. On the point about SMEs, we are actively engaging with consumer groups and we will ensure that any of their concerns are also reflected in our ongoing updates.
George Freeman
The hon. Member makes an important point. Perhaps I could clarify that in my written note to all Members to follow up. I think everyone would be interested in the enforceability of consumer rights.
Chi Onwurah
I am sure the Committee will be pleased to know that I will not take up the Minister’s provocation as to whether waiting 14 years to address security on the internet of things is a question of hindsight. Can the Minister clarify two points that I may have misunderstood? I heard him say that distributors did have a requirement on them to publicise the information about software upgrades. I may have misunderstood that because I thought it was only manufacturers who did.
More importantly, on cars, I think the Minister is saying that autonomous vehicles are exempted. I may have missed exactly where autonomous vehicles are exempted—it was not in the list of exemptions that I had. I am happy to take a clarification on that. Obviously, not all cars are autonomous vehicles, but is the assumption that any car that has an internet connection is in some way an autonomous vehicle?
George Freeman
All distributors already have a duty to ensure that the goods they are selling and distributing are legal. What we are doing is placing the onus on manufacturers. Distributors take their responsibility to consumers very seriously, and the vast majority will be very concerned and actively move to ensure they are not distributing illegal goods. It is not that there is not an onus on distributors; it is that we are implementing it via the mechanism.
On the point about cars, I did not want to mislead the House—I say this as the previous Minister for the future of transport—but we are in the process of putting together legislation on the digital vehicle and the internet of things in not just autonomous vehicles but smart and intelligent vehicles generally. It is to that process that we are deferring; this SI is not focused on that.
With that, I think I have addressed the points raised. I will happily write to the Committee, and if there are any points that I have not raised, Members should feel free to collar me between now and the picking up of my pen.
Human-specific Medical Research Techniques
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I draw your attention and that of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), on securing this important debate on human-specific medical research techniques. I pay tribute to his deeply informed knowledge of the subject, and to his advocacy for the ending of animal testing. I recognise the important role of Animal Free Research in progressing that important ambition. I am glad to have the opportunity to question the Government on the subject, and to reiterate the Labour party’s message that we must work to end harmful and unnecessary animal testing once and for all.
We have heard about human-specific medical research techniques, which are sometimes termed new approach methodologies or non-animal methods. Such methods can truly be at the forefront of scientific innovation. They include, as was mentioned, 3D tissue culture, also known as organs on a chip. That tissue culture mimics organ behaviour and can be used to study biological and disease processes. Other methods include computer-based modelling, such as that done by Bit Bio, the synthetic biology spin-out from Cambridge University; I met people there recently. It also provides human cells for research, drug discovery and cell therapy.
Recently, I spoke at SynBioBeta, the synthetic biology and bio-engineering conference. The range and potential of synthetic biology and of bio-engineering to address testing and trial challenges is stunning. I was given real hope that replacements for animal testing are around the scientific corner.
I am pleased that the Government have a policy of limiting the number of animals used in science, and I am grateful for the fact that non-animal methods of research have developed and improved, thanks to the work of brilliant scientific minds, not least in our United Kingdom. We must also recognise the tireless work of animal rights activists, some of whom have been mentioned in the debate, in progressing that ambition.
Labour supports the three R’s approach—that is, working to replace, refine and reduce the use of animals in research and testing—and I pay tribute to the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research for its work with scientists to achieve that. The development of alternative methods, and the advancement of AI and advanced computer modelling techniques, or in silico models, mean that we should be able to greatly reduce reliance on animal testing.
In his passionate contribution, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) highlighted the ways in which the use of animals is not always appropriate for research on human diseases and treatments, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). I recognise that, but I note that there are a range of opinions on human-specific medical research. For example, some organisations, including some universities that undertake medical research using animals, have drawn attention to the limitations of non-animal methods, and the University of Oxford has stated that animals need to be used because of the need to understand the complexity of living bodies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, was absolutely right to say that life sciences will be key to the future prosperity of our country. That relates to the fast-growing global market for human-specific technologies. The global market for 3D cell culture technologies grew to nearly $3 billion in 2023 and is expected to almost double by 2027. I gently ask the Government to consider whether it is possible to truly address my hon. Friend’s concerns when the Department is in a perpetual state of crisis. We have had nine changes of science Minister in five years and four Chancellors in six months, and it is perhaps not surprising that, with so little a focus on our scientific future, there has been a decline in late-stage clinical trials. From 2018 to 2021, the UK fell from fourth to 10th place globally as a host for phase 3 clinical trials. That is a matter of huge concern to many scientists and clinicians in our life sciences sector, and it is also a barrier and pinch point to the recognition and adoption of new and innovative medicines. The total number of new and innovative medicines available to UK patients is lower than in other comparable nations, such as Germany.
Approaches such as human-specific medical research are vital parts of our life science sector. As well as pushing the boundaries of humanity’s collective understanding, our life sciences are a priceless platform for the UK’s future growth. Labour sees a clear path from investing in scientific research and innovative methods to creating jobs that people can raise a family on. Innovation and science are critical to building regional economies that are strong and self-sufficient. Moreover, they are critical to our NHS and to building an NHS that is fit for the future. Human-specific research techniques have the potential to deliver effective treatments for major human diseases, to reduce pressure on the NHS, and to reduce the disease burden on individuals, and we need to ensure that the NHS has the capacity to absorb such innovations. That is why one of Labour’s five missions for Government is to build an NHS that is fit for the future.
I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming in his answers to the questions that have been asked. Specifically, I want to raise the latest data on funding from UKRI, which is an important funder of non-animal methods. UKRI funding fell by 6% between 2020 and 2021. That is in the overall context of the Government’s pledge to double science spending. Can the Minister explain the reason for that decrease? What impact does he believe that it will have on the UK’s ability to be world leading in human-specific medical research?
Will the Minister also set out what recent steps his Department has taken to reduce the use of animals in research, and will he commit, as Labour has, to a comprehensive review of animal testing, with a view to improving practice, limiting animal suffering, increasing transparency and with a long-term objective of phasing out animal testing entirely? Human-specific medical research techniques provide an opportunity and a challenge to our science, research and life sciences sectors, and I hope that the Minister will set out how the UK is responding to that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her position and wish the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) well in her maternity leave.
Three years on, the Tories have failed in their manifesto promise to associate to Horizon Europe, and Britain has paid the price in lost jobs and scientific research. Their plan B short-changes British scientists and they are fudging the figures in other ways. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, whereas Horizon funding was counted as international science spend, she is planning to count the same money as British science spend to meet her commitment to double the British science budget? [Interruption.]
Chloe Smith
I think I had better keep this brief. The answer, as the hon. Lady very well knows, is that we are hard at work negotiating our potential accession to Horizon. That is our preference, as I have made clear this morning. However, she is out of step with key voices in the sector. For example, the Russell Group says that our negotiations are a serious step forward and that the ambition of the proposals for Pioneer is welcome. More details will become clear as negotiations progress, but I cannot give a running commentary.
Chi Onwurah
It seems that the Tory science superpower is actually just cooking the books. Ministers promised to increase science spend outside London and the south-east by a third while doubling it overall, so our regions continue to miss out. Now they are refusing to replace European regional development science funding, slashing £600 million from what should be our regional powerhouses. That is not levelling up—it is holding us back. The country knows it. Does the Secretary of State?
Chloe Smith
The hon. Lady is mischaracterising this very badly and in a way that does not help to command confidence in our shared mission to make science, innovation and technology the success that it needs to be for this country. She will have seen the presentation of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the Budget, which made it clear just how seriously we take science in this country, and that level of ambition will continue.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
This was a business-as-usual Budget, but after 13 years of economic failure, what my constituents desperately need is change. In the north-east of England, wages in real terms are on average 3% lower today than when Labour left office in 2010. I would like the House to think about that for a moment. Over 13 years of Conservative Government, my constituents have got poorer. Politicians are often asked if we know the price of a loaf of bread, so let me take that as an example. In May 2010, it was £1.16. In January this year, it was £1.39, a rise of 20%. How about a pint of milk? In May 2010, it cost 44p. In January this year, it was 69p, a rise of 57%. Prices have gone up, and wages have not kept pace.
Last Friday, I visited Atkinson Road Primary Academy in my constituency and heard from the absolutely wonderful students there. Over their entire lives, they have seen their parents, their aunts, their uncles, their brothers and their sisters all getting poorer. There are Conservative Members of Parliament representing seats in the north-east, and I ask them this: did they set out to make people poorer, or did it just happen through incompetence and arrogance?
It did not have to be this way. If the Conservatives had mirrored Labour’s rate of growth, workers in the north-east would be £11,000 a year richer. What a difference that would make. We would not have half the children of Newcastle growing up in poverty and we would not have 100,000 people in the north-east forced to use food banks. Tory MPs and Government Ministers are offering the public budgeting advice when they have constructed an economy where the majority of people do not benefit from the wealth that innovation creates.
In addition to lower wages, £300 million-worth of cuts to Newcastle City Council mean our city has poorer public services. On Newcastle’s streets, lone women are left stranded at 11 pm because we have lost 15% of our region’s bus services in a single year. Of those buses we have left, just a fifth turn up on time. Businesses cannot open, because their workforce are delayed on different bus services. Across the board, and across our country, people are paying more for shoddy services. Regulated train fares have seen the highest increase since 2013 and, with the scrapping of HS2’s eastern leg, northern communities are paying the price for broken Tory promises. More than 7 million people are waiting for NHS treatment, often in pain and discomfort. Do not even think about trying to get an NHS dental appointment. In December, the north-east saw the longest wait times for accident and emergency, at four hours. The longer the Conservatives are in power, the longer people wait.
In a statement last week, the Chancellor tried to claim that inflation was the root cause of strikes. Perhaps he forgot that it was his party, and this Government, who crashed the economy and left working people to pay for their mess. This Budget was a chance for the Government to unlock Britain’s promise and potential—a chance to reverse 13 years of low growth, low productivity and low wages, and a chance to spread and deliver opportunities to people in Newcastle Central. What did we get? Just a handout for the richest 1% and their pension pots.
The Chancellor likes to talk about making the UK a science superpower, yet he failed to mention Horizon Europe in the Budget. At €90 billion, it is the world’s largest science funding programme, but his Government have left our scientists out of it. At the same time, research and development tax credit policy is changing almost as fast as Chancellors, but with even less preparation. The Chancellor gave back only a fraction of the £4.5 billion he took from innovative small and medium enterprises in the autumn statement. The Federation of Small Businesses has, in its own words, been “left feeling mystified” by the changes.
The great businesses of Newcastle Central deserve a Government they can partner with to deliver jobs, growth and innovation. Fantastic life sciences start-ups and scale-ups, such as AMLo Biosciences, LightOx and NunaBio, and long-established innovative manufacturers, such as Spincraft, all deserve better. Labour will secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 through our long-term industrial strategy. A Labour Government will unleash the potential of the north-east. This Government just starve it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Across the country, our regions are home to thousands of brilliant science start-ups and spin-outs, but they are being hit by a Tory quadruple whammy: slashing R&D tax credits, leaving with them an average of £100,000 less to spend on research a year; a £120-million cliff-edge loss of European regional development funding; lack of access to capital—the UK has the lowest business investment in the G7; and continuing uncertainty over association with the £95-billion Horizon Europe, the biggest science fund in the world. Which of those barriers to growth for our innovative businesses will the Minister sort out today?
George Freeman
It is a great shame that the shadow spokeswoman is so determined to talk the UK down. The truth is that in the last 10 years, the life sciences sector has grown 1,000%. The north-east, where she is from, is driving that. I do not recognise that the UK sector is being held back in the way that she says, but the Chancellor will say more this afternoon about the tax and business environment. The reason that R&D tax credits are up so much is that our innovation economy has gone from 1.7% of GDP to 2.8%. That is a huge success over the last 10 years, and we are responsible for it.
Science and Technology Framework
Chi Onwurah Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place, and I thank her for the advance notice of her statement.
I welcome the framework. It will take pride of place on my virtual bookshelf next to the Government’s innovation strategy, the R&D road map, the science plan, numerous grand challenges, industrial strategies, sector deals and two UKRI reorganisations. We have seen nine changes of Science Minister in five years. Britain is a world-leading science nation, and we deserve a framework with a longer shelf life than a lettuce, especially given the shortage of salad items under this Government.
It is good to see the Government setting out the principles for identifying the scientific capabilities that we need to protect and grow, and the outcomes that we wish to see from science, as well as seeking to increase STEM skills in teaching and support for start-ups and spin-outs. On the eve of International Women’s Day, and as a chartered engineer, I enthusiastically welcome the ambition to diversify the science and technology workforce. Let us work together to make that ambition a reality.
I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. How do the five critical technologies in the framework relate to the 17 sensitive areas in the National Security and Investment Act 2021, and the five key growth industries in the autumn statement? When will each critical technology have the appropriate regulatory framework that she talked about? Science-driven industries critical to our future prosperity, such as space, autonomous vehicles, batteries and steel, are not even mentioned. Labour has committed to an industrial strategy council on a statutory footing. Do Government have an industrial strategy?
The framework rightly says that procurement is key to innovation. Why, then, have the Government objected to our amendments to the Procurement Bill to ensure that procurement is not captured by cronyism? The Government committed to £22 billion of science funding by 2027. Will the Secretary of State say what the current funding commitment is now? How much of the £370 million mentioned in the framework is truly new? If it is new, how is she paying for it? The Government promised that science spend will double, but the framework talks of raising science spend outside the greater south-east by only 40%. That suggests that our regional centres of innovation will not benefit from this increased funding. Is that all she has to say about the importance of regional innovation? What of the clusters that the Science Minister talks up so much?
Start-ups and scale-ups are key to sustainable green growth, but the £10 million uplift to the seed fund mentioned here would not meet the early-stage funding requirements of one future Google. Will the Government adopt the recommendations of Labour’s start-up and scale-up review to drive innovative growth across our country?
The biggest question is what is not in the framework—Horizon Europe, the world's biggest science programme. Did the Secretary of State really think that she could get through the statement without even mentioning it? Thanks to the Tories, our brightest and best UK scientists are still having to choose between the funding that they desperately need and the country that they love. British research and British business are feeling the chilling impact of not being part of the world’s greatest scientific collaboration. Can the Secretary of State confirm that now that the Windsor framework has been agreed, Horizon association will follow? Specifically, will the Chancellor’s Budget next week include association funding?
Labour believes that innovation and science are critical to building strong and self-sufficient national and regional economies. We see a clear path from investing in scientific research to the jobs that people can raise a family on. With our ambitious national missions, Labour would stoke the innovation engine to drive high-skilled growth, access new and diverse talent pools and catalyse regions that have been left out of science investment. I fear that this framework is another wish list designed to be shelved or scrapped at the earliest convenience of a Government addicted to sticking-plaster policies. Only a Labour Government, with our long-term industrial strategy, will deliver the science sector and the jobs that our country needs.
Michelle Donelan
I thank the hon. Member for her comments, but in reality it is this Government who are here today delivering jobs and a better future for the British public. As I said in my statement, we are focusing not only on actions today, but on a strategic long-term approach to ensure that we are a science and technology superpower by 2030.
The hon. Member said that there are more technologies than the five that we have identified. Of course there are. The ones we have identified are the key strategic ones, but there is a great deal of work that my ministerial team and I are doing. On funding, we are investing £20 billion by 2024-25, as we have said on the record. The £370 million that we announced yesterday is a new spending commitment that we had not previously outlined. On geographical spread across the nation, we have made a strategic commitment to ensure that 55% of the spend is outside the south-east.
The framework that we have set out is just one part of the work that my Department is doing. Let us not forget that it was established just four weeks ago. In one month, we have not only published a comprehensive framework plan, but got on with key actions to drive the agenda forward. This Government mean business. We have worked very hard in the past few weeks to talk collaboratively with industry and with researchers.
I am not going to take the Opposition’s word about what is wrong. Let us have a look at what experts and people on the ground have to say. Professor Sir Ian Boyd, president of the Royal Society of Biology, says:
“Science and technology is already a central plank of modern life. Putting this centre-stage in government strategy is essential and welcome.”
Professor Julia Black, president of the British Academy, says:
“The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s announcements reaffirm the Government’s ambition to put the UK at the forefront of global research, development and innovation”.
I could go on all day long, because our announcement has been wholeheartedly welcomed.
The hon. Member asked about Horizon. This is an announcement about our framework—that is what is on the annunciator screen—and not about Horizon, but I will answer her question anyway. We have not changed our position on Horizon. For the past two years, we have tried to associate. It was in the original deal, and we welcome the comments from the EU. Of course, terms would have to be favourable for the UK—we have lost two years—and we would have to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. We cannot wait around for another two years, because we want to put our researchers first. That is why we have done the responsible and right thing and worked up a plan B, which stands ready should we need it, but our position on Horizon has not changed. We look forward to continuing our conversations with the EU.