Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 21 October. Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip that was issued for the regulations in October. It relates to minor drafting changes in respect of the date of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the explanatory memorandum and the order of the words in the title of the offence inserted by paragraph (2) of regulation 2.
The Government have committed to taking decisive action against the most severe and damaging online harms. Through this statutory instrument, we are strengthening the Online Safety Act 2023 by creating new priority offences to tackle cyber-flashing and self-harm. This will ensure that platforms take stronger, more proactive steps to protect users from these harms.
There is compelling evidence that cyber-flashing and content encouraging self-harm are widespread and cause serious harm to individuals. The frequency of these harms is significantly higher among young age groups: of those aged 18 to 24, 9% had experienced cyber-flashing and 7% had experienced content encouraging self-harm. That means that across the country around 530,000 people in that age group have seen cyber-flashing and around 450,000 have seen self-harm content. That is clearly unacceptable.
Some 27% of UK users who were exposed to cyber-flashing reported significant emotional discomfort, and exposure to self-harm content has been shown to worsen mental health. A 2019 study found that 64% of Instagram users in the US who were exposed to self-harm content were deeply emotionally disturbed by it, and a 2018 study found that 8% of adults and 26% of children aged eight to 18 who were hospitalised after self-harming had encountered self-harm or suicide-related content online. Those figures demonstrate that the content is not isolated but widespread. It affects a significant portion of the online population.
As Members will know, the Online Safety Act, which received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023, places strong duties on platforms and services to protect users. Providers must assess how likely their services are to expose users to illegal content or to be used to commit or facilitate priority offences. Providers then need to take steps to mitigate the identified risks, including by implementing safety-by-design measures to reduce risks and content moderation systems to remove illegal content when it appears. The Act sets out a list of priority offences for the purposes of providers’ illegal content duties. Those relate primarily to the most serious and prevalent online illegal content and activity. Platforms need to take additional steps to tackle such illegal activity under their illegal content duties.
The draft regulations will add cyber-flashing and content encouraging self-harm to the list of priority offences under the Act. The offences are currently covered under the Act’s general illegal content duties, but without priority status. Without that status, platforms are not obliged to carry out specific risk assessments for harm to users that derives from this kind of harmful content or to put in place measures to prevent users from seeing such content in the first place. Stakeholders have welcomed the additions. Charities such as the Molly Rose Foundation and Samaritans have long campaigned for strengthened protections for vulnerable users.
The changes to the Act will take effect 21 days after the regulations are made, which can be done after the regulations are approved by both Houses. Ofcom, as the online safety regulator, sets out in codes of practice the measures that providers can take to fulfil their statutory illegal-content duties. The safety duties on providers to prioritise tackling self-harm and cyber-flashing will fully take effect when Ofcom makes the relevant updates to its codes on the measures that can be taken to fulfil the duties.
We anticipate that Ofcom will recommend that providers should take action in a number of areas. It could include content moderation, reporting and complaints procedures, and safety-by-design steps, such as providers testing algorithm systems to see whether illegal content is being recommended to users. Where providers fail to meet the duties, such as by not having proportionate measures to remove and proactively prevent this vile material from appearing on their platforms, Ofcom has robust powers to take enforcement action against them, including a power to impose fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is the higher.
The statutory instrument upgrades cyber-flashing and self-harm content to priority status, thereby strengthening the impact of the Online Safety Act and protecting users from such content. Service providers will be required to take more proactive and robust action to protect, remove and limit exposure to this kind of illegal content. That will ensure that platforms take stronger steps to protect users, reduce the prevalence of these behaviours online and help to make the internet a safer place for everyone.
Kanishka Narayan
I thank Committee members for their valuable contributions to the debate. The update in the regulations will bring us closer to achieving the Government’s commitments to improve online safety and strengthen protection for women and girls online. We believe that updating the priority offences list with the new cyber-flashing and self-harm content offences is the correct, proportionate and evidence-led approach to tackling this type of content, and it will provide stronger protections for online users.
I will now respond to the questions asked in the debate; I thank Members for the tone and substance of their contributions. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, raised the use of VPNs. As I mentioned previously in the House, apart from an initial spike we have seen a significant levelling-off in the usage of VPNs, which points to the likely effectiveness of the age-assurance measures. We have commissioned further evidence on that front, and I hope to bring that to the House’s attention at the earliest opportunity.
The question of chatbots was raised by the shadow Minister, by the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, and by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted. Let me first clarify what I previously mentioned in the House: the legislation covers not only chatbots that allow user-to-user engagement but those that involve one-to-AI engagement and live search. That is extensive coverage of chatbots—both those types are within scope of the Online Safety Act.
There may be further gaps in the Act that pertain to aspects of the risks that Members have raised, and the Secretary of State has commissioned further work to ensure that we keep up with fast-changing technology. A number of the LLMs in question are covered by the Act, given the parameters that I have just defined. Of course, we will continue to review the situation, as both scope and risk need to evolve together.
Dr Spencer
I hope the Minister takes this in a constructive spirit. Concerns have been raised across the House as to the scope of the OSA when it comes to LLMs and the different types and variations of chatbots, which are being used by many people right now. Is he not concerned that he as the Minister, and his Department, are not able to say at the Dispatch Box whether they believe LLMs are completely covered in the scope of the OSA? Has he received legal advice or other advice? How quickly will he be able to give a definitive response? Clearly, if there is a gap, we need to know about it and we need to take action. It surely puts the regulator and the people who are generating this technology in an invidious position if even Her Majesty’s Government think there is a lack of clarity, as he put it, on the scope of the applicability of the OSA to new technologies.
Kanishka Narayan
Let me be clear: there is no lack of clarity in the scope of the Bill. It is extremely clear to a provider whether they are in scope or not. If they have user-to-user engagement on the platform, they are in scope. If they have live search, which is the primary basis in respect of many LLMs at the moment, they are in scope. There is no lack of clarity from a provider point of view. The question at stake is whether the further aspects of LLMs, which do not involve any of those areas of scope, pose a particular risk.
A number of incidents have been reported publicly, and I will obviously not comment on individual instances. The Online Safety Act does not focus on individual content-takedown instances and instead looks at a system. Ofcom has engaged firms that are very much in scope of the Act already. If there are further instances of new risks posed by platforms that are not currently within the scope of the Online Safety Act, we will of course review its scope and make sure we are moving fast in the light of that information.
The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted asked about child sexual abuse material. I was very proud that we introduced amendments last week to the Crime and Policing Bill to make sure that organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation are engaged, alongside targeted experts, particularly the police, in spotting CSAM content and risk way before AI models are released. In that context, we are ensuring that the particular risks posed by AI to children’s safety are countered before they escalate.
On the question about Ofcom’s spending and capacity more generally to counter the nature of the risk, the spending cap at Ofcom allows it to enforce against the offences that we deem to be priority offences. In part, when we make the judgment about designating offences as a priority, we make a proportionate assessment about whether we believe there is both severity and the capacity context for robust enforcement. I will continue to review that situation as the nature of the offences changes.
Finally, I am glad that the Government have committed throughout to ensure that sexually explicit non-consensual images, particularly deepfakes, are robustly enforced against. That remains the position. I hope the Committee agrees with me on the importance of updating the priority offences in the Online Safety Act as swiftly as possible. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
AI Growth Zones
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I am publishing a Command Paper delivering AI growth zones, setting out the Government strategy to ensure the United Kingdom remains a global leader in artificial intelligence by building the infrastructure that underpins AI development and deployment, creates jobs right across the UK and grows the economy.
Artificial intelligence is transforming economies and societies worldwide. Being an AI maker, rather than an AI taker, is a critical goal of our modern industrial strategy and today we set out how we will build out the UK’s AI data centre capacity to underpin this frontier industry and support the growth sectors of the UK. This is a strategic opportunity to drive growth, strengthen national security and improve public services. To seize this opportunity, we must build secure, resilient and sustainable compute capacity here at home.
The AI growth zones programme will accelerate the delivery of large-scale AI data centres by removing barriers to construction and creating the best possible environment for investment, while maximising the benefits for local people. The package announced today sets out:
A new north Wales AI growth zone, creating 3,450 jobs locally and delivering opportunities across both energy and technology sectors.
Reforms to accelerate grid connections, including prioritising connections for AI growth zones and enabling developers to build their own high-voltage infrastructure.
Targeted electricity price support for data centres in locations that strengthen the grid and reduce system costs.
Planning reforms in England to streamline approvals, update national policy guidance, and protect land for AI growth zones.
Measures to maximise local benefits, including an initial £5 million per site to benefit local communities.
A dedicated AI growth zone delivery unit, acting as a single front door for investors and co-ordinating delivery across Government.
Taken together, these measures have the potential to unlock up to £100 billion in private investment and create over 10,000 jobs.
Over the past 12 months we have secured over 70 billion of investment in AI infrastructure. Now, this ambitious programme will go further to secure our economic future and drive investment into parts of the country that have long been overlooked, securing the future of AI for local areas through new industries, skilled jobs and lasting economic growth.
[HCWS1057]
Cyber-security and Resilience
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
In June 2024, Synnovis, a supplier of pathology services to the NHS, was the victim of a ransomware attack. Computer systems were hacked, private patient data was stolen, and IT systems were rendered useless. This resulted in disruption to services at five NHS trusts and local care service providers across several London boroughs, causing delays to over 11,000 out-patient and elective procedure appointments and, tragically, contributed to the death of a patient. For Synnovis itself, the financial impact of the cyber-attack is estimated at £32.7 million.
The internet is one of the greatest engines for creativity and innovation, transforming every part of our lives, from how we communicate to how we book an appointment with our doctor. It is embedded into every part of the critical systems we rely on daily, with huge benefits. However, as the attack on the NHS provider shows, the technology that underpins cyber-space—the invisible world where all our online activity happens—can be attacked and weaponised by those who mean to do us harm.
Vulnerability to cyber-attacks is not limited to the NHS. Last year, over 600,000 UK businesses were subject to a cyber-attack. Independent research commissioned by DSIT—published today—shows the average cost of a significant cyber-attack for a UK business is over £190,000. When taken at the level of the economy, this suggests an estimated annual cost to businesses of £14.7 billion, or 0.5% of the country’s GDP. These statistics and recent high-profile attacks serve as a sobering reminder that cyber-security is not a luxury, and all organisations should take steps to defend themselves.
The Government are taking a wide range of actions to improve cyber-resilience across the economy. This includes:
Writing to leading UK firms asking them to take urgent action on cyber-security. So far, over 130 firms have responded to the letter with details of the actions they are taking, including requiring suppliers to adopt the cyber essentials scheme.
Launching a new cyber action toolkit to help small businesses boost their online defences.
Offering free cyber-security guidance, tools, training and codes of practice.
Offering practical, hands-on cyber-security help to small and medium-sized enterprises via nine regional cyber-resilience centres.
The “Stop! Think Fraud” campaign, which provides advice to the public and small businesses on how to prevent fraud and cyber-crime.
But where organisations provide essential services that the public and businesses rely on every day, we must go further to ensure that appropriate and proportionate safeguarding measures are in place. As the CEO of the National Cyber Security Centre warned,
“the challenge we face is growing at an order of magnitude”.
Yet as the threat has grown more intense, more frequent and more sophisticated, our defences have become comparatively weaker. The UK’s only cross-sector cyber legislation—protecting the essential and digital services the public and businesses rely on every day, like the NHS, transport system and energy network—is out of date and no longer sufficient to tackle the cyber-threats faced by the UK.
As the Prime Minister has said,
“national security is the first responsibility of any Government—that never changes. But as the world changes, the way we discharge that responsibility must change with it”.
In response to the growing cyber-threat, it is crucial that we act now to enhance the UK’s security and resilience—to protect our essential public services, deliver a step change in UK national security, and underpin economic growth.
This is why today we will introduce the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to Parliament, updating the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 through three pillars of reform.
Expanded scope: The regime does not cover every UK organisation. It is about those services that are so essential that their disruption would affect our daily lives. The original regulations in 2018 brought into scope services such as the NHS, the transport system and the energy network. Since then, cyber-criminals are exploiting new routes—managed service providers, data centres and critical parts of supply chains—to threaten our way of life. Recent incidents impacting Marks & Spencer and Heathrow airport involved managed service providers, leading to considerable business disruption and interrupting check-in and boarding services, respectively. This reflects the interconnected economy we live in. By bringing into scope more of the core services relied on across the economy, UK businesses and public services will be more secure and resilient.
Effective regulators: 12 regulators are responsible for implementing these laws. This allows for a sector-specific approach, as different organisations are vulnerable to threats in different ways, such as through the technology they use. The Bill will drive a more consistent and effective regime, with expanded and more timely reporting of harmful cyber-attacks, a stronger mechanism for Government to set priority outcomes for regulators to work to, and a fuller toolkit for sharing information, recovering costs and enforcement.
Enabling resilience: The Government do not currently have the powers to head off the threats faced by the UK as they change and evolve. That is why the Government will be given the tools to quickly strengthen our cyber-security and resilience in response to the ever-changing threat landscape, such as bringing more sectors into scope or updating security requirements, and responding to imminent threats to our national security and way of life.
The measures set out today respond to the threat we face—protecting the public at home, putting national security first, and making the UK a safe and confident place to do business.
[HCWS1046]
Animal Testing in Science: Alternative Methods
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by the Minister of State for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, my noble Friend Lord Vallance of Balham:
Today, the Government are laying before Parliament a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods to the use of animals in science.
The Government are proud to lead a new era in advancing innovative and effective approaches to scientific research and development. We are committed to delivering on our manifesto pledge to “partner with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing”. Not only that, but we aim to establish the UK as a world leader in developing and adopting alternatives to animal testing. This reflects not only our deep commitment to animal welfare, but our belief in the economic, scientific and societal benefits that come from investing in and phasing in modern alternatives. The Government recognise the urgency of this transition and are determined to drive meaningful change through co-ordinated, cross-governmental action.
Our vision is for a world where the use of animals in research and development is eliminated in all but exceptional circumstances, achieved by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods where scientifically possible. This will include a wide range of new and validated alternatives used in discovery and translational research, and new methodologies for chemical and environmental testing, and safety and toxicity testing of potential novel human and veterinary medicines. This strategy lays out the steps that we, the Government, will take over the next five years towards achieving this vision across the whole of the UK. We also highlight specific instances of animal use where we will take immediate and near-future action to ensure alternative methods are applied going forward.
The use of animals in science at present provides an important insight into human and animal biology and disease. Animals are also used in many sectors to test the safety and efficacy of chemicals in consumer products, and in new human and veterinary vaccines, medicines and medical devices before they are trialled in their intended populations or marketed. Enabling the properly regulated use of animals, while we move away from animal testing, is essential to improving the health and lives of humans and animals and to the safety and sustainability of our environment. We will continue to support the appropriate use of animals where reliable and effective alternatives are not yet available. But we will not accept a slow pace of change when and where scientific and technical advances mean that a faster transition away from animal use is possible.
Recent scientific advances have provided new impetus to the development of alternative methods that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research—the three R’s. There is also a rapidly accelerating global movement to adopt alternative methods in the life sciences, which we not only welcome but aim to accelerate further and seek to be a world leader in. The maturity of these methods differs across scientific and regulatory sectors, but alternative methods are being applied in a wide range of contexts across discovery research, veterinary science, drug and chemical discovery, toxicity testing and clinical investigations. We are at a tipping point where international regulatory and political commitment, technological capabilities and scientific advances are converging to create a system capable of delivering the scientific, commercial, societal, economic and animal welfare benefits offered by alternative methods.
The term “alternative methods” describes a broad range of tools and technologies that can reduce or replace animal use across the whole of the bioscience landscape. They are being applied in a wide range of contexts and have benefits including specificity, sensitivity, species relevance and speed, but also disadvantages, such as a current inability to fully replicate testing on a living animal. Only a few of these methods have, to date, been fully validated or qualified to replace animals for specific purposes, with insufficient funding to advance research from Government over the past decade, and therefore adoption for discovery research and uptake into policy and regulatory use has been patchy, with slower progress than many have desired. That is why more research and investment is urgently needed, and this Government, in our new strategy, are committing fully to both. This strategy covers the whole range of uses of animals in science and has been developed to accelerate the development, validation and adoption of scientifically evidenced alternative methods in discovery, applied, translational and regulatory research and testing.
The strategy will build on the UK’s well-established life sciences research system, enabling it to respond with greater agility to opportunities in the rapidly evolving alternative methods landscape. It has six objectives:
Accelerate the replacement of animals in science to phase out their use;
Achieve equal or better research and testing outcomes using alternative methods;
Drive private investment in alternative methods to boost innovation and growth;
Improve regulatory confidence and acceptance of alternative methods;
Create infrastructure and partnerships to unlock value from UK data; and
Position the UK as a global leader in alternative methods.
We, the Government, will deliver this by focusing on five key commitments:
Driving alternative method development and uptake in discovery research: We will incentivise the development and adoption of alternative methods. This will be delivered through (i) increased and sustained investment focused on animal replacement; (ii) better animal research approval and dissemination mechanisms to assess whether animal use is required or whether alternatives could be used; and (iii) a workforce with the necessary skills set to implement the uptake of new alternative methods quickly and effectively. We will establish a new pre-clinical translational research hub to bring together data, cell engineering, genomic technology and expertise to create a pipeline of novel translational medicine models. This will be an exciting step forward that will create more jobs in the alternative methods industry and help to position the UK as a world leader in developing alternatives and moving away from animal testing.
Accelerating alternative methods validation and uptake for regulatory decision making: We will establish a national approach to accelerating the validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods. At its core will be a new UK centre for the validation of alternative methods that will co-ordinate a cross-sector network of public and private laboratories and facilitate engagement between policy makers, regulators, industry end users and alternative method developers.
Delivering the transformative potential of our data assets: We will create national infrastructure, collaborations and regulatory frameworks to expedite equitable and secure access to high-quality datasets to enable data-driven innovation that reduces animal use and enables the use of alternative methods. This will include increasing investment in data-driven biology, establishing data sharing platforms to facilitate access to public and private data repositories, setting clear standards for data quality and interoperability, widespread adoption of AI methods to assess potential safety and toxicity profiles, and developing regulatory guidance to support data-driven and AI-informed decision making. We will be working with industry and regulators to make their historical data sets available for use.
International leadership and co-operation: We will establish the UK as a global leader in the regulation and science of alternative methods, ensuring our participation on key forums and international committees in this space. We will also expand existing and establish new partnerships with international regulators to identify internationally agreed priorities of mutual importance, explore data sharing possibilities and AI projects to assess toxicity, safety and efficacy from existing data sets, and accelerate the global acceptance of validated alternative methods.
Effective governance culture: We will establish governance structures with diverse stakeholder representation to oversee progress and delivery of the actions described in this strategy. This will include a set of key performance indicators with which to assess delivery of the strategy and forming a cross-governmental ministerial group on alternative methods, chaired by the Science Minister. We will have a publicly available dashboard of progress against key deliverables.
This strategy has been developed involving stakeholders from industry and regulatory agencies representing chemicals, agriculture, food and pharmaceutical sectors, and many of the actions and commitments we pledge are applicable across multiple sectors.
[HCWS1031]
Draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, in my first debate on a piece of delegated legislation in the rigorous venue of a Committee Room. The draft regulations will be made under powers provided by the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. The PSTI product security regulatory regime comprises of part 1 of the 2022 Act, together with the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023.
That world-leading regulatory regime came into force in April 2024. It better protects consumers, businesses and the wider economy from the harms associated with cyber-attacks on consumer connectable products such as mobiles, smart cameras and smart appliances more broadly. The law requires that products that can connect to a network or internet are made available to customers in the UK only when they meet baseline cyber-security requirements. Those requirements include banning the use of universal default or easily guessable passwords such as “admin123”, reducing one of the most commonly exploited vulnerabilities in connectable products.
Manufacturers must also be transparent about the minimum duration for which they will provide much-needed security updates that patch vulnerabilities. They must publish information on how to report security vulnerabilities directly to them, and provide status updates about reported issues. There are also important duties that importers must comply with, as they play an important role in ensuring that vulnerable products are not imported into this country. The same applies to distributors, as they are often the last line of defence against non-compliant products making their way to customers.
The PSTI Act was the world’s first legislation of its kind, but let me be clear that we are not alone in our commitment to improve the security of connected products. Across the world, countries that share our values are taking action. One such country is Japan, where the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Information-technology Promotion Agency launched the Japan cyber-security technical assessment requirements labelling scheme for internet of things products in March 2025. Similarly, the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore launched its cyber-security labelling scheme for consumer smart devices in March 2020.
The Japanese and Singaporean labelling schemes require manufacturers to ensure that their products meet a set of baseline security requirements that are based on European Telecommunications Standards Institute standard EN 303 645 on cyber-security for consumer IOT products—a standard that the UK developed in partnership with over 90 countries and to which we aligned our own security requirements. Products issued with a valid label under either scheme will therefore have an equivalent or greater level of cyber-security than required under the UK’s PSTI regime.
There is no security advantage in duplicating compliance processes for manufacturers that have already met equivalent or higher security standards. Our focus must be on removing undue burdens from businesses, reducing unnecessary costs and opening the door for UK businesses to succeed in markets around the world. Subject to the approval of the House, the draft regulations will establish two alternative routes for manufacturers of consumer connectable products to demonstrate compliance with the UK’s product security regime.
On 23 October, at Singapore international cyber week 2025, the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Singapore’s Cyber Security Agency formally signed a memorandum of understanding on the mutual recognition of consumer internet of things cyber-security regimes. The UK will also shortly be signing an MOU with Japan. Those MOUs represent a significant step forward in our international collaboration on digital security and innovation. They each establish a framework for recognising cyber-security certifications across borders. When both MOUs come into effect, UK businesses will benefit from streamlined access to the Japanese and Singaporean labelling schemes, boosting their product credibility and market appeal in those regions. The draft regulations will enable the UK to uphold its commitments, allow Japanese and Singaporean businesses to trade more easily with our market and reinforce our shared dedication to securing the connected device supply chain.
Regulations 4 and 8 amend the 2023 regulations to provide for deemed compliance with the requirement under section 9 of the 2022 Act that relevant connectable products must be accompanied by a statement of compliance. Under new regulation 4A and schedule 2A to the 2023 regulations, a manufacturer will be deemed to have complied with this requirement where the relevant connectable product carries a valid label under Japan’s JC-STAR STAR-1 labelling scheme, or a label under any level of the Singapore cyber-security labelling scheme. Regulations 5 to 7 amend schedule 2 to the 2023 regulations to provide for deemed compliance with other relevant security requirements set out in schedule 1 to those regulations, where a manufacturer’s product carries either such label. Regulation 3 inserts definitions of Japan’s JC-STAR STAR-1 scheme and the Singapore cyber-security labelling scheme into the 2023 regulations for the purposes of the deeming provisions.
Cyber-security is not just a technical issue; it is a strategic priority. By aligning with like-minded nations and reducing unnecessary barriers to trade, we are strengthening our digital resilience, supporting UK businesses and protecting our consumers. The UK must continue to lead by example, championing the global adoption of cyber-security standards and advancing mutual recognition, which are both a vital part of establishing a trusted global supply chain of connected products.
These new mutual recognition arrangements, which will be implemented in part by the draft regulations, will not only reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, but streamline compliance and support our ambition to make the UK a more attractive and competitive market for secure digital products. The draft regulations will extend and apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and will have practical effect throughout the United Kingdom. I hope the Committee will recognise their importance.
Kanishka Narayan
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will address first the questions that were asked.
I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge for his warm welcome. On the question of how assurances were sought about the equivalence of the Japanese and Singaporean standards, the maturity of those standards and the time for which the countries have been implementing them have been particularly material assurances. Japan and Singapore have aligned their security requirements and labelling schemes to the globally accepted ETSI EN 303 645 standard, which happens to be the same standard that underpins the UK’s PSTI regime. Therefore, products that have a valid label issued by Japan or Singapore will meet the security requirements specified in our regime. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, as the regulator of the regime as a whole, is equipped with a comprehensive set of enforcement powers and will continue to keep under review any mutual recognition agreements.
Of course the Government recognise the strategic importance of the European Union as the UK’s largest trading partner, and we will explore opportunities to reduce technical barriers to trade in the security space in that context, too.
On the question of benefits, my understanding is that we have had representations from a number of small and medium-sized businesses, in particular, about how this measure will open up export markets in Japan and Singapore, allow Japanese and Singaporean firms to trade, and ensure that British consumers can benefit. I do not have a number to give, but I hope very much that we will see the benefits of that freer flow of trade in connected devices very soon.
On the cyber-security context, more everyday products than ever before are connected to the internet, ranging from smart TVs to fitness trackers and voice assistants. From April 2024 to March 2025, we surveyed the participation of consumers and found that 96% of folks personally owned and used a smartphone, 76% a smart TV, and 68% a laptop computer. It is now very rare to find a UK household that does not own a connected device in the scope of these regulations; less than 1% of people reported that they did not own a smartphone, laptop, desktop PC, tablet, games console, smart printer or smart TV.
This growing connectivity brings convenience but also new risks. The Government have taken action to ensure that UK consumers and businesses purchasing consumer connectable products are better protected from the risk of cyber-attacks, fraud or even, in the most serious cases, physical danger. The cyber-security regulatory landscape is evolving, with countries around the world, including Japan and Singapore, introducing similar regimes. The UK must remain agile and forward-looking to maintain its leadership in this space. The draft regulations will ensure that the UK remains a global leader in product cyber-security, while strengthening our position as an attractive destination for digital innovation and trade.
By recognising Japanese and Singaporean IOT labelling schemes, we are reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, supporting UK businesses to expand internationally and enabling Japanese and Singaporean manufacturers to bring compliant products to our market more efficiently. This measure is a practical step forward in delivering the Government’s mission to drive economic growth and build a more resilient digital economy. It also complements our efforts to harmonise security standards across major economies, in partnership with Brunei, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, Germany, Finland, South Korea, Canada, Japan, Singapore and Hungary, via the global cyber-security labelling initiative. With forecasts suggesting that the global IOT market will grow to 24.1 billion devices by 2030, generating more than £1.1 trillion in annual revenue, it is more essential than ever that we enhance the security of connected products on a global scale.
Dr Spencer
The Minister has referred a few times to cyber-security strategy. Can he update us on when we will see the Government’s cyber-security and resilience Bill?
Kanishka Narayan
I am afraid that I cannot commit to a legislative timeline, but we want to move very fast on the Bill and are looking for the right opportunity in Parliament to introduce it.
The draft regulations are a significant step in achieving our goal for cyber-security. I look forward to continuing this work and building on the momentum we have established.
Question put and agreed to.
Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker
Well, quite. In that case, I call the Minister to move the motion. Is this your first time at the Dispatch Box, Minister?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I beg to move,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake payments, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in excess of £30 million to any successful applicant to the Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund, launched on 30 October 2024, up to a cumulative total of £520 million.
Thank you for calling me on this none the less memorable occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is the first occasion on which I seek the Chamber’s authority.
The life sciences sector is a jewel in the crown of our economy—a national asset that plays a unique role in both the health and the wealth of the United Kingdom. The sector drives jobs, investment and innovation right across the country, from cutting-edge research laboratories in Cheshire to—close to my heart—advanced manufacturing sites in south Wales. Life sciences manufacturing is the critical link between our world-class research and real-world patient benefit. It ensures that scientific breakthroughs translate into tangible improvements in care, while underpinning economic growth and strengthening the resilience of our NHS.
Yet despite the UK’s global leadership in many areas of life sciences manufacturing, we must acknowledge that, in recent years, growth in manufacturing sites and jobs has not kept pace with the expansion of the life sciences sector as a whole. That is why this summer the Government published the life sciences sector plan—a comprehensive strategy to ensure growth in all parts of the sector. The plan sets out the UK’s ambition to secure more life sciences foreign direct investment than any other European economy by 2030, behind only the US and China globally by 2035.
Central to that ambition is boosting manufacturing through delivery of the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, one of six headline commitments in the sector plan. Launched last October, the fund demonstrates this Government’s commitment to the continued growth of our life sciences sector, with up to £520 million of funding available to support private sector capital investments until 2030.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Northern Ireland has a vibrant life sciences manufacturing sector. I am looking to the Minister for an assurance relating to article 10 of the Windsor framework, which subjects Northern Ireland to EU state aid rules. Can the Minister assure us that there is no impediment arising therein that would impede successful applications to the fund from Northern Ireland manufacturers? That could also have a knock-on effect on GB, because if the goods produced are transported to Northern Ireland, they, too, come under the state aid rules. Has the Department examined that? What assurance can the Government give us on the protection against EU state aid rules for the fund?
Kanishka Narayan
The talent and ability of people in Northern Ireland are very much at the forefront of our minds, and we want to ensure that everything we are doing to support the life sciences sector is taking a whole-UK approach. I am very happy to write to the hon. and learned Member on his questions about Northern Irish eligibility.
Kanishka Narayan
I will make some progress for now.
The life sciences innovative manufacturing fund directly supports two of the Government’s key missions: to kick-start economic growth and to build an NHS fit for the future. The scheme is projected to attract nearly £4 billion in private investment, creating more than 7,000 jobs and safeguarding more than 5,000 existing ones.
However, the scheme’s impact is not just economic. The pandemic proved that we cannot take our critical supply chains for granted, and supporting the onshoring of life sciences manufacturing through the fund is therefore critical to strengthening our national resilience and preparedness for future health emergencies.
Kanishka Narayan
I will make some progress.
This week we announced the first two grant awards through the scheme, marking a major milestone in the fund’s roll-out. This will unlock substantial private investment, showcasing the UK’s appeal to valuable, globally mobile life sciences manufacturers. As delivery of the scheme progresses, we expect to announce more grant winners in the coming months. Each project supported through the grant will further strengthen health resilience and drive economic growth across all nations and regions in the UK.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Since the Minister has been talking about taxpayers’ money, I would be grateful if he could let us know what the minimum leverage is. For every pound of taxpayers’ money put in, what is the minimum that has to be put in by the private sector?
Kanishka Narayan
My understanding is that these are grant capital investments that the Government will be making, and I am sure we will be looking at the leverage at a whole-fund level. If there are particular requirements at an individual investment level, I am happy to write to the hon. Member on that particular point.
Robin Swann
Third time lucky. I welcome the Minister’s announcement of the fund for life sciences with regard to the companies we have in North Antrim and South Antrim. Could the Minister also ensure that any research and development tax credits that companies can apply for are fully supported, utilised and brought forward at speed so that companies are able to utilise not just the fund but the tax credits that come through R&D as well?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for his important point. I am happy to take a full look at the R&D tax credit system and how it will support our ambitions to back our private sector partners in both R&D and subsequent commercialisation.
The Government are clear that the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund is a strategic investment in our future. It is a vital step in delivering the Government’s commitment to supporting the UK’s life sciences sector and ensuring that our country remains at the forefront of the sector.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kanishka Narayan
I want to be in your good books, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will proceed at pace in answering some of the questions raised.
I first thank the Members on the shadow Front Benches and in particular the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). I was sad that her generous welcome to me was not extended to this particular announcement. In particular, I was sad that she did not welcome the fact that out of their Tory fiscal wreckage we have managed to get £520 million for the British life sciences sector, that out of the economic damage they did to this country we have still managed to secure over £1 billion in investment from Moderna in the British life sciences sector, and that out of what we inherited from the Tory context we have managed to secure over £1 billion from BioNTech. Right across the board, there is a picture of stability, good jobs in the life sciences and broader technology sectors, optimism and, above all, an energy shared across Government, the private sector and academia.
Kanishka Narayan
I must proceed because, as I said, I need to be in Madam Deputy Speaker’s good books.
A particular concern has been raised about VPAG, another part of a longer-standing legacy from a Tory Chancellor’s austerity rampage for the life sciences sector in this country. The Government’s position is very clear: we will always put patients and taxpayers first. This Government are open to working collaboratively with the pharmaceutical industry, which is exactly why we have put forward a generous and unprecedented offer worth approximately £1 billion over three years as part of a review of VPAG, which ultimately industry did not take a vote on.
We remain confident in the life sciences as a driver of both economic growth and better health outcomes and our door remains open to future engagement. I know that regular conversations go on and while I will not update Members on the shadow Front Benches on every single meeting the Secretary of State takes, I can assure them that she is involved in both the particular conversations around VPAG and more general engagement with the life sciences sector.
I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), whose depth of experience in engineering prior to this House and extensive experience in this House, in particular through leadership of the Science and Technology Committee, is one that I take considerable inspiration from.
Kanishka Narayan
I will make some progress for now. My hon. Friend raised a particular point around synthetic biology, which is very close to my heart because I think that Britain has a particular opportunity in the convergence of engineering, AI and life sciences, and we are keen on seizing that to its fullest extent.
On the three particular questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, foremost of which was about the size of the funding available, I will say a couple of things: first, that this is the largest fund of this nature announced in the history of the UK Government, to my understanding, with capital grants worth £520 million altogether; and secondly, that it is but one part of the overall funding package across Government if one considers the investments across Innovate UK, UKRI, the British Business Bank and beyond. I hope that some of the assurances around VPAG have answered the particular question posed there, and on regional impact, I point out that the first two grants from the scheme were made out to firms in Birmingham and Keele. I hope that is a starting indicator of my long-term hope; we will certainly monitor it.
Kanishka Narayan
I am afraid I will not; I believe I have been relatively generous in welcoming contributions from across the House. On the point of regional impact, in addition to the midlands, may I join the shadow Front Benchers in welcoming—they do so with laughter and amusement—the collective efforts of our entire Northern Irish contingent? I will take away the strong point about Northern Ireland’s strengths in the life sciences sector; it will be embedded on my mind.
I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for South Cambridgeshire for talking about investments. The only thing I will say on some of the announcements is that they have to be taken in the context of the wider global context for those firms, MSD in particular.
Kanishka Narayan
If the Member listens, he may feel that his point is addressed in my claims. In at least one of those cases, a pause, rather than a cancellation, was announced and in the other, there have been a series of announcements globally regarding thousands of jobs, not only in the UK but beyond. As I said, I hope that the two announcements I mentioned, by Moderna and BioNTech, will give us some assurance that the life sciences sector in the British context is firing on all cylinders with Government support.
Finally, I note with thanks the important point on national security and IP made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). It is top of mind for me in ensuring that we are not just powering economic growth and not just jobs and good health for people across this country, but doing the first job of Government to protect our national security.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake payments, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in excess of £30 million to any successful applicant to the Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund, launched on 30 October 2024, up to a cumulative total of £520 million.
Online Safety: Protections for Women and Girls
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
The Government are committed to making the internet a safer place and bringing in new protections for UK internet users. Today I am laying in draft the Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. This statutory instrument seeks to update the list of priority offences under schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023, to add the cyber-flashing offence at section 66A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the offence of “encouraging or assisting serious self-harm” in section 184 of the OSA.
The addition of these offences to the priority offences list is another step forwards in our mission to halve violence against women and girls. It will also help to reduce self-harm and suicide.
By adding the above offences to the list of priority offences, online services, such as social media platforms and search services, will need to prioritise these offences under their Online Safety Act duties for illegal content and take steps to ensure their services are not used to facilitate or commit the cyber-flashing or encouraging or assisting serious self-harm offences. Services must also take steps to search for, remove, and limit people’s exposure to this content. Ofcom’s codes of practice set out the measures that services can take to comply with their duties.
[HCWS974]
Oral Answers to Questions
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do miss our exchanges. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has been wearing his factor 50—he knows how it can get for us gingers in the hot weather. He also knows that local authorities have planning powers to limit the proliferation of small houses being turned into houses in multiple occupation. His Government left a housing crisis, and I am getting on with fixing that through the 1.5 million homes that we are going to deliver.
Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)
Just this week, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) put a singular burning injustice first: the plight of overseas billionaires who pay too much tax. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the hon. Member’s priority, or does she agree with me that Reform UK doing sweetheart deals with the super-rich is a betrayal of British working people?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I was asked about the hon. Member for Clacton’s mathematics the other week, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right—the mask has slipped again this week. The hon. Member for Clacton demands billions more in unfunded tax cuts for the very richest while he marches through the Lobby in the House of Commons to vote against sick pay for the lowest earners. We know what would pay for Reform’s tax breaks for overseas billionaires; it would be tax hikes on working people and patients being charged to seeing their doctor. Labour will not let that happen.
Copyright and Artificial Intelligence
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
I think that China is the problem in lots of different cases; I am not sure that it is in this case. It is more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for me to get a practicable solution, but that is what we are determined to achieve. When the hon. Gentleman referred to Anne, I thought for one moment that she was his AI assistant. The truth is that we will all have AI assistants very soon. Most of the time, when we google anything these days, the first result comes up because of AI. It is part of our lives, and we cannot pretend that away. What I would like is for UK companies and start-ups to develop AI in a way that accepts that the content that many of them are desperate to use needs to be paid for.
Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)
May I convey to the Minister my disappointment that his ChatGPT prompt yielded the Sugababes and “Football Manager” but not the enduring institution of “Gavin and Stacey” from the Vale of Glamorgan? I know that that is an omission that ChatGPT will correct. This is a critical debate, because the path to prosperity for nations has to be a path through technology. In that context, the primary question on my mind is whether the Minister can set out plans for how data accuracy and completeness in the creative sector can underpin the Government’s wider AI action plan, and ultimately drive national growth.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about “Gavin and Stacey”, and I look forward to the Christmas special. I would merely point out that, since H from Steps is from the Rhondda, Steps has a lot more to offer.
Chris Bryant
Well, some people have greatness thrust upon them.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about data, which will become an increasing part of our economic resilience and strength in this country. That is another part of my responsibility, if I have my DSIT hat on. I very much look forward to the Data (Use and Access) Bill coming to the Commons in the new year, once it has finished in the other place, because it is an opportunity for us to create smart data, which will release a great deal more economic potential and productivity in the UK.