Science, Innovation and Technology
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(2 days, 18 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kanishka Narayan
The TSI will secure supply chains, as my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Tamworth highlighted. Through the UK-India critical minerals guild, we are strengthening joint capabilities in critical minerals; I will closely consider its collective feedback and its particular observations on the partnership on critical minerals. Backed by £1.5 million in funding, phase 2 will now extend the scope of our joint observatory, further developing digital data infrastructure on the critical minerals value chain and establishing a new satellite campus at the Indian School of Mines in Dhanbad.
[Official Report, 28 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 304WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan):
Kanishka Narayan
The TSI will secure supply chains, as my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Tamworth highlighted. Through the UK-India critical minerals guild, we are strengthening joint capabilities in critical minerals; I will closely consider its collective feedback and its particular observations on the partnership on critical minerals. Backed by £1.8 million in funding, phase 2 will now extend the scope of our joint observatory, further developing digital data infrastructure on the critical minerals value chain and establishing a new satellite campus at the Indian School of Mines in Dhanbad.
UK-India Technology Security Initiative
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(3 days, 18 hours 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) for so expertly introducing this debate on the UK-India technology security initiative.
Technology and my early upbringing in India have profoundly shaped my life, so it is a particular privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. When my family moved from Bihar to south Wales, we came with a simple aspiration: to take the opportunity to work hard, to contribute and to build a better future. Technology played a pretty key role in it. At school in Cardiff, catching up with a new education system, I depended on the local public library computer. Access to those dusty old public PCs was formative in transforming my education and changing the trajectory of my life. I reflect on that, because the UK-India tech security initiative is not just about geopolitical security. It is about scaling opportunity in communities right across the UK.
Indian investment has already created over 1,800 jobs across the UK. Following the Prime Minister’s visit to Mumbai in October, we have secured a further £1.3 billion in direct investment. Britain’s significant leadership on the world stage is clearly delivering concrete returns for our communities in every part of our country. The UK-India technology security initiative will go further still: it will create good, well-paid jobs in the UK, build our children’s skills for the future and drive investment in every part of our country.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and other Members for their contributions to the debate. Their remarks have underlined how the UK-India relationship is not abstract or remote, but is lived every day in constituencies like theirs, through families, through businesses, through schools and through public services. That living bridge is the foundation on which our partnership rests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is right to challenge the outdated perceptions of India today. India has the highest growth rate in the G20. It has been the second largest source of foreign direct investment in the UK for six years. It is also one of the world’s fastest-growing technology powers, underpinned by a thriving ecosystem of innovation, entrepreneurship and digital transformation.
It is no exaggeration to say that our future prosperity depends on our ability to drive innovation-led growth, to secure the supply chains and technologies on which our economy relies and to build a strong research base and skills future so that British people and businesses can thrive. The UK cannot deliver those objectives alone. The technologies that will define the coming decades are global by nature, and success depends on our trusted partnerships.
The Government agree with my hon. Friend that partnership with India is therefore a strategic necessity. Our bilateral relationship has gone from strength to strength, with technology and innovation firmly at its core. That progress was underscored during the recent visits in both directions by our Prime Minister and Prime Minister Modi when the UK-India vision for 2035 was agreed. Those visits also saw the signing of the landmark comprehensive economic and trade agreement with India. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth pointed out, it is our most economically significant bilateral trade deal since leaving the European Union. It is expected to increase bilateral trade, which is worth £47.4 billion a year, by £25.5 billion and to increase both Indian and UK GDP by nearly £5 billion a year in the long run.
The UK and India are natural tech partners, with major Indian tech companies like Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services and Wipro already expanding in the UK, supporting jobs, productivity and innovation across our economy. Dozens of Indian firms and entrepreneurs are investing here in Britain, creating the jobs and growth of the future. Linkfields, an AI company based in Hyderabad, is investing £10 million in London, Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Mastek, whose representatives I met in India and which is located in Mumbai, is opening an office in Leeds and an AI centre in London, creating 200 skilled jobs including 75 apprenticeships. EdSupreme, which is using AI to help people with physiotherapy, is investing £10 million across England and Wales and creating 100 jobs.
That is why the UK-India technology security initiative exists. It is a landmark partnership, bringing into sharper focus collaboration in frontier technology across telecoms, critical minerals, semiconductors, AI, quantum, biotechnology, healthtech and advanced materials. It is clear that working closely with India allows us not only to open new opportunities for our businesses and make sure that our technologies rely on secure and trustworthy foundations, but to work with a partner that is increasingly setting the global agenda. That was evident this year during my visit to India for the AI summit, which underscored the global role that India is now playing in convening Governments, industry and academia across every part of the world.
Alongside the Deputy Prime Minister and an 18-strong delegation of cutting-edge UK businesses and 13 UK universities, we delivered on investment and talent commitments set in train during the Prime Minister’s earlier visit, with commitments secured from Indian companies such as Hexaware, Nagarro and CoRover to expand their UK footprint.
I also saw at first hand the breadth of commercial interest that the UK has in India. Our partnership is focused on driving that innovation across businesses in our countries. That was evident when I spent time at the British Council with the founder of ElevenLabs, a great British AI company, celebrating students and future founders shaping our two tech ecosystems. That is what the UK-India technology security initiative is designed to achieve.
We have already delivered several joint AI innovation projects together through the UK-India joint centre for AI, working on the development of AI innovations in priority areas such as healthcare, climate, energy, agriculture and finance. The joint centre will also play a cross-cutting role, enabling the safe adoption of AI across other TSI sectors, including telecoms and wider digital infrastructure.
Our co-operation extends to advanced connectivity. Working together to shape future communications networks will help to provide seamless coverage, even in the most remote areas of our countries, and underpin innovations in healthcare, smart city infrastructure and autonomous vehicles. We are delivering on this through the India-UK Connectivity and Innovation Centre, with an initial £24 million in joint funding. The centre will drive innovation in how AI is used in telecoms networks, in non-terrestrial networks such as satellite internet, and in telecoms cybersecurity. I will flag to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, that this will include opportunities for Belfast and for Northern Ireland—an ecosystem of which I have personally seen the strengths, particularly in cyber-security.
The technology security initiative is already delivering in biotechnology and health technology, sectors that matter both for our economic growth and for our resilience. In February, the UK biotech and pharma SME delegation visited Mumbai and Hyderabad to strengthen UK-India collaboration in biomanufacturing and pharmaceutical innovation.
We are also collaborating on innovative technologies in femtech, with a letter of intent between the National Institute for Health and Care Research and India’s Department of Biotechnology. By bringing together expertise from both our countries, this partnership has the potential not only to improve health outcomes for women, but to support economic growth by driving innovation, attracting investment and strengthening our life sciences sector.
The TSI will secure supply chains, as my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Tamworth highlighted. Through the UK-India critical minerals guild, we are strengthening joint capabilities in critical minerals; I will closely consider its collective feedback and its particular observations on the partnership on critical minerals. Backed by £1.5 million in funding, phase 2 will now extend the scope of our joint observatory, further developing digital data infrastructure on the critical minerals value chain and establishing a new satellite campus at the Indian School of Mines in Dhanbad.
The TSI is a strategic investment in our future. We are committed to its delivery. Just last week, our National Security Adviser led bilateral discussions in Delhi on the India-UK Technology Security Initiative, agreeing that the next phase of the TSI must prioritise business engagement and growth.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare again for securing this debate and for highlighting something I feel personally, which is that notwithstanding our historic connections, what most ties the UK and India together is that we are two countries chasing the future. We are chasing a future built on the foundations of our people-to-people and business-to-business connections. I look forward to continuing this work as our partnership deepens, so that we can deliver further benefits for the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Telecommunications, Radio Spectrum Management and Postal Services: Strategic Priorities
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(4 days, 18 hours 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 my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital Economy, Baroness Lloyd of Effra.
I have today designated the Government’s statement of strategic priorities for
telecommunications, the management of radio spectrum, and postal services for the purposes of section 2A of the Communications Act 2003.
This statement outlines the Government’s strategic priorities and desired outcomes across a number of areas, including: fixed and mobile telecoms, digital inclusion through empowered and confident consumers, telecoms modernisation, the management of radio spectrum, telecoms security and resilience, and the postal services.
The draft statement was laid before Parliament on 11 February 2026 and the statutory period required under section 2C of the Act has now ended.
As the independent regulator, Ofcom must have regard to the priorities set out within the statement when exercising its functions. Within 40 days of the designation of the statement, Ofcom must report on what it proposes to do in consequence of the statement. Ofcom must then publish subsequent annual reports setting out what action it has taken in consequence of the statement.
We are committed to working with Ofcom and industry to drive forward progress against the priorities set out in the statement to build a UK that will have the connectivity it needs, whatever the future holds.
[HCWS1542]
UK-US Arrangement on Pharmaceuticals Pricing and Tariffs
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 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 repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, my noble Friend Lord Vallance of Balham.
Today I can update the House that the UK and US Governments have published the joint text of our arrangement on pharmaceuticals pricing and tariffs. This builds on the general terms for the UK-US economic prosperity deal announced in May 2025 and takes forward joint commitments made when the principles of the partnership were first announced in December 2025. The arrangement will improve the lives of NHS patients, support our life sciences sector and grow the economy.
Central to the partnership are the actions the Government are taking to improve and protect UK patient access to new and important medicines. More NHS patients will get improved access to life-changing new treatments because of the medicines pricing changes we have made, and the associated UK medicines spend targets set out in the arrangement. Investing in medicines helps keep people healthier for longer, reduces pressure on the health service over the longer term, and ensures that we have an NHS that is fit for the future.
The update to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold, made for the first time in two decades, has already made a direct difference for NHS patients. Two medicines have already been recommended by NICE under the new threshold, giving patients immediate access to life-changing medicines—including a brain cancer drug for patients as young as 12 and a last-resort treatment for patients with a rare form of stomach cancer who had already exhausted other options. NHS patients in England will be able to access these through the health service, thanks to the new thresholds.
In addition, the arrangement includes clarification of the US commitments on its “most favoured nation” pricing policy and support for UK patient access, including outlining expectations from the US Government that companies will continue to launch new medicines quickly in the UK.
The partnership supports our life sciences sector, which not only saves lives but creates jobs, drives investment and powers innovation across our economy. UK pharmaceuticals exports to the US—worth over £5 billion in 2024—will be subject to no additional US tariffs as a result of section 232 or section 301 investigations for at least three years. This includes avoiding section 232 tariffs on patented pharmaceuticals of up to 100% announced by the US on Thursday 2 April. This makes the UK the first and only country to benefit from a commitment to tariff-free access to the US pharmaceuticals market, providing certainty for UK exporters, and giving the UK sector a significant competitive advantage over other trading partners. This supports economic growth and helps protect our vital pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, which in 2025 added £28.5 billion to the UK economy, employed over 50,000 people in high-skilled jobs across the country, and exported almost £21 billion in pharmaceutical products worldwide.
We have also achieved preferential terms for medical technology exports, which will be subject to no additional tariffs as a result of section 232 or section 301 investigations for at least three years—protecting over 195,000 UK jobs in the med-tech sector. The UK and US have also agreed to work together towards mutual recognition of medical device approvals—cutting red tape and supporting future innovative health technologies to reach patients on both sides of the Atlantic.
The partnership has received widespread support from the life sciences sector and will lead to greater investment in UK life sciences. It has already started generating results, such as £500 million investment in UK research and development and manufacturing in Surrey from the global biopharmaceutical company UCB, which was announced in January.
We will continue to work closely with the life sciences sector to help land investment into the UK, and deliver on our ambition for the UK to become the third most important life sciences economy by 2035, as set out in our life sciences sector plan.
The finalising of this arrangement does not introduce any further costs for HM Government beyond those set out previously. The Government will continue to assess the costs and benefits of this arrangement.
[HCWS1487]
Mobile and Fixed Telecoms Modernisation Charters and Protocols
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(1 month, 1 week 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 my noble Friend Baroness Lloyd of Effra, the Minister for Digital Economy.
The Government secured agreement yesterday from the telecoms industry to further protect customers and to prevent disruption to critical national infrastructure services during telecoms modernisation programmes via the 2G switch-off charter and the fixed telecoms modernisation charter. These charters and additional guidance for communication providers, network operators and wholesalers have been developed in response to and in anticipation of essential work led by industry to modernise the UK’s digital infrastructure.
Modernising the UK’s telecommunications infrastructure supports economic growth. Households and businesses will be able to benefit from much faster download and upload speeds, improved network security, greater reliability and resilience, better call quality, and lower latency (faster responsiveness). In addition, some telecoms companies are finding it difficult to source certain spare parts required to maintain or repair connections as the parts are no longer made. Decommissioned parts are being used to maintain the remaining networks.
Modernising mobile networks
All four 3G networks have now been safely switched off, with the last operator switching off in early 2026. Spectrum released from retiring 3G is now being re-purposed to improve 4G and 5G connectivity, which is now widely available across the UK. Mobile network operators are now turning to switching off 2G networks which was first announced in 2021. These 2G networks are used for a number of critical services and support customers who require additional support, including those with older 2G-only mobile phones—of which there are around two million—as well as personal telecare alarms, so it is imperative that their migration to 4G or 5G networks is done safely.
Mobile operators, as signatories of the new 2G switch-off charter, have therefore made significant commitments to ensure a safe and smooth switch-off of 2G migration for everyone. These include contacting affected customers well in advance of switching off a 2G network or service, using multiple and different means of communications, trialling switching-off 2G in different geographic areas before starting a nationwide switch-off, verifying that 4G and-or 5G coverage is present prior to switching off 2G, and maintaining access to all forms of emergency services. Mobile phones that are 2G only ceased to be sold at scale over a decade ago in the mid-2010s. The remaining 2G-only mobile phone users will receive multiple messages asking them to upgrade to a new device in advance of 2G being switched off by each network in 2029, 2030 and by 2033. Government have and continue to engage with local authorities and telecare providers about the closure of mobile networks.
Modernising fixed networks
Fixed networks are also being upgraded. This includes the upgrade of analogue copper landlines, the public switched telephone network, to the digital voice over internet protocol, also known as the PSTN migration. This is an essential upgrade as older networks are ageing and deteriorating, and people are missing out on the benefits of newer, better technologies. There are also expected to be significant closures of telephone exchanges in the coming years, as these will no longer be required for running modernised networks. Similar to the switch-off of the 2G mobile network, there are customers who are reliant on their landlines and old copper-based services, including those who use telecare devices.
In November 2024, the Government secured agreements from the telecoms industry to protect vulnerable people and critical services during the PSTN migration via the non-voluntary migration checklist and critical national infrastructure charter. These have ensured safety is at the forefront of the PSTN migration, protecting customers who require additional support—including during changes to their telecoms services—and critical infrastructure. As of 31 December 2025, only 3.6 million PSTN lines remained operational. This is down from 6.5 million at the end of 2024 and 35.2 million at the network’s peak in 2000.
Industry and Government are committed to learning the lessons from the PSTN migration for future fixed telecoms modernisations. Therefore, the industry commitments that previously only applied to the PSTN migration have been extended to all fixed modernisations. This includes the fixed telecoms modernisation charter, critical national infrastructure charter, and the non-voluntary migration checklist.
Supporting everyone through the migrations
In addition to these updated documents, signatories have agreed to two final engagement protocols. These protocols are a backstop to address situations where a small number of customers do not engage with communication providers despite repeated attempts to contact them in order to modernise their service. Communication providers, and, separately, network operators and wholesalers, have agreed additional safeguards to protect customers, while enabling networks and services to be modernised before they fail. This includes the commitment to contacting customers three times using at least two different channels that are suitable for their needs, using clear language about the proposed change to their service. The protocols provide a minimum time period for customers to respond of at least 30 days. There are also additional communications, time and safeguards for those needing additional support.
During the roundtable that I hosted yesterday, telecoms providers agreed that their first priority was always to protect customers. I also laid out the Government plan to work with industry to ensure the charter commitments are met and engage with sectors that rely on digital connectivity to ensure they upgrade their products and services.
[HCWS1437]
Financial Assistance to Industry
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
It may help if I clarify from the Chair that we will debate for up to 90 minutes the content of the motion in the name of the Secretary of State, which is listed on the future business section of the Order Paper. The House will be asked to pass the motion without debate after the text has been reported from the Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That this House authorises the Secretary of State to make 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 Large Investment Portfolio, launched on 15 November 2025, up to a cumulative total of £570 million.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. The life sciences sector is a jewel in the crown of our economy, a national asset that plays a unique role in the health and wealth of the United Kingdom. The sector consistently drives skilled employment, attracts cutting-edge research and stimulates inward investment in communities across every nation and region of our United Kingdom. From pioneering new medical technologies to developing life-saving therapeutics, life sciences generate immense economic value and vital public health benefit.
The Government’s life sciences sector plan sets out a comprehensive, long-term strategy to ensure sustainable growth across all parts of the sector. It outlines our ambition for the UK to secure more life sciences foreign direct investment than any other European economy by 2030, and to position ourselves as the third largest global destination for such investment by 2035, behind only the United States and China. Meeting that ambition requires an internationally leading support package and a clear signal to global investors that Britain is open, competitive and committed to scientific excellence.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Given that the individual grants can exceed £30 million and are monitored for only 10 years, if a company, say, relocates to another country or fails to deliver over that period, is there any mechanism for the Government to claw back some of that money?
Kanishka Narayan
I would not make claims about any individual-level investments we have made through the fund at the moment, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the provisions in the fund as a whole.
Central to our ambition is boosting manufacturing through the delivery of up to £520 million to the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, one of six headline commitments in the sector plan. The covid pandemic demonstrated beyond doubt that we cannot take our critical supply chains for granted. The disruption of that period showed the risks of relying too heavily on overseas production for medicines, vaccines and essential medical supplies. Supporting the onshoring and expansion of life sciences manufacturing through the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund is therefore a vital part of strengthening our national resilience, improving preparedness for future health emergencies and ensuring that UK patients benefit quickly from innovation.
In the past six months alone, that Government support through the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund has unlocked more than £600 million in investment in our life sciences sector, which will create and safeguard more than 600 jobs. That includes a £500 million investment by global pharmaceutical company UCB in Surrey, alongside a £23 million investment to expand production of essential medicines at Norgine’s facility in Hengoed, Wales.
Those investments position the UK as a world leader in health and manufacturing innovation and boost regional economic growth. More than that, they restore a proud culture and heritage of innovation in so many of these places. Hengoed, for example, was the place that powered this country’s industrial development across the 20th century with coal from the Penallta colliery. Now, that heritage of coal leads into the future of essential medicine production as well. The life sciences innovative manufacturing fund is unlocking expanded warehouse capacity, expanding production capacity and creating 44 new local jobs. At the heart of it all, it restores that critical heritage of innovation in our communities.
Of course, if we are to maximise the full potential of UK life sciences, we must go further and faster in our support for the largest transformational projects. That is why the life sciences sector plan includes a commitment to develop a new, bespoke approach to supporting major life sciences investments of more than £250 million. Such large-scale and globally mobile investments are particularly critical to the ecosystem here in the UK. They attract further private capital, create clusters of expertise and bring significant economic and health resilience benefits to both the local areas that host them and the UK as a whole.
The life sciences large investment portfolio is designed to meet that need. It offers tailored Government support to attract the world’s largest and most strategically important life sciences investments to the UK. The scheme enables the Government to provide bespoke support for investment portfolios with investments in manufacturing and in research and development totalling at least £250 million over a three-year period. It will give confidence to companies and ensure that the UK remains an internationally competitive destination.
Crucially, the life sciences large investment portfolio brings together regional and devolved delivery partners with UK Government support, so that we can leverage the full UK offer for investors. That means aligning national incentives with place-based strengths in skills, infrastructure, clusters and planning, so that every part of the proposition works together, and the UK is as competitive as possible for the largest and most mobile life sciences investments.
The Government are clear that the life sciences large investment portfolio is a strategic investment in our future. It will strengthen our capabilities, support high-value jobs and reinforce the UK’s global reputation as a science superpower. Most importantly, it is a vital step in delivering the Government’s commitment to support the UK’s life sciences sector, and to ensuring that our country remains at the forefront of global innovation for decades to come.
Kanishka Narayan
I thank both hon. Members for their contributions. To respond to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, the large investment portfolio part of the fund is of course focused on larger projects that materially move the needle for the sector as a whole. The life sciences innovative manufacturing fund as a whole is much more focused on singular sites, and as a result smaller firms are able to participate in it. That is alongside a series of measures that the Department has been taking to back the best of British start-ups in this space.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, asked what we are doing on longer-term stability to continue to attract large-scale investment into this country. The pharmaceutical agreement we have struck with the United States is a really important location for a series of commitments that support our commercial investment environment and provide the best care for patients within that.
We have committed to investing around 25% more in new medicines, with two key changes at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—an increase to the cost-effectiveness threshold, and the introduction of a new value for assessing health-related quality of life. We have also introduced a 15% cap on repayments made by industry as part of the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth, with greater market predictability for investment as a consequence of that as well. Furthermore, colleagues across Government continue to work closely with industry, patient groups and the devolved Administrations on ideas to support the commercial environment, as well as on medicines pricing in a future voluntary scheme.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point around reforms to the tax system, he will be aware that discussions are ongoing across Government all the time, particularly in support of entrepreneurial investment decisions made in this country. That is true not least for early-stage founders in the life sciences and broader technology as well, where, as a consequence of decisions made by the Treasury, this country now has one of the most attractive regimes for employee equity participation.
The motion will ensure that the UK can compete for the largest and most impactful investments in life sciences manufacturing.
Dr Spencer
Will the Minister respond on the point about VAT on medicines and trials?
Kanishka Narayan
I am happy to look into the specific case study in the papers, which the hon. Gentleman referenced. I have to say that I have not seen the mention in The Times of the company he talked about, and I am reluctant to speculate on the context. However, if he is looking for an answer, I am happy to write to him about that case.
These investments will make a significant contribution to UK economic growth and outcomes for NHS patients. The life sciences large investment portfolio is a key tool that will support the Government’s missions to kick-start economic growth and build an NHS fit for the future. Working together with industry, the Government are delivering better patient outcomes and driving economic growth, and I look forward to continuing that work and building on that momentum. I commend the motion to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That this House authorises the Secretary of State to make 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 Large Investment Portfolio, launched on 15 November 2025, up to a cumulative total of £570 million.
Online Harms
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for bringing this important debate to the House. A number of hon. Members have mentioned bereaved families, and I want to pay tribute to all those families. Ian Russell—with whom I have had a series of meetings, including this morning—Stuart and Amanda Stephens, Ellen Roome and so many others have gone through the most horrific of tragedies, and despite that, they have consistently fought for appropriate action for other families. I carry them in my heart and mind when I think about the prospect of online safety regulation doing justice to future generations of children in this country.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and to the other Members who made contributions on this important topic. In the interest of time, I propose to prioritise responses to them individually before talking about the wider context. First and foremost, I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for doing a stocktake of progress on the child safety and illegal content duties so far. He will be aware that Ofcom is due to report on content harmful to children and progress on that question this year. I understand that will be due by October, and I look forward to its findings to assess where we can go further still.
The only other thing I will flag to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire is that the national consultation we have launched on children’s wellbeing includes the question of functionality limitations. The functionalities that he talked about—algorithmic recommendations and the structural aspects that make parts of social media particularly harmful to children—will be in scope. I would very much welcome his submissions on that as well.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for her consistent advocacy on this question, and for the roundtable she held with the Mental Health Foundation and the Molly Rose Foundation, which I was glad to attend. I thank her for not just shining a light and keeping a consistent focus across the House on the scale of the problem, but flagging the diversity of views on how we should tackle it most effectively. I have been in schools pretty much every week since the launch of the consultation. I was with young people just this morning, and I will be in a school next week. She is right to raise the diversity and depth of views held on how we act, not whether we act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett raised concerns about the suicide forum, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) also mentioned. I share those concerns, and I have engaged with Ofcom to ensure that it is acting quickly and robustly. I had a meeting with one of the bereaved families just this morning. I will continue to ensure that Ofcom does everything it can with the powers it has, and that we continue to look at any further powers required to ensure we act robustly to prevent any such incidents happening again. I would, of course, be delighted to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett to continue that conversation.
I have had the privilege of engaging with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on the illegal sale of drugs; I know that she has been, quite rightly, actively advocating on that question. She will be aware that it has been deemed a priority offence. Ofcom is closely monitoring compliance. I know there is more to do; she has made that point very firmly to me. I will also inform her that the National Crime Agency is looking to identify offenders operating online, both nationally and internationally. She made a very important point on covert filming, and we will take what she raised into consideration. Systems that are designed to remove such content will now have to do so within 48 hours of non-consensual intimate images being put up online. I will continue to look at the implementation of that measure once it comes into force.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) raised very important points about the impact of social media usage on brain development, which is one motivating factor for our consultation. We are looking at not just acute harms, but the chronic impact over time of engagement on social media. I am grateful to her for raising the point that there is a suite of options that might be appropriate. I very much share her intent that, at the heart of it, the action we take will make platforms, not young people, responsible for the harms being conducted online.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) for advocating on the questions of misinformation and community cohesion, both in her community and nationally. On her point about misinformation and the erosion of public trust, which was also made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), there is a very clear foreign interference offence in the Online Safety Act. I will continue to look at the implementation of that. Alongside that, I serve on the defending democracy taskforce with the Security Minister. This is a priority question that we have been looking at. I will continue to ensure that we do more to press the enforcement of existing law and to look at where we can go further still.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) raised important points about community cohesion, and how we must use online experiences not to divide but to unite our communities. In that context, we have taken a series of initiatives on media literacy to support the ability to sift fact from fiction across our communities. The foreign interference provisions in the Online Safety Act are also a key vector of enforcement against the causes described.
On antisocial behaviour, I would be interested, in the light of the consultation, to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy about where the headteachers and young people she has engaged with think we ought to go. I agree with her on the divisive impacts, and we will continue to look not just at illegal content but at how we empower users in relation to divisive content that, individually, might be legal but, collectively, ends up being deeply harmful to community cohesion, as well as to democratic integrity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) reaffirmed the point that he has made to me in person about this issue. I pay tribute again to Stuart and Amanda Stephens, who have gone through the most horrific tragedy in their family. I am deeply grateful for their grit and resilience through it, and for my hon. Friend’s advocacy alongside them. He asked me for a sense of direction on where the consultation is going. I will not pre-empt its substantive content, but we have had almost 25,000 responses—I hope and expect that this will be the most engaged-with consultation in the history of British national consultations—including thousands of young people. We have designed a dedicated version of the consultation for young people as well as one for parents and carers. I am keen to hear my hon. Friend’s views from his engagement, as well as those of other Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale raised a very important point about the documentary “Inside The Manosphere”, the growing cause of misogyny in this country and this Government’s priority of tackling violence against women and girls. He will be aware that in December, we published our landmark cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy. That was the underpinning force for our making cyber-flashing and intimate image abuse priority offences in this country, banning the creation of nudification apps and banning people from creating and sharing that content, and it is why we are going further still in ensuring that such content is taken down robustly and quickly, within 48 hours. On the point that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North raised about the growing prevalence of antisemitism and division online, I look forward to an imminent meeting with the Antisemitism Policy Trust to figure out how we can go further not just in law but in terms of awareness of it across our communities.
I turn to the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). I have met the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench team to talk about their suggestions on functionalities and age ratings. I would of course be happy to continue the conversation, and I encourage them to contribute to the consultation.
Finally, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, raised a very important point about chatbots. I hope it is very clear that chatbots ought never to replace professional support. We will continue to look at that, and I will update the House when we have decided on specific steps. We announced just yesterday that we are looking at the issues of labelling and personality rights, and I hope to update the House on them soon.
Media Literacy Action Plan
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(1 month, 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)
Today I am laying before Parliament the Government’s media literacy action plan. It sets out our commitment to fostering a safe, informed and resilient digital society.
Media literacy is an essential everyday skill that supports people to understand and take part in modern life. It helps people of all ages to: make sense of the information they encounter online and assess whether it is reliable; communicate safely; and navigate the internet with confidence. It supports understanding of how platforms and new technologies, including artificial intelligence, shape what people see and share, and enables informed choices about personal information. It also supports participation in everyday activities, including exploring new interests, connecting with others and taking part in democratic life. It is central to digital inclusion and to ensuring that people can benefit from online services and opportunities.
The importance of media literacy, and the need for cross-Government co-ordination, was highlighted by the Lords Communications and Digital Committee in its 2025 inquiry. While the Online Safety Act 2023 provides the regulatory foundation for safer online experiences, regulation alone cannot address the challenges created by misleading information, harmful content and rapid technological change. Significant work on media literacy is already taking place, with Government Departments, Ofcom, charities, educators, libraries and industry partners delivering media literacy activity across the UK. Education and public empowerment are essential, and the Government’s wider programme of work, including the consultation, “Growing up in the online world: a national consultation”, will support skills development and help to build resilience across society.
This plan sets out a clear approach for a single, co-ordinated, cross-Government framework for the next three years, establishes shared principles and priority areas for action, and provides a clearer picture of the support available across the UK. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has provided funding for a pilot media literacy campaign, and the plan otherwise integrates media literacy into existing initiatives within departmental budgets.
Over the next three years, the Government will focus on priorities in building public awareness of media literacy and supporting access to trusted information; preparing children and young people for a digital future; boosting local initiatives to support people facing barriers to participation; and ensuring a coherent, co-ordinated approach across Government and with partners beyond it.
Through this work, the Government’s ambition is to ensure that everyone can take part in the online world with confidence and benefit fully from the opportunities it offers.
[HCWS1399]
UK-based Tech Companies
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(1 month, 2 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this important debate on Government support for UK-based tech companies. I am grateful to him and to all other hon. Members across the Chamber for their contributions. They did a sterling job of showing that the UK is truly a buzzing tech economy in every single part of the country—right across the constituencies represented here and beyond.
This Government are committed to supporting the UK’s thriving tech ecosystem. We are proud to be home to the largest tech sector in Europe, valued at nearly £1 trillion. The success of UK-based technology firms benefits us all. These are some of the fastest growing parts of the economy and are already employing millions of people. The innovations they bring are delivering major benefits to people and communities right across the country, transforming everything from the way we work to how we manage our health.
Given the luxury of time, I propose to respond to each of the points raised by hon. Members. First, I very much appreciate the points on competition policy made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, and shared by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). Of course, I am reluctant to mention any specifics about the interventions, investigations or engagements the CMA is pursuing as an independent regulator. As the shadow Minister acknowledged, the commitments that the CMA has looked at could be quicker than a full conduct requirement process.
The CMA assures the Government that it continues to monitor firm compliance. If Apple and Google fail to meet their commitments, the CMA will consider the use of statutory powers to take further action. I am conscious that it has just finished consulting, as the shadow Minister mentioned, on the first set of remedies and commitments in the light of the designations of Google, in search, and Apple and Google, in mobile platform markets. I expect very soon to hear greater detail, as well as firm timelines, on that particular point.
The virtue of the previous Government’s digital markets regime is that it is flexible and proportionate, and allows for some remedies that are quicker, and others, where this is due, that are more robust. The Government expect that the CMA will act in line with its growth and competition mandate. Those two issues overlap much more than we often give the CMA credit for.
I will briefly take the opportunity to address the shadow Minister’s history of the UK tech sector over the last 14 years. Having been in that sector through part of that time, although I very much value the growth seen in the period, I am also conscious of the particular fact that drove me into politics: over that entire period—one of the most productive periods in global technology markets—no one growing up in this country ever saw a company go from zero to the global top 10; in the United States, in that same period, people saw eight out of those top 10 companies do that. The levels of capital investment and IT in this country were materially below that of the United States. When the shadow Minister talks about the benchmark as being European growth, I fear I have to say, given that it is ambition season among Conservative Front Benchers, that she might consider joining that and raising the ambition to being a global first, not just a European-relative first.
In that period, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill and the shadow Minister noted, power concentrated in the cloud market in particular and right across US big tech. It was clear to me at the time that the Government were much more focused on engagement with US big tech and exactly the trend that the shadow Minister described—the power concentrated in the cloud market.
The shadow Minister’s points on agentic AI are very well made. I will make sure that we think about that deeply and engage with the CMA on the implications for agentic AI, the possibility of bundling and the limited competition that might result.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) raised the virtues of the Welsh ecosystem. It is an ecosystem that I know and deeply value personally. I particularly value my hon. Friend’s advocacy for Academii, in his constituency. His point about clusters anchored by Welsh universities is really well made. As a Government, we have committed over £1.5 billion to the question of how research translates into commercialisation. I would be happy to engage further with him on any particular instances where the Government can do more, in his constituency and beyond.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards)—the AI MP—who is no longer in his place, made a similar and important point about Leeds’s Nexus hub. I have visited Leeds in this role, and I particularly value the contributions of Leeds’s tech sector to healthcare and financial services innovation.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) made a deeply important point about procurement, which was shared by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). I have a particular interest in defence procurement that I hope to come to more fully in my speech.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who is no longer in her place, has always been a strong champion for family businesses in the contexts of technology and agriculture. I share her ambition for UK tech businesses to start, scale and stay here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) has deep experience, and is also no longer in his place—despite that experience. I agree with him that although our policy is often in a good place, there is a lot more for us to do to spread awareness of that policy. I would be happy to visit him, and others, to be a small part of spreading that awareness.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) for her strong advocacy for the innovation zone, both prior to and subsequent to coming to this House. She has won £38.7 million for travel support in particular and transport support more generally in that innovation zone. I will say how excited I am about the historic growth in AI investment in the wider region, which I hope will create a series of opportunities for investment, and opportunities for young people growing up in and around Glasgow to take part in it.
My hon. Friend’s mention of photonics is deeply important. Photonics is not just a British strength but an increasingly important vector for national security strength globally in the semiconductor context. I am grateful to her for championing that subsector.
In response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I note that Northern Ireland is indeed close to my heart. I grew up visiting Northern Ireland and Belfast for lots of debating competitions. He will be glad to hear that, in this role, I was back in Northern Ireland at the artificial intelligence collaboration centre at Ulster University, seeing not just the world-leading cyber capabilities in Belfast and Northern Ireland but the transformational effect that Ulster University’s investments have had on the city by creating opportunities for young people. He will also be glad to hear that just this morning, I spent time with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland talking about our shared ambition to do even more to support the cyber and AI sectors in Northern Ireland.
The points of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) about energy tech were well made. I feel very strongly that our plans on clean energy are best pursued if they make the most of AI and modern technology. I think that they are pursued with a deeper sense of building public consensus if we are able to show that our clean energy values align with our prosperity aspirations around AI and technology, not just domestically but through Britain’s ability to export lessons and technology to other places, and to move the needle on global climate change.
Edward Morello
Shortly before the debate, the Minister said he would like to visit Weston-super-Mare and other locations. I invite him to beautiful West Dorset to visit the fibre optics company Sintela, which is one of the UK’s biggest success stories.
Kanishka Narayan
I have a 100% record so far of committing to visits when asked. I do not want to set too much of a precedent, but given the numbers in the room, I would be happy to take the hon. Member up on his kind offer as well.
The hon. Member also made an important point about SME representation on trade missions; on the three international visits that I have been on—to the US, South Korea and India—we have been primarily focused on SMEs. If he has recommendations of firms that would benefit from such engagement, I would be keen to take him up on them—perhaps we can discuss that in West Dorset during my visit. On word clouds, which he mentioned—I know a thing or two about word clouds—he is right about the presence of the word “ecosystem”. I would add “deeply thriving” to that, because that is what Britain’s ecosystem is.
I am delighted to hear about the history of entrepreneurship in the family of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and I am keen on any lessons from her mother about Twitter engagement. I also share and value her ambition for more entrepreneurship; that dream is shared across the House as well. I will come to her five points, which I think the Government are equally focused on.
I will now set out some of the things that the Government are doing. As I mentioned, we start from a position of considerable global strength. Four of the world’s top 10 universities are in the UK, and we have a proud history of technological innovation, but there is clearly more to be done. That is why, in our modern industrial strategy, we set out the first dedicated plan to support the UK’s digital and technologies sector, alongside a separate plan for life sciences. For digital and technologies, we have focused on six frontier technologies with the greatest potential to drive growth: advanced connectivity, AI, cyber-security, engineering biology, quantum and semiconductors. By 2035, we want the UK to be one of the world’s top three places to create, invest and scale up a fast-growing technology business.
Building on the industrial strategy, we went further still at the 2025 autumn Budget. We set out a package of additional support for founders and innovators to start and scale businesses here in the UK, including reforms to Government procurement, tax and our public finance institutions. As the Chancellor made clear, the Government are backing the next generation of UK tech start-ups and entrepreneurs. These plans are about making sure that we are supporting our tech companies at every stage of their development.
A great tech company starts with an idea. That is why we are making a record public investment in R&D, with spending rising to £22.6 billion by 2029-30. We have one of the most generous R&D tax credit relief systems in the entire world, and I have personally heard testament to that from a series of founders in the UK ecosystem, not least in AI, over the past few weeks.
Through our industrial strategy, we are also making sure that investment is targeted to bring innovation to market, with £7 billion for innovative companies to scale and commercialise technological and scientific breakthroughs. To ensure that the benefits are felt right across the country, we are backing high-potential innovation clusters throughout the UK through programmes such as the local innovation partnerships fund.
Brilliant ideas alone, of course, are not enough to grow a business, so we are taking a whole-of-government approach to ensure that the right conditions are in place for businesses to reach their full potential. We are expanding the British Business Bank to give high-growth tech firms access to long-term scale-up capital. We are upskilling private investors to invest in deep tech through our science and technology venture capital fellowship programme. We are ensuring that firms have access to the best skills and talent through our £187 million TechFirst skills programme and we are hoping to attract the very best minds in the world through the Government’s global talent taskforce, as well as the £54 million global talent fund.
We are not stopping there. Across the board, we are looking at how we can use the Government’s levers to support our technology ecosystem. Part of that is about infrastructure, whether that is connecting people, businesses and universities through initiatives like the Oxford-to-Cambridge growth corridor, or funding the specialist infrastructure that tech companies need through the AI research resource and engineering biology scale-up infrastructure programmes.
It is also about regulations that help, not hinder, new products to reach the market. That is why we have set up the Regulatory Innovation Office, which has invested over £12.5 million already in helping regulators to adopt new tools and approaches. Sometimes it is challenging to bring new technologies to market, so we are also reforming how the Government procure technologies to lead the way and back British SMEs.
In the autumn Budget, we announced an advance market commitment, backed with £100 million of Government funding, to buy products from novel and promising UK chip companies—an important economic as well as national security focus—once they reach a high-performance benchmark. I know that the Ministry of Defence has committed to a significant budget allocation to novel technology procurement and I am keen to ensure that the design and process for that are as compelling as the scale of that ambition.
This debate is about UK-based businesses, but we must also recognise that we are part of a global market, with the huge opportunities that that offers. We are working hard with our international partners to boost collaboration and open new markets for innovative firms globally. We have agreed industrial strategy partnerships with France and Japan, have a Saudi-UK strategic partnership and an India-UK technology security initiative, and are pursuing deeper connections still with other key markets. Last autumn, the top US tech firms, mentioned across this debate, committed to investing £31 billion in the UK.
We are right across the things that matter to start-ups here in relation to capital: the force that is the BBB investing more; the National Wealth Fund investing more; a sovereign AI unit investing earlier; and the Mansion House pension fund reforms that are spurring greater investment. We are bringing capital to the service of British start-ups.
In the context of compute—a critical input for AI—both our AI growth zones programme and our AI research resource programme are ensuring that British companies are at the front of the queue when it comes to adequate compute for AI. When it comes to Government as a customer, the advance market commitment and the reforms that I mentioned in relation to the MOD aspire to that and to ensuring that the Government are the best partner that UK start-ups can benefit from.
When it comes to building a sense of community for talent in this country, the global talent taskforce, the global talent fund and, crucially, the enterprise management incentives scheme—now one of the world’s best tax incentive schemes for early-stage employees to have deep equity participation in start-ups—mean that Britain is at the front of the queue in convening a compelling community of tech talent. When it comes to clarity on regulation, the AI growth lab, the Regulatory Innovation Office reforms that I mentioned and the growth mandates for regulators mean that Britain is regulating dynamically —moving regulation at the pace of technological progress.
At the heart of all this is a culture that prizes innovation and that says to entrepreneurs that their success is our national success, and that their companies are national champions when they create jobs and invest in frontier innovation here. We are radically shifting Britain’s culture to being a culture of agency and innovation.
In that context, I am grateful to all Members across the House for their partnership in that mission. The UK’s exceptional technology sector is a key national asset. The steps that the Government are taking will ensure that UK-based tech companies thrive at every stage of their growth.
Technology Sovereignty
Kanishka Narayan Excerpts(1 month, 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
It is such a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, for securing this debate and bringing to it her deep expertise across engineering, policymaking and leadership in the House on the question of tech sovereignty. I also thank all hon. Members for making very thoughtful points and bringing to the debate a range of experiences—as well as swiftness of speech, given the constraints imposed by time today.
I have long felt that the central question in our politics and for our country is the future of technology in this country. It will be the major driver of prosperity and dignity for people, and the central question is whether Britain gets to shape it or is shaped by it. In Westminster, we sometimes talk about technology sovereignty as an abstract geopolitical goal, but we have to keep in mind that, ultimately, it is the basis for our NHS radiologists to have access to the best tools for detecting cancer, with data here in the UK; for British founders and builders to be able to train and deploy models, rather than depending on foreign APIs and pricing; and for people in their homes and workplaces across the country to know that their everyday AI systems are governed transparently and democratically here in the UK.
My view is that technology sovereignty is a state’s ability to have strategic leverage when it comes to a technology, such that it can ensure ongoing access to critical inputs and ongoing assurance that its wider economic and national security objectives can be met more broadly. It is to take the best tools the world has to offer today, but also to shape the rest, and ultimately to make that which is critical here in Britain.
As I think of it, that strategic leverage is obtained by three steps on a ladder. The first is just to have enough of the critical inputs. Taking AI as an example, we have to have enough chips today to be able to do anything with AI in the first instance. With that in mind, the Government have always been very keen to secure the level of capital investment that means that Britain is at least at the table with critical inputs.
Once we are at the table, the second part of sovereignty is to make sure that we have some diversification in who we procure critical inputs from so that we can bargain effectively. We are the party of labour; we understand that who has power matters as much as what the powers are. In that context, one of the first things I did in my role was to engage with a series of companies in every part of the stack so that we were able to build more diversity into the landscape.
The third rung of the ladder is, ultimately, to build British in order to make sure that we have the full-fat version of sovereign capability here in critical parts of the stack.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for setting out his sovereignty stack. Just as an example, is an LLM a critical input or another level in the stack—and does it need to be British?
Kanishka Narayan
I valued my hon. Friend’s earlier point that sovereignty has to be seen in the round. We cannot make everything here; we have to look at the entire bundle that we have to offer. In the context of LLMs, there is some uncertainty as to whether all the capability will ultimately accrue in closed proprietary models, or whether open-source, open-weight models might be part of it. To me, as things stand today, it is a pretty important part of the stack. The question then is whether we have enough of it to be able to make the most of it by adopting it for economic and national security usage here, or whether there are aspects in which, at least from a distillation or small-model point of view, we need to develop some capabilities here as well. I do not think there is a binary answer to the overarching question; the answer is much more nuanced. I am happy to discuss that further if it is of interest.
As I said, the third rung of the ladder is, ultimately, to build British and focus on areas in which we can develop our strengths. I have to point out that we made sure that Nscale, one of our neocloud hyperscale providers, was an important part of the supply chain for AI growth zones. I noticed that yesterday Nscale raised the largest ever series-C funding in Europe, in part as a result of the Government’s support and convening in that context. Arm, the leading chip design company globally, is still headquartered in Cambridge, and we have fantastic companies in the AI inference chip part of the stack, Fractile and Olix being two of them. It is an area that I spend a lot of my time on.
When it comes to models, we have huge strengths, not just because a number of the Gemini teams and researchers continue to sit in King’s Cross at DeepMind, but because companies developing foundation models in AI for science and autonomous vehicles, embodied AI, and aspects of world models and computer vision reside here in the UK. Wayve raised £1.5 billion just this year, the largest funding round in Europe to date for that stage. It is a fantastic company that looks in particular at embodied AI and vision. I am proud of those companies. It is right that the Government are supporting them through the lens of tech sovereignty, as that is what both Britain’s and the companies’ best interests dictate.
The sovereign AI unit will be crucial to that. I am glad to see the level of interest in that across the House. It will concentrate efforts on priority areas. There was interest in my specifying those areas. The four areas that are of interest at the outset are novel compute, in particular focusing on the inference chip part of the stack; novel model architecture; AI for science—I point hon. Members to the AI for science strategy published by the Department three or four months ago, which set out particular areas of focus and priority—and embodied AI.
To give a concrete example of early action that the sovereign AI unit has taken, we have already invested £8 million in the OpenBind consortium to accelerate AI-driven drug discovery, and £5 million in the Encode: AI for Science fellowship to support the next generation of world-class talent. The focus of the unit will be on both capital and compute, to incrementally anchor more and more British companies here, but I know that the unit will only be part of the solution. We have a role to look at innovation and market support much more broadly across the tech landscape.
In November, we also announced a significant advance market commitment—a deeply innovative procurement shift—which meant that up to £100 million in Government funding was available to buy products from promising UK chip companies once they reach a high-performance benchmark. That presents UK start-ups with an exciting opportunity to grow and compete right here, building for the world.
AI is of course just one area of Britain’s flourishing tech ecosystem. I point out to my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who made important points about quantum, that the Government have doubled the rate of investment in quantum, with about £1 billion committed over the next four years. The points on helium made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield have very much been taken into account. The Government are looking at the developing situation on helium supply in the middle east, which is of concern.
Through our national programme, we broadly want to anchor development and access to technological capabilities that are most important to economic growth and national security. That means, in the context of quantum, more companies starting, growing and staying here and, in the context of AI, not just developing capabilities in particular parts of the stack, but in part looking upstream for skills as well.
In that context, I agree totally with my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) that the quality and scale of our talent and skills in our universities and schools is the single biggest determinant of where we end up. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge about the UKRI changes that we are making. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford, IP capitalisation is a deeply important part of what I focus on with the Intellectual Property Office, and I am happy to engage him on the question of Essex University in particular.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Minister knows that the Computer Misuse Act 1990 criminalises a lot of legitimate cyber-resilience and vulnerability research. I think that the Government are minded to introduce a statutory defence for such research, but can he share whether that defence will be introduced as part of the cyber Bill?
Kanishka Narayan
The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise that point about a defence for cyber-security purposes. The Computer Misuse Act is being reviewed at the moment—the Home Office is looking at it—but, as I mentioned in Committee on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, that is not the appropriate vehicle, given its much narrower scope than the broad scope that we would like in the context of a defence. For those reasons, I am keen that we pursue the matter, but elsewhere.
I am conscious of time, so I will proceed at pace. Alongside quantum and AI, semiconductors are another technology that underpins the global economy and is fundamental to our way of life. As part of our industrial strategy, digital and technology sector plan, we are taking measures to foster the growth of that particular sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) spoke very thoughtfully about the fact that we should not just rely on venture-focused companies in particular parts of the country, but look at our industrial heritage. That is exactly why I have focused on ensuring that the AI growth zones programme puts data centres in the north-east, alongside the headquarters of our largest listed tech company. A deep heritage of financial services technology innovation in Newcastle and the surrounding area is now able to benefit from good jobs anchored by that data centre.
In south Wales, the data centre planned for the site of the old Ford car manufacturing plant gives hope for jobs in the semiconductor cluster, anchored by that data centre. That is critical. In north Wales, data centres are pulling our nuclear small modular reactor into the future, which is critical to thousands of jobs in that community. In Lanarkshire, the old steelworking community, which lost thousands of jobs and never fully recovered, now has hope from half a billion pounds of community investment as a result of data centres. That is precisely what I believe in.
Anneliese Dodds
In one sentence, will the Minister say something about another geographical issue: collaboration with like-minded countries, especially in the EU?
Kanishka Narayan
I will simply give a note of total affirmation on the importance of that. Having met a series of Ministers from Europe, I know that we have a huge amount in common and a huge amount to do in the future.
I am being tested pretty intensively on time, so I will focus on one final point. Some Members rightly raised the question of mergers, acquisitions and investment controls. As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee will know from the time that I worked for her on the Bill as it was proceeding through the House, the National Security and Investment Act 2021 is an excellent example of where we are ensuring that investment and sensitive areas maintain the national security interests of Britain now and in the longer term.
In summary, the Government will continue to support our tech sectors as best they can. Only yesterday, Nscale raised the largest series-C funding round in all of Europe. Isambard-AI has raised a £50 million round for embodied AI—manufacturing AI—as well. Those are testaments to the approach that I have set out, which will ensure that British firms and people can seize every opportunity they can in tech-enabled Britain.