Technology Sovereignty
Will Stone Excerpts(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
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered technology sovereignty.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We are four years into the Ukraine war and 10 days into the latest Iran-Israel-US conflict. At the start of this year, the US seized the President of Venezuela. A few weeks later, President Trump was demanding Greenland from Denmark. The world has never felt more insecure and unsecure.
For the first time since I was elected as an MP, global insecurity is an issue on the doorstep in Newcastle. As if that were not enough, we are also undergoing two technology revolutions: one in data and the other in AI automation. Add to that the geopolitical restructuring across different dimensions—Europe and the US, the global south and Russia/China, Europe and Russia, and Iran and the Gulf states—and a green industrial revolution that is driving competition for knowledge, resources, land and people. Is it any wonder that people are feeling insecure?
In the face of those challenges, we must be honest with our constituents about what we can and cannot control, and about the implications for our industrial, civil and defence policy. Technology sovereignty is a key part of that and a placeholder for larger fears. Too often, people feel that big tech is controlling, not empowering, their lives. Techno-feudalism and techno-serfdom may not be commonly discussed in the pubs and playgrounds of Newcastle, but they are a fear that many have.
The previous Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), said that big tech needs to be treated as a state, not as companies. If so, who are their citizens? Us? We certainly did not elect them, so are we just their serfs? What should the relationship be between those companies and states?
Technology sovereignty matters, but what is it? The current Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology told the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee:
“Sovereign capability is about ensuring the UK has what it needs to become a global leader in AI.”
The Digital Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), told the Committee:
“Sovereignty is a huge issue that we always discuss. Security, safety and resilience are all parts of that, and the digital spending controls that DSIT puts in on behalf of Government, which examines individual contracts on that basis, very much examines these issues as well.”
He also said:
“It is about building those capabilities and supply chains here.”
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has advanced a very powerful vision of the global events affecting the country right now. When I talk to defence tech companies, I see that they reach the point of scaling up, but they are unable to access finance. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government should support defence tech companies to scale up, so that we can have true sovereign capability, as opposed to letting them fly off to America?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right, and that support should take the form of access to investment, but also procurement and procurement decisions, which I will discuss in more detail.
The Digital Minister also told the Committee:
“There is no single internationally recognised definition of digital sovereignty”
and:
“DSIT is working to develop a comprehensive definition that can be used across the UK”.
We have not received an update, but yesterday, the Government launched the AI sovereignty unit with £500 million, so it is to be hoped that we know what we are spending our money on.
Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs
Will Stone Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank all the petitioners and the people of Swindon North who have signed it, as well as the growing number of citizens across the UK who believe that dogs should not be used in science. We are a country of animal lovers; we love our dogs; and we are going past a point where they should be used for experiments. Some may argue that dogs have a similar biology to humans, but there is still no guarantee of accurate data. Putting it simply, it is not worth the risk. Dogs do not have their own voice, so it is up to us to speak for them.
Personally, I would like to see a future using AI technologies such as organ on a chip, which can mimic the structures and functions of human tissues or organs in the lab, and virtual models that are changing how we do medical research. They are already helping to reduce the need for animals in testing and, in some cases, starting to replace them fully.
AI systems now allow researchers to track animal behaviour more precisely, which is reducing the number of animals required to extract more meaningful data. In the United States, the FDA has already begun to phase out animal testing, replacing it with more human-relevant models such as AI-driven toxicity screening and organoids. I think it is a rule of thumb that, if the United States is starting to do better in animal welfare than us, we probably need to take a hard look in the mirror, because something has gone wrong.
The UK cannot afford to fall behind on this. We have a chance to be a world leader. We have a chance to excel in AI and to boom off its growth. AI technology still requires trials and testing before it can be officially approved. However, when the health and lives of dogs are on the line, is it really fair only to use potential data to make it more accurate? The opportunity for the UK to lead in this field and become a global leader is immense. There is no reason that we as the Government should not push forward and make progress.
Our Government and Labour are keen to accelerate the adoption of non-animal testing methods, and this debate is exactly the mechanism to push that forward. Once again, I thank the people who started this petition and those who have signed it. I hope that the Government listen and start to put an end to and phase out the use of testing on dogs.