Labour MP Dame Chi Onwurah has renewed her call for the Government to bring forward legislation governing artificial intelligence, arguing that regulation must protect the interests of the British public while allowing the country to benefit from the technology.
Speaking through her role as Chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Onwurah said she had been pressing ministers to move from voluntary principles towards a clearer statutory framework for AI.
She said:
Her intervention came as the Committee questioned experts about how the Government should approach AI governance and regulation, amid growing concern that the current system is fragmented and may not be keeping pace with technological change. Onwurah has also told the Mirror that ministers should talk to technology companies and experts, but put the interests of the British public first.
Onwurah challenges fragmented regulatory framework
The Science and Technology Committee has been examining how responsibility for AI is being divided across government following the abolition of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
At a recent evidence session, witnesses from the Tony Blair Institute, Startup Coalition, Royal Society and other organisations were questioned about the implications of those changes for Britain’s AI policy and regulatory approach.
Onwurah has previously challenged ministers directly over what she described as a fragmented regulatory framework.
During an earlier committee session with AI Minister Kanishka Narayan, she pointed out that a predecessor committee had called for a full analysis of gaps in AI regulation and pressed the Government on whether such an assessment had been completed. Narayan acknowledged that he had not seen a single comprehensive review identifying all regulatory gaps.
Pressure building across Parliament
Onwurah’s intervention comes as other parliamentary committees also push for stronger AI safeguards.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights this week called for a wide-ranging AI Bill, warning that the existing legal framework is not well equipped to deal with the speed, complexity and potential human rights consequences of increasingly powerful systems.
That committee said new safeguards were needed across the AI supply chain, with stronger accountability and clearer protections for individuals affected by automated decision-making.
The House of Lords is also examining global AI governance and the role Britain should play in shaping international rules and standards.
Sovereignty also under scrutiny
Onwurah has also raised concerns about Britain’s dependence on overseas technology providers.
Her Committee’s recent report on science diplomacy warned that the UK cannot assume permanent access to critical technologies such as AI through allies and called for a clearer strategy on sovereign capability.
Responding to the Government’s answer to that report, Onwurah said:
“In areas like AI, there is a global race for technology sovereignty, whether the government recognises this or not.”
She criticised ministers for failing to set out sufficiently clear plans for building sovereign capacity in strategically important technologies.
Balancing innovation and public protection
The debate is increasingly focused on how Britain can maintain its ambitions as a leading AI economy without leaving citizens exposed to risks including discrimination, misinformation, surveillance, unsafe automated decisions and loss of control over personal data.
Onwurah’s position is not that AI development should be stopped. Rather, she is arguing that innovation needs a clearer legal framework, democratic accountability and protections that evolve alongside the technology.
That reflects a wider debate within Labour over how to combine growth, technological sovereignty and public safety.
For Onwurah, the central question is becoming increasingly urgent: if AI is going to shape work, public services, the economy and everyday life, Parliament must ensure the rules shaping that technology are written in the public interest rather than left to companies or regulators acting in isolation.
