Science, Innovation and Technology Committee

The committee scrutinised how digital devices, social media and AI may affect brain development from infancy through adolescence. The witnesses stressed that the evidence base is still largely correlational and that neuroscience cannot pinpoint precise age cut-offs, but they also argued there is enough evidence to act on clearly harmful content and excessive use. Across the session, the witnesses pressed for stronger platform regulation, age-appropriate guidance for parents, digital-literacy and mental-health education, and more research on real-world brain effects, AI chatbots, and differential impacts on vulnerable groups.

The Committee scrutinised major gaps in the regulation and enforcement of hair and beauty products and non-surgical cosmetic treatments, especially injectables, skin-lightening products, UV nail gels and online sales. Panel 1 argued that many injectables fall between cosmetic, medicines, medical devices and product-safety regimes, that local authority licensing is patchy, and that enforcement is under-resourced. Panel 2 ministers confirmed the Government intends to regulate high-risk procedures via a red-amber-green model, with an SI intended by year-end and broader product-safety reforms under consultation. The panel also discussed inconsistent online-marketplace accountability, low reporting of harms, weak data on NHS costs, and the need for stronger consumer redress, training and public-awareness measures.

The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee probed two panels of UK agri-tech SMEs and institutions on how British science can bolster global food security. Key issues included: a funding landscape split between private capital (often conservative) and publicly funded Innovate UK programmes; calls for regulatory sandboxes and harmonised cross-border rules; gaps in translational science and demonstrator facilities; access to germ plasm and regulatory frameworks for biostimulants; energy costs in greenhouse manufacturing; and the need for large-scale corporate investment to pull UK innovations to global markets. Witnesses urged clearer funding pipelines, practical access to germ plasm, and UK leadership in regulatory alignment to realise ambitious growth (e.g., £20bn by 2035).

The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee scrutinised the Government’s preferred candidate for UKRI chair, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz. The session explored UKRI’s evolving role, interdisciplinarity, regional balance, governance, and accountability. Key government-position signals include a push for UKRI to deliver growth and societal benefit while maintaining independence (the Haldane principle) within a bucketed funding framework. Witness views emphasized: sustained long-term investment horizons for research, an observatory function to identify opportunities across regions, stronger collaboration with Innovate UK/catapults, and robust metrics for delivery and impact rather than reliance on simplistic counts like patents or rankings. The Committee signalled a clear expectation for stronger regional investment, transparent governance, and evidence of value-for-money to taxpayers.

The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee held a follow-up hearing on social media misinformation and harmful algorithms with representatives from X (Wifredo Fernández), TikTok (Alistair Law), Meta (Rebecca Stimson) and Google (Zoe Darmé). Witnesses detailed ongoing moderation approaches (community notes, automated AI moderation, health and election content safeguards, and transparency measures) and highlighted government activity such as the Online Safety Act 2023 framework and the government’s online harms consultation (2 March–26 May 2026). The committee pressed the witnesses on the effectiveness of current controls, democratic integrity, child safety, and platform transparency, and signalled that if progress remains insufficient, further legislation could be contemplated. Throughout, questions covered governance and decision-making within platforms, the balance between removal and labeling, and the extent of real-time, auditable access to algorithms and data. The session reaffirmed the government’s intention to act on online harms while demanding concrete progress and accountability from platforms within the UK regulatory context.

The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee scrutinised the UK’s science funding pressures, governance of overspends, and the government’s approach to science diplomacy, procurement, and international collaboration. Key government commitments were outlined, including continuing postdoc funding through the spending review, no current cuts to STFC funding with forthcoming grants, and a strengthened procurement focus to back UK sovereign capabilities (notably in quantum and AI). The witnesses highlighted efforts to prioritise cost-control within UKRI, ongoing international-subscription cost management, and a coherent approach to cross-Government spend on ODA and non-ODA science activity. They signalled a new era of sovereign-capability investment (Sovereign AI Unit with £500m, £1bn quantum procurement) and an ambition to own critical technologies through a mix of own/collaborate/access strategies, while acknowledging governance gaps (legacy systems, soft power, and standard-setting). The session also raised concerns about visa issues affecting science collaboration, the role of procurement in industrial strategy, and the need to align standards/IP with international partnerships.