That this House has considered Government support for UK-based tech companies.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am pleased to have secured this debate.
It is hard to measure the true economic value of the technology sector in the UK, but I think we can all agree on the sector’s huge importance for economic growth, productivity and society as a whole. That importance will only grow in the future, so nurturing and supporting our domestic technology sector is vital. To be clear, as a Conservative, I believe in the importance of competition as a driver for innovation and economic growth. To have true competition, we need to challenge monopolies. If our tech sector is to thrive in the future, competition is vital; otherwise, we will see innovative firms leave the UK.
Today I will focus particularly on our domestic app ecosystem. The UK’s mobile app ecosystem generates £28 billion annually in gross value added—equivalent to nearly 1% of GDP. It also supports around 400,000 jobs: the highest number in any country in Europe. However, despite that huge contribution to our economy, app developers face significant challenges.
Apple and Google control 95% of all mobile operating systems in the UK, and the Competition and Markets Authority formally designated them with strategic market status in October 2025. That does not mean that Apple and Google just run the app stores; they have control over far more than that. Those companies can control what developers can say within apps, block developer communications with consumers, hide customer details from developers and prevent them from telling users when something is new, better or cheaper—all the while taking up to 30% of every transaction. That not only stifles the sector domestically, but pushes up prices for ordinary consumers and drives British innovation overseas. We simply cannot afford to allow such a growing industry to be lost.
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate on Government support for UK-based tech companies. My Slough constituency is a huge tech and data hub; indeed, it has the second largest concentration of data centres anywhere in the world. Does he agree that it would be an act of folly for the Government not to designate Slough as an artificial intelligence growth zone, given that £1 spent there provides a much greater return for the UK economy? We as a nation would not want to lose that.
I have a list of Government follies here, if the hon. Member would like me to pass them on. In all seriousness, I completely agree with him on the importance of the industry and those jobs, and I am sure that the Minister will pick that up when he responds.
To give an example of the issues with these monopolies, Amazon was forced to remove the “Buy book” button from its Kindle app on iPhones because Apple demanded a 30% cut of every e-book sale. Authors simply cannot afford to forgo that 30%. Instead, readers had to—this is absurd—close the Kindle app, log on to the Amazon system separately, complete their purchase and then reopen the Kindle app. It was only thanks to a court case in the United States that forced Apple’s hand that the “Buy book” button returned.
Spotify cannot include a “Subscribe” button in its iOS app, nor can it tell users in the app what a subscription costs or that a cheaper option exists outside the app. UK Spotify Premium subscribers have faced three price rises in two years, partly because Apple’s 30% cut has to be absorbed somewhere. Every Spotify user in the UK is paying more, and Apple’s rules are a direct reason why.
There are many similar cases in which Apple and Google are inserting themselves directly into the relationship between developers and consumers by forcing developers to use their payment systems. That takes away a consumer’s ability to choose their preferred payment method, causes greater friction when there are issues such as refunds and cancellations, and prevents consumers from properly benefiting from lower prices or discounts.
The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled in October 2025 that Apple’s payment restrictions were neither necessary nor proportionate for security or privacy purposes. They were designed to eliminate competition. It is as simple as that. It is estimated that removing the restrictions would release £1.75 billion a year that is currently taken from UK developers and consumers, rising to over £4 billion annually by 2029. That money could go back into British engineering, creative content and the next generation of app businesses built and scaled here. We could unleash the true potential of these industries.
Order. We have five speakers, which gives each of them between eight and 10 minutes, so that we can get the Front Benchers in after that. I call Chris Evans.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts—and I genuinely hope you have some good news about Sheffield Wednesday in the next few days.
Order. The hon. Gentleman has not been reading the media—we had some good news this morning, which has moved us forward. I just wanted to make sure everyone is up to date with the important information.
I stand corrected, Mr Betts—I was in meetings all morning, so I have not seen the sports news yet.
For constituencies like mine, which were dependent on heavy industry, the development of high technology offers new growth opportunities that we can harness in our valley communities once again. I want to focus my comments on a company called Academii. Academii helps organisations improve their workplace training by replacing one-size-fits-all learning with streamlined content, smart delivery and measurable outcomes. It is used by major employers in the energy and utility sectors, as well as by the NHS, community health boards and international clients.
Earlier this year, the business secured £700,000 of investment from the Welsh Labour Government to further develop its platform and expand its workforce. Academii is a powerful example of what a talented team of entrepreneurs and technicians can achieve when united behind a cutting-edge idea. I firmly believe that this spirit can be fostered in our universities, which can become the powerhouse of technological change across south Wales.
Clusters in university campuses can form the basis of spin-out companies, which, under the umbrella of a higher educational institution, take groundbreaking research and transform it into a market-ready product or service. Spin-outs are widely recognised for their highly effective, lucrative and sustainable business models. Their success is driven by their dynamic and entrepreneurial culture, which involves faster decision making, greater flexibility and a higher appetite for risk taking.
I recently visited the Nexus innovation hub at the University of Leeds, which does the things that my hon. Friend was just describing, with innovative spin-outs and companies genuinely innovating in really challenging areas. However, they struggle to access Government procurement because they do not have things like Cyber Essentials, but they do have the equivalent accreditation from international organisations. Does he agree that the Government should do more to recognise these accreditations, so that we do not stifle innovation?
I am always happy to take interventions, but my hon. Friend seems to have written my speech for me, because I will develop that argument as I go along. I note he is from Leeds—Leeds pinch all of Sheffield Wednesday’s best managers, do they not, Mr Betts?
Spin-outs offer postgraduate students the sought-after opportunity to work in a start-up, allowing them to develop skills and experience outside of academia. At a time when many graduates are struggling to navigate the job market, spin-out companies can be a fantastic place to start their career. Places like Wales, Northern Ireland and the north-east have traditionally been reliant on public sector work and have a lack of entrepreneurship, but spin-out companies can remedy those problems. Young people can found these companies, and young people can work in them. Their success boosts employment, the economy and investment in higher education. In 2024 alone, spin-outs channelled a record £3.35 billion of investment into university research. Such investment not only benefits the economy but ensures that promising technologies are not abandoned due to lack of funding.
While much of this funding is awarded to spin-outs in the golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London, Swansea University has bucked the trend. It has emerged as one of the UK’s leading academic institutions for generating spin-out companies, having established 58 spin-outs since 2011. Swansea’s recent successes include Ail Arian, a business that recovers silver from printed electronics, and Corryn Biotechnologies, which has designed wound dressing that mimics the natural healing process of the skin. Celtic Vascular Ltd is another Welsh spin-out that deserves recognition for its groundbreaking work. Its team of researchers has pioneered AI-driven software that detects coronary heart disease with 92% accuracy.
I am proud that Welsh universities are leading the way in generating spin-out companies and inspiring others outside the golden triangle to do the same. However, the Government must do more to support spin-out companies. The biggest challenge that academics face when spinning out is finding the financial support to bridge the initial gap from the lab to the market. The UK Government recognised that challenge in their 2024 autumn Budget, in which £40 million was allocated to early-stage spin-out companies. Although that funding is welcome, it falls short of what is needed. For context, £40 million is approximately the cost of bringing just two drug-discovery programmes from inception to their first in-human clinical trials. Yet for a share of the Government’s first £9 million tranche in 2025, UK Research and Innovation was overwhelmed with more than 2,750 expressions of interest. There is a huge gap in funding at the point when researchers want to bring their discoveries out of the lab.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on securing this important debate. We have heard from both sides of the Chamber that the British tech sector spreads into all our constituencies, so it concerns us all.
When the Government came to power, they said that their central mission was to provide growth. I posit that a key way to do that is by supporting our small and medium-sized businesses, because that is where growth comes from.
Does my hon. Friend share my view that, although we can be rightly proud of having the third most valuable tech ecosystem in the world, we cannot be complacent, especially amid increasing international uncertainty? Shearwell Data in my constituency is exactly the sort of business that he refers to. A family-run business, founded by Richard Webber in 1992, it now exports livestock management systems internationally. Mr Webber is a true local champion: he not only runs that fantastic family businesses, but works at the heart of our community in Wheddon Cross. Does my hon. Friend agree that the flight of UK tech companies to other markets such as the United States shows that we must do more to ensure British companies can start, stay and scale here?
I thank my hon. Friend for her comprehensive intervention, which speaks to exactly the issues that I will raise.
The key example is DeepMind, which was the world-leading AI company. We, the Brits, failed to create the ecosystem, funding and risk-taking capital to enable it to scale fully. It was then bought by Google, and now the British Government contract with Google rather than with DeepMind. That is exactly my fear: even though we are the world’s third AI power, that could move away from us very quickly if we do not create the right ecosystem to support our tech firms.
If this Government are serious about supporting growth, we need to look at small and medium-sized enterprises. It will not surprise hon. Members that I have some examples from my Tunbridge Wells constituency. First, Capital Web develops AI software to help businesses to improve productivity. That is on the application side of AI; we are never going to compete on the frontier model side of AI, but the UK can certainly compete on how we implement those frontier models to work cases. I will also give a bit more detail about Adzuna, a firm based in Tunbridge Wells that helps people to find jobs.
The problem in the UK is one of scaling up. We often have support for businesses that are very small. We might have research and development tax credits or innovation grants, or we might help them to spin directly out of universities. However, what just does not happen in the UK is moving them on from the position where they have a concept and patent and are perhaps ready to scale rapidly. Those firms are left to go abroad, be taken over, or perhaps wither and see the market move on and eclipse them. That is the real danger.
I held a roundtable in my constituency with the Startup Coalition just two weeks ago. We found that one of the biggest barriers was not an absence of talent or expertise in my town, but a poverty of access to information, advice and guidance. No one had heard of small business start-up loans, the £500 to £25,000 Government-backed loans, which are really critical. That was one of the things people critically needed. That is a big issue. I would ask the Minister how we improve communication to places such as Weston-super-Mare.
20 of 45 shown
The ability to remove the restrictions and hand UK app developers back their rights already exists in legislation. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 gave the CMA conduct-requirement powers—the ability not just to levy fines, but to mandate specific behaviours. The CMA can end Apple’s and Google’s control over in-app communication, ensuring that developers are free to know their own customers and tell their own customers what their own product costs and where to buy it at the best price. Could the Minister outline the Government’s view on pressing the CMA to issue conduct requirements that protect competition?
Another area that we must look at is cloud computing. The UK’s digital economy is underpinned by cloud computing, but cloud has been increasingly monopolised. The CMA’s cloud services market investigation estimated that Amazon Web Services and Microsoft control 70% to 90% of the UK’s cloud computing market. That concentration poses a number of dependency risks, including operational, financial and security vulnerabilities, and restricts market innovation and customer choice.
Just months after the Government published their “Chronic risks analysis”, there were three global cloud outages within a matter of weeks. In two of those, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft were directly impacted, highlighting the risks of over-reliance on a limited number of cloud hosts. Governments, businesses, digital platforms, AI services and individuals were materially impacted by the outages, with US companies alone suffering losses of between $500 million and $650 million. Indeed, the recent CrowdStrike outage is estimated to have cost the UK economy between £1.7 billion and £2.3 billion.
Competition can be the key mitigation for the UK’s digital dependency and, again, it is the CMA that holds the levers to tackle anti-competitive conduct and address the risks of cloud concentration. I am not calling for more legislation or regulation. We do not need it. With the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, brought in by the last Conservative Government, we have already legislated for stronger digital competition, but slow implementation and weak early enforcement risk squandering a rare pro-growth and pro-SME opportunity.
Only a small number of designations have been made so far. For Google’s and Apple’s mobile ecosystems, the CMA has relied on non-binding “commitments” rather than imposing binding conduct requirements. These non-binding commitments have no clear statutory basis under the 2024 Act, carry no legal consequences if breached and are not contemplated anywhere in the CMA’s published guidance. Their use risks weakening the regime and forcing the CMA to restart enforcement if firms fail to comply, which is precisely the outcome that the last Government sought to avoid. It is also concerning that a requirement for Google to negotiate fair terms with news publishers has been pushed back by at least 12 months, despite the CMA having previously committed to use that power in the first half of this year.
The Government must reaffirm that robust digital competition enforcement is pro-growth and central to the UK’s industrial strategy. Moreover, the CMA must ensure that there is robust competition enforcement. The levers to achieve that were put there by the last Government; it just requires some political will. Fundamentally, the UK cannot build globally competitive tech firms while a handful of dominant platforms control the routes to market, search, app stores, mobile ecosystems, cloud and key AI infrastructure.
The potential for huge economic growth from our tech sector is there, but competition is key. If competition flourishes, we will see more innovation, improved services and lower costs for consumers.
UK-based investors largely avoid scale-up investments, unwilling to take risks on products that have not yet been prototyped or introduced to the market. The grants awarded by Innovate UK are simply unreliable. They reached a peak of £150 million in 2023, but the funding for spin-outs fell by 44.5% in 2024 to £83.3 million. That reflects a shift in the Government’s wider investment strategy: the allocation of research and innovation grants is becoming more targeted and selective. Early-stage spin-out companies have directly lost out to this new strategy. In January 2026, Innovate UK paused its smart grants programme, which was designed to bring original, high-impact innovations to the marketplace. In its place, a new growth catalyst programme has opened, targeted at spin-outs that are ready to scale. Grants for the scheme must be aligned with private investment, which means that eligible companies are expected to be market-ready.
It has been said that a “valley of death” has subsequently emerged between the lab and the market, which many potentially game-changing innovations fail to span. To avoid that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) said, they are forced to rely on the US for capital. In return, the facilities and workforce are based across the Atlantic.
Ministers have a duty to turn the tide on this issue. With better UK-based support, this country’s technology, healthcare and life sciences sectors, let alone the economy, would be emboldened and much richer. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government will provide more financial support for projects in pre-investment phases of development, beyond the £40 million set aside in the 2024 autumn Budget. Will they allow the British Business Bank to play a key role in providing that support, given its recent expansion and its position at the heart of the Government’s growth agenda?
I do not need to tell the Minister, who is a fellow Welsh MP, that Wales is home to a wealth of talent, innovation and entrepreneurial spirit. I want to see this nation thrive, but that will happen only if the Government provide the support and investment needed to unlock its full potential. I call on them to do just that, before other states around the world do it for us.