Jane Dodds

Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats in the Senedd

Arguing that Wales faces a defining choice in 2026, Jane Dodds sets out the Welsh Liberal Democrats’ case for a fairer economy, properly funded public services, and a stronger Senedd within a federal UK, offering voters a pragmatic alternative to constitutional trench warfare.

As Wales approaches the 2026 Senedd election, we stand at a pivotal moment. The choices made in the next Parliament will shape our nation’s economic resilience, social fabric, and constitutional future for a generation. Against those parties that choose division, the Welsh Liberal Democrats are ready to offer a constructive, forward‑looking agenda rooted in fairness, opportunity, and a belief that Wales thrives when power is shared, communities are supported, and government is accountable.

A Parliament Focused on Solutions, Not Division

In the next Senedd, the Welsh Liberal Democrats will work constructively across parties, as we always have, to deliver practical solutions. While other parties will be focusing on endless constitutional arguments while our NHS struggles under pressure, we promise to focus on a fairer economy, stronger public services, and a confident, outward‑looking Wales.

Building a Strong, Sustainable Welsh Economy

Wales faces deep‑seated economic challenges: sluggish productivity, persistent regional inequality, and a labour market still recovering from the shocks of the pandemic and the UK’s changing trading environment. Our priority is to build a modern, green, high‑skill economy that works for every part of Wales.

We will champion investment in renewable energy, recognising Wales’ extraordinary natural assets and the potential for thousands of high‑quality jobs. We will push for a long‑term industrial strategy that supports small businesses, strengthens our foundational economy and ensures that skills, apprenticeships, and training are aligned with the needs of the future workforce.

Crucially, we will continue to argue for fair funding for Wales. The current fiscal settlement leaves our public services under strain and undermines the ability of the Senedd to deliver for its citizens. A reformed funding model – transparent, needs‑based, and sustainable – is essential. We will push for further devolution of rail so that Wales gets its fair share, alongside the devolution of the Crown Estate.

A Social Contract That Works for Everyone

The next Senedd must confront the pressures facing our NHS, social care system, and local services. The Welsh Liberal Democrats will continue to lead the debate on creating a sustainable, person‑centred social care system – one that values the workforce, supports unpaid carers and ensures dignity for all who rely on care.

We will advocate for a renewed focus on mental health, early intervention, and community‑based support. We will do this through raising 1p on the Welsh Rate of Income Tax. This would generate £330 million for the Welsh Government to spend on social care. This would be short-term, but necessary to undo years of neglect.

Our commitment to tackling poverty remains unwavering. Wales cannot accept a future where child poverty continues to rise. We will press for targeted support for families, investment in affordable housing, and a social security system that treats people with dignity.

Welsh LibDems: Strengthening Wales’ Constitutional Future

Wales’ constitutional settlement is no longer fit for purpose. The Welsh Liberal Democrats will continue to champion a stronger, more accountable Senedd with the powers it needs to deliver for the people of Wales. We support a federal UK where power is genuinely shared, and where Wales has a clear, respected voice.

All of this is a way of providing a vision of a Liberal Wales that guarantees the future of Welsh freedoms in the context of a Federal United Kingdom.

This article features in the new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Office of Jane Dodds

Darren Millar

Leader of the Opposition in Wales
Leader of the Welsh Conservatives in the Senedd

Labour has been in power in Wales for 27 years, propped up for much of that time by Plaid Cymru, the pro-independence Welsh nationalists.  It has overseen a period of stagnation and decline in the Welsh economy and the public services that matter most to the people of Wales.

Economic Growth

The Welsh economy has suffered from Labour’s lack of ambition. Labour Ministers have openly admitted that they don’t know what they’re doing on the economy and have no interest in it.  Small businesses have faced crippling business rates and have been undermined by excessive regulation, inconsistent policy and a failure to create the conditions for economic growth. Instead of focusing on jobs, growth and prosperity, Labour and Plaid Cymru have been distracted by constitutional debates and vanity projects that do nothing to improve the lives of working people. The result is a weaker economy, lower wages and cost of living pressures for families across Wales.  Welsh Conservatives would scrap business rates for small businesses, pubs and post offices, and cut a penny off the basic rate of income tax to save hardworking families £450 per year, because we trust people to spend their money better than any government.

Under Labour, Wales has the longest waiting times in the UK, with one in four of the Welsh population stuck on a waiting list.  Staff on the frontline do an incredible job, but the leadership was been poor with health boards repeatedly placed in special measures and outcomes consistently failing to meet Welsh Government targets.  Last month, over 11,000 patients waited over 12 hours to be seen in A&E.

Welsh NHS

The day after the election, Welsh Conservatives would declare a health emergency to get the entire government machine focussed on delivering improvements to waiting times.  We would immediately expand capacity in our hospitals, increasing bed numbers to end the scandal of corridor care.  We need an unrelenting focus on driving down waiting times, improvements in staff recruitment and retention, and action to tackle the capacity challenges in social care settings.

Welsh pupils and teachers have endured years of policy drift, constant changes and a lack of clear vision. Wales is the UK’s lowest performing nation in the international PISA tests in reading, maths and science.  Welsh Conservatives would drive up standards and remove distractions in the classroom by banning mobile phones in school and banning under 16s from social media.

Darren Millar: A Detailed Plan

Welsh Conservatives have detailed plans to fix the damage caused by 27 years of Labour and Plaid Cymru rule.  We will reverse Labour’s ban on road building and build a stronger economy by getting Wales working.  We will end the waste and vanity projects and reverse the expansion of the Senedd, which is set to create another 36 politicians in Cardiff Bay.  In this new proportional voting system, if residents vote Welsh Conservative, they will get Welsh Conservative representatives. After 27 years of Labour decline, families deserve a government with a plan to fix our public services, grow our economy and get Wales working.

This article features in the new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Office of Darren Millar

All eyes have been on Sir Keir Starmer since he sacked Former Foreign Office Chief Sir Olly Robbins last Thursday 16th May. 

This came after a Guardian investigation revealed that despite concerns being raised about Mandelson during his security vetting, the Foreign Office went ahead with his appointment. 

Having been announced as the UK’s ambassador to the US in December 2024, Peter Mandelson was formally appointed as US ambassador on 10th February 2025. However, he was sacked in September last year over his links to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

Over the past week, the Prime Minister has been facing calls to resign over claims he misled MPs when he told them that “full due process” had been followed – a claim 10 Downing Street strongly denies. 

Monday: Starmer addresses MPs

In a statement to MPs on Monday afternoon, Starmer said he takes “responsibility” for appointing Peter Mandelson, and that he shouldn’t have taken that decision. 

Explaining the timeline of events, he said he became aware that the Foreign Office granted Mandelson Developed Vetting clearance against the recommendations of the UK’s Security Vetting (UKSV) agency “for the first time” on Tuesday 14th April. 

He said: “I should have had [this information] a long time ago.” 

Regarding why Mandelson was appointed before security vetting had been completed, he said: “For a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before starting in post.” He has since changed this process. 

He also explained that while UKSV’s decision is binding for many government departments, for the foreign office, appointment decisions are ultimately at their own discretion. The Prime Minister has now suspended these powers. 

Continuing his statement, Starmer said it was “absolutely unforgivable” that Sir Olly had let the then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy sign a statement that developed vetting clearance had been granted. 

He said had he known about UKSV’s recommendations, he would not have appointed Peter Mandelson.

Sir Adrian Fulford has now been appointed to lead a review into security vetting. 

Closing his statement, the PM called these events “incredible” and “beggars belief” – statements greeted with laughter by the House. 

Leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch claimed Sir Keir had breached the ministerial code in not revealing this information “at the earliest opportunity” – this would have been during last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday 15th April. 

Putting six questions to the PM, she asked whether he would stand by his previous assertion while in opposition that a prime minister should resign if they mislead the house. 

Meanwhile, leader of the opposition Sir Ed Davey accused the PM of blaming his officials, asking why he asked “so few questions personally about the vetting process himself”. 

Both he and Green Party Leader Zack Polanski called on Sir Keir to resign. 

Reform UK MP Lee Anderson alongside Your Party MP Zarah Sultana were both made to leave the House after accusing the PM of lying. 

Tuesday morning: Robbins’ response 

Speaking to Emily Thornberry’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Sir Olly said there was an “atmosphere of pressure” from No. 10 over Peter Mandelson’s vetting.

Thornberry opened the meeting by telling him to “feel freer to give fuller answers to us” than he had at his previous appearance before the Committee on 3rd November 2025. “You clearly told us the truth, but you only told us part of the truth,” she said. 

Robbins accused No.10 of taking “a generally dismissive attitude” to Mandelson’s vetting clearance in January last year, saying: “The focus was on getting Mandelson to Washington quickly.” 

He said that when he arrived in post on 20th January, “there was already a very, very strong expectation coming from number ten that he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as possible”. 

By this point, Peter Mandelson’s name had already been submitted to the King as a nomination and the PM had announced his appointment. He said that agrément (the formal process by which the host country accepts the appointment) had also been obtained.

“Throughout January honestly, my office, the foreign secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing,” the former foreign office chief said, with very frequent phone calls asking, “has this been delivered yet?”. 

When questioned by Emily Thornberry over whether there was any evidence of this pressure, he said he was sure there were phone calls showing contact between his office and the No. 10’s private office, but that there were no emails. 

In response, Thornberry highlighted the need for records “to show the extent of pressure the foreign office was being put under by No.10.” 

When pressed on why he didn’t know more about the contents of the vetting decision, Sir Olly explained that while he was told it was a “borderline” case, he’s “never seen a UKSV document”. He also declined to confirm whether anything had been identified that wasn’t already in the public realm. 

He maintained that vetting was completed “to the normal high standard” and that “whilst there was an atmosphere of pressure, the department rigorously followed process […] despite some in government never believing it was a process we needed to follow”. 

In response to a question from Sir John Wittingdale MP, he also confirmed that “it would have damaged” relations with the US to pull Mandelson as ambassador at that stage. 

Alongside this, he revealed that in March 2025 he was asked to “potentially” find Lord Matthew Doyle, the PM’s director of communications, a position as an ambassador. 

Tuesday afternoon: MPs respond 

Downing Street denied Robbins’ claims of an “atmosphere of pressure” and “dismissive attitude” towards Mandelson’s vetting.

In an emergency debate called by the Conservatives on Tuesday afternoon, Kemi Badenoch said the Prime Minister “personally decided to appoint a serious, known national security risk” due to his known relationship with Epstein and links to Russia and China. 

Accusing the PM of using Sir Olly as a “human shield”, she said: “The idea that it is No. 10 who are the victims of others not following due process is quite frankly laughable.” 

She backed SNP MP Stephen Flynn’s call for a no confidence vote, adding: “This Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk. He must take responsibility, it is time for him to go.” 

The Lib Dems accused the PM of trying to “appease Trump” with Mandelson’s appointment, while Reform said he is trying to “dump the entire scandal on one official”. Meanwhile the Green Party said the PM showed “totally unacceptable” “wilful ignorance” over the appointment.  

In response, Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, said: “The government has been and remains committed to keeping the House informed.”

Acknowledging that appointing Mandelson was the “wrong” decision, he added: “I’m here however to account for the government’s accountability on the process that followed.” 

Mr Jones also said that the government is working “at pace” to publish the remaining documents related to Mandelson’s appointment, as required by February’s humble address. 

Wednesday: PMQs 

PMQs were, as expected, dominated by questions over Mandelson’s appointment. 

The PM confirmed that Matthew Doyle was considered for an ambassadorial appointment – as is a normal conversation when people leave a position, according to Starmer. But, he said, nothing came of this conversation – and Doyle himself had come out on Tuesday saying he hadn’t known of any such conversations before then. 

In her six questions to the PM, Kemi Badenoch pressed Sir Keir on whether he stands by his statement that “full due process” was followed in Mandelson’s appointment, referring to Robbins’ testimony of a dismissive approach from No.10. 

Reiterating her concerns about national security, she said there is “no way” she would have appointed someone with Mandelson’s reputation, asking the PM “what planet” he was on over claims that Mandelson was given access to classified briefings before being cleared.  

Badenoch also said Robbins’ dismissal was unfair – an opinion shared by the Green Party’s Ellie Chowns – and asked the PM to “take responsibility and go”. 

Starmer maintained that due process was followed, and that Sir Olly’s testimony that he hadn’t shared his decision with No. 10 “puts to bed all the allegations levelled at [him] by those opposite in relation to dishonesty”. 

He also reiterated that he was unaware of UKSV’s recommendations. Calling this a “very serious error in judgement,” he said: “Nothing is going to distract me from delivering for our country.” 

Thursday: Back to the select committee

Thursday morning saw Cat Little, Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office (the department’s most senior civil servant) giving evidence to Dame Emily Thornberry’s Select Committee. 

In her evidence, she echoed the PM in saying that “due process was followed.”

Referring to Sir Olly’s claims of pressure, she said that while putting together the documents to be published under the humble address: “I’ve not seen any documentation that would formally confirm that level of pressure”. 

In regards to the vetting summary, she told the committee she asked Sir Olly for a summary of UKSV’s recommendations, but “it was made clear to me that that information would not be forthcoming.” 

Requesting this information directly from security officials, she received it on 25th March but sought legal advice about handling sensitive documents before deciding to share them with the PM on 14th April. 

A lack of records has been a frequent issue throughout this saga, and it continued when Ms Little confirmed there was no formal record of the meeting in which Starmer decided to move forward with Mandelson’s appointment – even though “it is normal” to do so. 

Ms Little’s versions of events also seemed to suggest – in contrast to Sir Olly’s – that the Cabinet Office advised in favour of vetting Mandelson, not that this was unnecessary. 

Beyond the walls of the Select Committee, Thursday also saw an increase in murmurings about the Prime Minister’s future, with political reporters noting unrest among both Labour backbenchers and Cabinet ministers. 

What next?

Friday’s headlines were not dominated by the scandal – much to the PM’s relief. Rather, attention has turned to the failure of the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords. 

However, the row is far from over. On Tuesday, we heard from Morgan McSweeney – the PM’s former Chief of Staff, who resigned over Mandelson’s appointment in February, taking “full responsibility”. 

He, alongside the Foreign Office’s Chief Property and Security Officer Ian Collard and former Foreign Office top civil servant Sir Philip Barton, have all been compelled to give evidence to the Select Committee. 

And of course the polls have opened this Thursday 7th May at 7am, which will likely put further pressure on the PM’s survival. 

Featured Image Credit: Prime Minister’s Office / Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Ben Howlett

Chamber UK CEO

What The King’s historic address signals for transatlantic ties

King Charles III’s address to the US Congress on Tuesday was historic, warmly received and subtle on policy. Only the second British monarch ever to speak before lawmakers on Capitol Hill, The King used the occasion not merely to celebrate shared history, but to send carefully calibrated signals about the future direction of the UK-US relationship at a moment of global uncertainty.

For British businesses and policymakers alike, the speech should be carefully analysed. Beneath the traditional ceremonial language and humour lay a clear message from the UK Head of State and leader of the Commonwealth – the “special relationship” remains strong, but it cannot be taken for granted.

Continuity, not rupture, at the heart of the alliance

At its core, The King’s speech sought to reassure those concerned of a widening split in UK-US relations. By describing the historic partnership as “more important today than it has ever been,” The King reinforced the idea that the relationship transcends any single government, leader or policy disagreement. A statement only The King could make. This matters at a time when political volatility on both sides of the Atlantic has prompted questions about the durability of long‑standing alliances.

For British firms operating in, trading with, or investing in the United States, the signal was clearly delivered; the institutional foundations of the relationship remain solid. Defence, intelligence sharing, financial cooperation and regulatory coordination continue to rest on decades of embedded trust. With domestic political challenges for both the UK Prime Minister and US President – The King’s address was designed to reassure that even with political challenges at home – the relationship remains strong.

The emphasis on history was not nostalgic window‑dressing. By framing four centuries of shared experience as the backdrop for future cooperation, The King underscored that the partnership is not simply transactional that endures a single political cycle, but more foundational to how each state defines itself and the relationship with their key ally.

Whilst this was King Charles’ first State Visit to the US, he has met the US President a number of times, including during Trump’s visit to the United Kingdom in 2019, when he was Prince of Wales.

A diplomatic nudge toward sustained US leadership

While deliberate and crafted , the speech also contained unmistakable encouragement for the United States to maintain its global leadership role. The King warned against the temptation for nations to become “ever more inward‑looking”, a phrase widely read as a gentle appeal to Washington at a time of international strain following disagreements over Ukraine, Greenland, Iran – and more problematic, NATO itself.

Importantly, this appeal was made to Congress, not solely to the White House. By addressing legislators directly, King Charles highlighted the central role Congress plays in trade, defence funding, alliance commitments and long‑term policy direction.

For the UK, this reflects a strategic priority for His Majesty’s Government: ensuring that American engagement with allies remains anchored not just in executive action, but in bipartisan institutional support. Stability matters for markets, supply chains and investment decisions – and the UK is positioning itself as a voice for continuity rather than disruption.

Security cooperation as the non‑negotiable core

If any area of the relationship was presented as beyond doubt, it was security. The King’s firm support and advocacy for NATO, explicit backing for Ukraine, and praise for initiatives such as AUKUS reinforce that defence cooperation remains the bedrock of the transatlantic partnership.

For business leaders, this has indirect but significant implications. Security alignment underpins everything from energy infrastructure protection to technology collaboration, and shipping routes. The affirmation that these ties are long‑term and insulated from day‑to‑day political tension should be reassuring for sectors exposed to geopolitical risk.

The King conceded disagreements may arise, but he was clear that the architecture of shared defence is not up for renegotiation.

Democratic values as commercial foundations

One of the most discussed aspects of the speech was The King’s repeated references to constitutional principles, checks and balances, and the rule of law. While framed historically – through references to Magna Carta and Abraham Lincoln – the implication was unmistakably relevant for today.

For investors and businesses, democratic reliability is not a political concept relegated to the A-level textbook. Legal predictability, independent institutions, and stable regulatory environments are central to commercial confidence. By placing these values at the heart of the bilateral relationship, The King reaffirmed what many in the business community already know to be a reality – trust between nations is inseparable from trust in their systems.

With democracy under threat around the world (some would argue rightly in the HJ and US too), the UK sees shared democratic norms not as optional, but as foundational to long‑term partnership.

Moral awareness without political overreach

The King’s brief reference to supporting victims of abuse, widely interpreted as an acknowledgment of sensitive debates, illustrated another recurring theme of the address: empathy and restraint.

Rather than engaging in political controversy, the speech demonstrated how the Uk intends to navigate difficult terrain with their closest ally – acknowledging concerns, expressing shared values, but avoiding actions that could undermine legal processes or diplomatic stability.

What this means for UK economic interests

Taken together, the speech sends a signal to companies operating across the Atlantic. The US-UK relationship is not in crisis, but it is evolving amid global shifts. The UK is positioning itself as a steady, reliable partner – one that values open markets, shared security, and institutional continuity.

For British business, the implication should be cautiously positive. Although a difficult pill to swallow for the politically interested – the US and the UK are stuck with the same leader (notwithstanding their impotence from forthcoming local elections and midterms) for the foreseeable. One thing that Trump and Starmer have in common is the inability of their enemies to join opposition blocks together and they are therefore likely to limp on.

Against this background, therefore, expect continued cooperation, deep ties in defence and technology, and a shared interest in predictable, rules‑based systems. At the same time, The King’s message is that engagement matters – alliances, like markets, require active stewardship.

The King’s speech was a reminder that the strength of the UK-US relationship lies both in history and deliberate choices about the future.

Rhun ap Iorwerth MS

Leader of Plaid Cymru

Plaid Cymru’s leader argues that after 27 years of Labour rule and rising support for Reform, Wales faces a stark choice between division and ambition, making the case that only Plaid Cymru offers the hopeful, practical leadership needed to put the nation back on track.

Something big is happening in Wales – and this year, we can make history.

Poll after poll, along with the historic result in the Caerphilly by-election, show that people are turning to Plaid Cymru in greater numbers than ever.

It’s clear that, to get us back on track, people want a government with a higher level of ambition for Wales.

Twenty-seven Years of Labour

Labour has led Welsh Government for 27 years. The legacy is one in five people in Wales on an NHS waiting list, a stagnating economy, too many children leaving primary school unable to read, and child poverty rates continuing to rise.

And now, after promising delivery for Wales through a “Partnership in Power” between Labour UK and Welsh Governments, the reality has been a failure by the Labour First Minister to stand up to Keir Starmer when he brushes Wales aside time and time again. Whether it’s on the billions owed to us from HS2 rail, powers over our natural resources, or fair funding, Labour in Wales has put party before country at every turn. Wales deserves better.

People want change, but we must ensure that the change we choose as a nation is a positive one.

Reform’s Anger or Plaid’s Hope?

In that context, the threat of Reform is real. This May, we cannot make it clearer that two vastly different futures lie ahead for Wales.

Reform’s politics of division and fear, policy-light with no vision for Wales, a party focused always on laying a path for Nigel Farage to No.10 and never on acting in Wales’s best interest. Or Plaid Cymru’s offer of new leadership for Wales, rich in solutions and rooted in creating a fairer, more ambitious nation.

Labour’s own leaked election strategy paper summed up the choice: “Reform define the anger, while Plaid Cymru define the hope.”

Our radical plan means addressing the challenges of providing better public services, strengthening the economy, and tackling inequalities, whilst standing up for our communities at every opportunity in our dealings with the UK Labour Government. I want to build a constructive relationship with the UK Prime Minister, but my loyalty will always be to the people of Wales, and my mission will be to deliver for them.

A Radical Plan

New leadership with Plaid Cymru means tackling NHS waiting lists by rolling out surgical hubs across the country and building new sustainability across the health and care sector; plans to better support businesses and create jobs through a new Development Agency; getting back to basics in education with our foundational literacy and numeracy plan, including offering greater training and development opportunities for teachers and support staff; and, not least, easing pressure on families with a transformative childcare offer to help parents back into work – a minimum of 20 hours per week, 48 weeks of the year, making it the most generous offer in the UK.

Historic Election

A vote for Plaid Cymru is not a vote for change for the sake of it. It is a vote to put Wales back on track, with a government whose priorities mirror those of its people – and we can stop Reform while we’re at it.

That’s the message we’re taking to the people of Wales this year: that together, we can make history and choose positive new leadership for Wales by electing a Plaid Cymru Government.

This article features in the new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Office of Rhun ap Iorwerth

Adama Ibrahim

UKAI Life Sciences Working Group (Panel Chair)

Following the publication of the Curia and UKAI AI Is Ready. Is the System? report, Adama argues the UK’s problem is not AI innovation but delivery – fragmented healthcare systems and slow adoption are the real barriers. She calls for aligned infrastructure, regulation, and culture to move from pilots to scalable impact in healthcare. (Photo: UKAI Life Sciences Working Group member, Adama Ibrahim chaired the Parliamentary session, kindly hosted by Shadow Equalities Minister, Mims Davies MP.)

When we convened these discussions in Parliament to help produce the AI Is Ready. Is the System? report, the objective was to move the conversation from pilots to scalable infrastructure, from policy statements to practical delivery.

The UK has not lacked ambition since the publication of the Government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan. We have committed to AI at scale and articulated a vision for research excellence and preventative healthcare. We have world-class scientists, innovative companies, and a health system rich in data. But ambition alone does not deliver outcomes. The pathway from strategy to routine clinical practice is complex – and, at times, uncomfortable.

AI does not simply automate existing systems. It exposes their imperfections.

Throughout these sessions, we heard repeatedly that the barriers to scale are not rooted in a lack of technology. They lie in fragmented governance, legacy infrastructure, unclear ownership, and cultural hesitation. In secondary care, clinicians face multiple logins and siloed data. In primary care, digital maturity varies by locality. Startups encounter data access processes that outlast their funding cycles. Boards hesitate because liability is not always clearly defined.

None of these issues are insurmountable, but they require coordinated leadership.

The Real Barrier: From AI Innovation to Healthcare Implementation

One of the strongest messages from industry during the course of this programme was that deployment, not invention, is the bottleneck. Even if no new AI tools were built from tomorrow, it would take years to embed what already exists. That should focus our attention. This means that by the time they are deployed, they may largely become out of date. Measurement, evidence generation, and clear pilot exit criteria are essential. Trust is built through lived experience in real clinical settings, not through PowerPoint presentations.

At the same time, the global environment is moving rapidly. International markets are experimenting with direct-to-patient AI-enabled tools. Investment is flowing toward jurisdictions that provide clarity, interoperability, and predictable regulation. If the UK allows caution to become delay, we risk losing not only economic advantage but also the opportunity to shape standards aligned with our values of fairness, transparency, and safety.

Prevention illustrates the scale of the prize. Genomic risk scoring and predictive analytics can identify vulnerability years before disease manifests. Yet prevention is still funded from the same constrained budgets as acute care. If we are serious about shifting from reactive to preventative medicine, our funding and evaluation models must reflect that intent.

Trust must also remain central. Concerns about bias and representation are legitimate. AI systems learn from data, and if that data fails to reflect the diversity of our population, outcomes will differ. Transparency in training data, subgroup performance monitoring, and meaningful public engagement are not optional extras – they are foundational to confidence.

From Insight to Action

Within the UKAI Life Sciences Working Group, our role is to bridge sectors. We bring together small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs), established industry, clinicians, and policymakers to ensure that solutions are co-designed and grounded in real need. Collaboration must replace transaction. Safety case methodology must evolve with adaptive AI. Infrastructure must be treated as a national asset, not a discretionary upgrade.

Above all, culture matters. Fear based environments do not innovate. Curiosity, openness, and shared learning accelerate adoption. We must normalise iterative improvement rather than demanding perfection before first deployment.

This report does not represent the end of a conversation. It marks the beginning of a more coordinated phase of work over the course of the year ahead. The challenge is not whether AI will shape healthcare. It is already doing so. The question is whether we shape that transformation deliberately – in line with British principles of safety, accountability, and equity – or allow it to happen unevenly.

The opportunity is significant. So too is the responsibility.

If we align infrastructure, regulation, funding, and culture, the UK can lead not only in discovery, but in delivery – improving outcomes for patients while strengthening our life sciences ecosystem for the future.

Get Involved

To find out more about the UKAI Healthcare and Life Sciences Working Group, contact Partnerships Director, Ben McDermott at benmcdermott@ukai.co.

John Swinney

First Minister of Scotland

Arguing that progress on the NHS, child poverty, and living costs shows what can be achieved with focused leadership, Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney contends that only independence can unlock the country’s full potential.

When I took office, I made a commitment to the people of Scotland: that my government would focus relentlessly on the things that matter most to families and communities across our nation.

That is what I have strived to do every day as First Minister – and we have made real progress in key public services like the NHS, in supporting people through the cost-of-living crisis, and in my number one goal of eradicating child poverty in Scotland.

Progress on the Frontline

On the health service, long waits are now falling, GP numbers have increased, and operations performed are up, including record levels of hip and knee operations.  That is making a huge difference to the people across Scotland who rely on our NHS.

And unlike south of the border, we have avoided pay-related strike action in our NHS. If the UK Government would like some tips on how to reach agreements with healthcare professionals, the SNP Government will be happy to provide them.

And we continue to see falling child poverty in Scotland, at a level significantly below that in the rest of the UK.

Our game-changing Scottish Child Payment continues to keep an estimated 40,000 children out of poverty, and this year, we are going a step further and increasing this to £40 per week in the vital first year of a child’s life.

And on the cost-of-living crisis, we are taking all the action we can.  We have abolished peak train fares in Scotland – saving commuters up to 48 per cent, and we have frozen fares entirely for this year. 

And while we ask people who earn the most to pay slightly more, our decisions on income tax mean that 55 per cent of people in Scotland can expect to pay less than if they lived south of the border.

A Different Path From Westminster

But whether on child poverty, the cost-of-living crisis, or so many other issues,  it is undeniable that Scotland finds ourselves held back by the often inexplicable decisions taken by the UK Government.

We have a UK Labour Government that promised to cut people’s energy bills by £300 – but they are around £200 higher than when they came to office. In an energy-rich nation like Scotland, we pay some of the highest energy bills in Europe. It just does not add up.

On child poverty, the UK Labour Government completely fails to match our ambition. 

On the economy, the failure of Brexit is continuing to cause real damage and not a single major Westminster party is willing to face up to that fact.

Indeed, what we see from the entire Westminster political system is either an inability or a refusal to confront the fact that the UK is fundamentally broken. 

It has an economy that does not work for people, living standards as flat as a pancake, rampant inequality, and a politics that all too often seems to look out for itself and the establishment, rather than those they are meant to represent.

The Westminster establishment has had multiple chances to fix things. And Scotland cannot afford to wait much longer.

The Case for Independence

It is now clearer than ever that if Scotland is to truly meet our potential, we cannot be tied to the Westminster system.

We need the fresh start of independence, and that is what I will be offering the people of Scotland.

This article features in the new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

Ben Howlett

Chief Executive, Curia

As the former Chair of the Parliamentary Group for Data Analytics, Curia Chief Executive, Ben Howlett writes that the UK Biobank incident is a warning that our model of global data access is running ahead of the governance needed to sustain public trust.

The news that data from UK Biobank was briefly listed for sale online is unsettling not because of what was taken, but because of what it reveals.

For years, the UK has built a quiet but formidable advantage in health data. Initiatives like Biobank have shown what is possible when scale, public participation and scientific ambition align. Half a million people have volunteered deeply personal information – not for profit, not for recognition, but in the belief that it would contribute to better understanding, earlier diagnosis and ultimately improved outcomes for others.

That belief matters. It is the invisible infrastructure on which the entire system rests.

So, when that data appears, even momentarily, in a commercial marketplace – regardless of whether it is de-identified, regardless of whether it is ultimately purchased – something more profound is disrupted. The implicit contract between citizen and system is called into question.

We often talk about data as an asset. But in health, it is something more fragile. It is a proxy for human experience – illness, risk, vulnerability. And it is lent, not owned.

The illusion of anonymisation

Much of the immediate response has centred on reassurance. The data, we are told, did not include names, addresses or direct identifiers. It was “de-identified”.

Technically, this is correct. Strategically, it is insufficient.

Because anonymisation is not a binary state. It is a spectrum – and one that becomes increasingly complex as datasets grow richer and more interconnected. Age, geography, health conditions, genetic markers, lifestyle patterns – individually, these may not identify someone. Combined, they begin to form a recognisable profile.

This is not a theoretical concern. It is a known challenge in modern data science.

But more importantly, it is not how the public experiences risk. For most people, the distinction between “identified” and “identifiable” is not meaningful when their data appears in a context they did not consent to. The issue is not just whether someone can be traced back to them. It is whether the system behaved in a way that felt secure and respectful.

On that measure, reassurance alone will not be enough and this incident has undermined those of us that have been championing the benefits of patient data utilisation many years.

When legitimate access becomes the problem

What makes this incident particularly uncomfortable is what it was not.

This was not a cyberattack. There was no external breach. As confirmed by Technology Minister, Ian Murray in the House of Commons, this was data accessed legitimately by accredited researchers, operating within institutions that had passed the necessary checks.

That should shift the focus.

For years, the conversation around data security has been dominated by perimeter defence – keeping bad actors out. But in this case, the risk came from within the system, after access had already been granted.

The model we have relied on is built on layers of trust. Researchers are vetted. Institutions sign agreements. Platforms are secured. And then, at a certain point, control gives way to expectation – that those who have been granted access will behave appropriately.

As UK Biobank Chief Executive, Professor Sir Rory Collins acknowledged in his response, when that expectation is broken, the system moves quickly to containment: access is suspended, institutions are banned, data is requested to be deleted.

But that sequence reveals a deeper truth. The system is designed to respond to misuse, not to make misuse materially difficult.

In a world where data carries both scientific value and commercial potential, that is no longer a sufficient safeguard.

The fragility of a global research model

There is a tension at the heart of this story that cannot be ignored.

UK Biobank has enabled researchers from around the world to interrogate one of the richest health datasets ever assembled, leading to thousands of discoveries across cancer, dementia, cardiovascular disease and more.

To retreat from that openness would be to undermine the very model that has made the UK a leader in life sciences.

And yet, openness without continuous control creates exposure.

The globalisation of research – across institutions, jurisdictions and regulatory environments – has outpaced the evolution of the systems designed to govern it. Contracts, training and institutional accountability were once sufficient when data flows were smaller and slower. They are less robust in an era where data can be extracted, duplicated and moved at speed.

Collaboration now requires a different architecture to meet the expectations of future generations.

Public confidence is the real battleground

The long-term risk here is not scientific delay – it is an erosion of trust.

Public participation in large-scale data initiatives is not guaranteed. As seen with the 100,000 Genomes Project, it is earned, slowly, through consistency and credibility. And it can be weakened quickly.

Even a modest decline in willingness to share data can have disproportionate effects – reducing the diversity, scale and reliability of datasets that underpin research. In fields like genomics and population health, where statistical power is everything, that matters enormously.

But the issue goes beyond participation rates. It speaks to a broader question: do people feel that the systems built around their data are genuinely on their side?

When incidents like this occur, the answer becomes less certain.

And once doubt sets in, it is far harder to rebuild confidence than it is to maintain it.

From trust to assurance for UK Biobank

If there is a lesson to take from this moment, it is that trust, on its own, is no longer an adequate operating model.

We need to move towards assurance.

That means designing systems that do not simply rely on good behaviour but actively constrain bad behaviour. It means shifting from a mindset of permission to one of continuous oversight. And it means recognising that governance is not a static framework, but an evolving discipline that must keep pace with technology.

Access must be more tightly coupled with purpose. Data environments must limit what can be removed in a secure environment, not just who can enter. Monitoring must be real-time, not retrospective. And accountability must extend beyond individual actors to the structures that enable them.

None of this is straightforward. All of it introduces friction into a system that has thrived on accessibility.

But the alternative is a model that becomes progressively more difficult to defend.

A defining moment for UK data leadership

The UK has long argued that it offers a unique environment for health innovation – combining world-class science, a unified health system and high-quality data at scale.

The events of the last few days will not undermine that proposition. But it depends on something deeper than capability – it depends on confidence.

The incident with UK Biobank is a test of that confidence.

Handled with seriousness and transparency, it can become a catalyst for strengthening the system – an opportunity to modernise how we think about data stewardship in a global, AI-driven research landscape.

Handled defensively, or treated as an isolated failure, it risks signalling that the governance underpinning one of our greatest strengths is not keeping pace with its importance.

The choice is not between openness and security, but whether we are prepared to build systems that genuinely deserve both.

Incidence rates have increased to 620 cases per 100,000 people, up from 610 a decade ago and around 15% higher than in the early 1990s. While this reflects demographic shifts, it also underscores broader public health challenges that continue to shape long-term demand on the system.

Chief Executive of Cancer Research UK, Michelle Mitchell said:
“More people are being diagnosed with cancer than ever before. Although cancer survival has doubled since the 1970s, progress has slowed over the last decade.”

Progress at risk as survival gains begin to stall

Despite improvements in survival rates over recent decades, there are growing concerns that progress may now plateau. Advances in treatment and earlier detection have led to more people living longer after diagnosis, but the pace of improvement has slowed significantly.

Mitchell warned that while the Government’s National Cancer Plan represents an important step forward, it is far from sufficient on its own.
“The Government’s recently published National Cancer Plan could make a big difference, but only if it turns into improvements for cancer patients,” she said.

This reflects a wider concern across the sector: that policy announcements are not consistently translating into operational delivery at the frontline of care.

Early diagnosis remains stubbornly unchanged

One of the most persistent challenges is the limited progress in early diagnosis. Just over half of cancer cases in the UK are identified at an early stage – a figure that has barely shifted in recent years, rising only marginally from 54% to 55%.

For a condition where early detection is strongly linked to survival outcomes, this stagnation is significant. Cancer Research UK has called for the rapid expansion of screening programmes, particularly lung cancer screening, which could detect up to 7,800 additional cases annually if fully optimised across England.

The organisation has also urged faster rollout of innovative diagnostic technologies, arguing that these tools are essential to closing the gap between detection and treatment.

Commenting on the report, Chief Executive of BIVDA, Helen Dent said “The adoption of diagnostics is critical in improving outcomes for patients and as well as innovative diagnostics being implemented quickly, there are diagnostics available now that have not been adopted adequately which could make a difference to people immediately.

“Screening and early detection is a tool that is not being effectively utilised across the UK especially in communities which have challenges in accessing healthcare.”

NHS capacity constraints intensify cancer cases pressure

Alongside rising demand, the NHS continues to face sustained operational strain. Waiting times for cancer treatment are now among the worst on record, with around 107,000 patients waiting more than 62 days to begin treatment in 2025.

This backlog highlights the widening gap between diagnosis and intervention – a gap that has direct implications for patient outcomes.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care acknowledged the pressure but pointed to recent investment and progress:
“We have delivered a record number of diagnostic tests in the last 12 months, backed by an extra £26 billion for the NHS – and the number of patients getting a cancer diagnosis or all-clear on time is the highest in five years – but we are not complacent.”

The Government’s plan aims for 75% of patients diagnosed from 2035 to be cancer-free or living well after five years, alongside commitments to faster diagnosis and improved treatment pathways.

Representing innovators in the UK healthcare and life sciences sectors, CEO of UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI), Joanne Bekis said: “As cancer diagnoses rise, the UK’s strength in life sciences innovation must now translate into preventative and faster adoption of diagnostics and treatments across the health system.”

Prevention, policy, and the growing role of obesity

Alongside pressures on treatment capacity, prevention is emerging as an increasingly urgent priority. Cancer Research UK has stressed the importance of fully implementing the forthcoming Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will prohibit smoking for those born after 2008, as a critical step in reducing future cancer risk.

However, smoking is no longer the only dominant driver. Obesity is now one of the leading causes of cancer in the UK, contributing to rising incidence across multiple cancer types. With obesity rates continuing to climb, the long-term burden on the health system is set to increase unless prevention strategies are broadened beyond tobacco control to address diet, lifestyle, and wider determinants of health.

The charity warns that without decisive, system-wide action on prevention, cancer incidence will continue its upward trajectory, placing further strain on already stretched NHS services.

At the same time, calls for increased investment in specialist staff and equipment point to a deeper structural challenge – ensuring that workforce capacity and infrastructure evolve in step with both rising patient demand and advances in diagnostics and treatment.

Curia’s Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group Advisory Board member, and former National Deputy Medical Director at NHS England, Professor Mike Bewick said “Rising cancer demand is exposing the gap between diagnosis and treatment – and that is where the system must now focus.”

A system challenge, not just a clinical one

Taken together, the data presents a clear picture that the UK is not facing a shortage of innovation or policy intent, but a growing challenge in translating both into consistent, system-wide delivery.

The convergence of rising diagnoses, constrained capacity, and uneven progress on early detection points to a structural issue within the health system. Without coordinated investment, workforce expansion, and accelerated adoption of diagnostics and screening, there is a risk that decades of progress in cancer outcomes could begin to reverse.

As Mitchell’s warning suggests, the next phase of cancer policy will be defined by delivery on their promises.

Get Involved

To find out more about Curia’s Obesity Summit and work to improve cancer outcomes, please contact Partnerships Director, Ben McDermott at ben.mcdermott@chamberuk.com.

Geri Silverstone

Chief Executive, Silverstone Communications

Speaking on the recent clean energy report from Curia, Sprint facilitator Geri Silverstone says the South East does not lack ambition or opportunity – it lacks the coordinated infrastructure and leadership needed to deliver them. (Image: The Clean Energy Sprint at the Get Britain Growing: South East conference. Photo: Silverstone Communications)

Energy sits at the heart of almost every challenge and opportunity facing the South East. From economic growth and regeneration to public health, housing delivery, industrial competitiveness, and climate responsibility, our ability to generate, move and use clean, affordable power will shape the future of our region for decades to come.

The South East is home to critically important national infrastructure – ports, transport corridors, coastal communities, and energy assets – but it is also on the frontline of many of the pressures discussed during this Sprint. Air quality along major freight routes, constrained grid capacity, rising electricity costs, and planning systems that struggle to balance local consent with national need are not abstract policy debates. They are lived experiences for residents, businesses, and councils across Sussex and the wider South East.

This Sprint on Energy and Economic Growth brought together an unusually broad and valuable mix of voices: local government leaders, industry operators, port authorities, energy suppliers, academics, infrastructure specialists, and community representatives. What emerged was not a single silver bullet, but a clear and consistent diagnosis of the problem we face – and a set of practical, grounded ideas for how we begin to address it.

The starting point for the discussion was an implicit but important assumption: the South East must be able to generate more of its own power, closer to where it is used. Long grid connection times, rising transmission costs, and national infrastructure bottlenecks mean that waiting for distant solutions will leave our region exposed. If we want resilient growth, cleaner air, and lower energy bills, local and regional solutions must form a far greater part of the mix.

From Grid Constraints to Local Energy Generation

Participants I met at the Sprint and conference were frank about the scale of the challenge. Ports that could act as hubs for clean energy are constrained by grid access and electricity prices that make electrification commercially unattractive. Airports face ambitious targets for sustainable aviation fuel without a credible supply roadmap. Heavy goods vehicles continue to dominate freight movement in a region with limited rail alternatives, yet the infrastructure for large-scale electrification does not exist. Meanwhile, communities are being asked to absorb the visual and environmental impact of new energy infrastructure without always seeing clear local benefits.

What struck me most was the degree of consensus around the systemic nature of these issues. Again and again, contributors returned to the same themes: fragmented decision-making, siloed expertise, misaligned incentives, and an adversarial planning system that rewards objection rather than collaboration. The South East does not lack knowledge or ambition – it lacks coherence.

Breaking the Planning and Infrastructure Bottleneck

At the same time, this was a positive conversation. The Sprint surfaced a wealth of opportunity – local renewable generation, microgrids, community energy schemes, green roofs, tidal projects, port-based electrification, and innovative regulatory mechanisms all offer tangible ways forward. Crucially, many of these solutions are smaller, more agile, and more reversible than the large-scale infrastructure projects that often dominate national debate.

There was also strong recognition that evidence and trust matter. Whether discussing solar farms, onshore wind, or biodiversity impacts, participants highlighted the need for better shared data and more transparent modelling. The proposal to develop a digital twin of the South East – capable of testing scenarios, trade-offs, and cumulative impacts – is emblematic of the more mature, evidence-led approach that is now required.

This Sprint reinforced my view that delivering the energy transition is not just about technology or targets. It is about leadership. Local political leadership that is prepared to make the case for infrastructure, to engage communities honestly and to articulate the benefits as well as the costs. National leadership that enables regions to act, rather than tying them up in delay and uncertainty.

A Place-Based Strategy for Energy and Growth

The South East has enormous assets: ports, universities, skilled workforces, innovative companies, and engaged communities. Harnessing those assets requires us to move beyond one-size-fits-all solutions and towards a genuinely place-based energy strategy. This report captures the substance of that conversation and sets out a credible path from discussion to delivery.

The challenge now is not understanding what needs to be done. It is having the confidence and co-ordination to do it.

Get Involved

Building on the momentum of this Sprint, in 2026 Curia is now taking forward a programme of work focused on translating these energy insights into practical delivery – including their wider work on new towns and place-based development.

This next phase will bring together policymakers, developers, infrastructure providers, and innovators to explore how clean power can be embedded from the outset in new communities, rather than retrofitted into constrained systems. Those interested can get involved through Curia’s Clean Energy and Environment Research Group, upcoming roundtables, and targeted working sessions, with Mayors and local government leaders from across the UK.

These sessions will shape policy recommendations, pilot projects, and future reports. By participating, stakeholders have the opportunity to directly inform how regional energy systems and new settlements are designed, ensuring that growth is both sustainable and deliverable in practice.

To find out more about this programme, contact Partnerships Director, Ben McDermott at ben.mcdermott@chamberuk.com.

Save the Date:

The Get Britain Growing: South East conference returns to Brighton in 2026. To find out more about the sessions and get more involved, please contact Partnerships Director, Ben McDermott at ben.mcdermott@chamberuk.com.

Save the date 6^th November 2026.

The debacle of Mandelson’s appointment as foreign ambassador to the United States was birthed months ago when his explicit connections to infamous pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, was unearthed, but has retained its eminence as a scandal that refuses to go away. Some of the comparatively minor scandals that have reared their ugly heads in recent decades were able to be patted away in timely Westminster fashion; when asked about why tax expenses have been used to purchase slotted spoons from Marks and Spencer, politicians are steadfast in reminding journalists that there are far greater matters of importance to attend to like the cost of living crisis or the war in Ukraine. This, however, simply refuses to do so.

This week, the country has learnt in a shocking revelation that his appointment was much less a blunder than a fundamental catastrophe – that he had failed his vetting process and yet catapulted into a seat at the table of British elitism regardless.

Sheepishly, the Prime Minister insists he had no knowledge that this had occurred; that this was a fact kept from him and accordingly sacked the senior Civil Servant, Sir Olly Robbins, who he holds most culpable as the progenitor of this grave scandal. Put simply, the British public have been handed excuse upon excuse ranging from: “we didn’t know” (but we did); “it was a mistake” (but an honest one); “the wrong conclusions were drawn” (in good faith). We are invited to believe, all at once, that nothing was known, that the wrong things were known, that the right things were misunderstood, and that—despite all this—the decision itself was entirely reasonable, however regrettable in hindsight.

However, do any of these excuses wash? Is there a single way in which the government can say, with a straight face, that allowing a close ally of a defamed international pedophile into classified British affairs is justified with procedural malfunction? The difficulty is not that excuses are made for Mandelson, but that they are so readily available – they belong to the political culture that produced him in the first place. 

The excuses, reasons and justifications – of which there are many – are all inherently plausible. Even despite just 16% of the UK population believing that Starmer was misled, it could very well be that he was. But it is not the same thing as an excuse. For what is striking is not the absence of explanation, but its abundance.

In this pantomime affair, the villain of an insidious and cynical Whitehall seems to be an ever present stage-set, doing both no harm at all but simultaneously the evil puppeteer of Starmer’s demise whilst he begs the public to witness it and believe him. Starmer casts himself the lead in a Shakespearean morality play, fuelled by righteous anger, touched by tragedy, let down by treachery and perennially surrounded by forces just coherent enough to be blamed, but never quite tangible enough to be seen.

What emerges, then, is an unsettling ritual that has long stood in the way of the public and elected office. It is the driver of poor electoral turnout, it’s the reason party membership is at an all time low. The perceived notion among many is that the public are mere mortals underneath a perceived distinctly unsympathetic, unrepresentative hierarchy who seem to be inexorably above the law whenever these scandals re-emerge in a cyclical fashion. The public are alienated not because they don’t understand politics, but rather that they understand it all too well. 

Thus Harold Wilson’s famous quote that “The Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing” feels utterly at odds with this shambolic affair that Starmer seems to be desperately trying to row back to shore. Evidently the Labour Party has long prided itself on seeking to marry moral purpose with political exercise. Mandelson belongs to the tradition that resolves this tension in a way that allows the latter to eclipse the former rather than reconciling the two. What is presented as pragmatism is, in reality, a set of assumptions about power so deeply embedded they no longer appear as choices at all. 

If we are to, with empathy, follow the government into the notion that the full facts of the matter were not readily apparent at the time, then the charge is one of startling incompetence. If, on the other hand, the facts were indeed available but disregarded, then the pressing issue of sheer misjudgement is ever more visceral. And if responsibility is to be displaced onto process, then we are left with the curious doctrine that leadership consists precisely in not leading. 

The words resolutely inscribed in many of Labour’s merchandise and campaign literature is: “country first, party second”. It is the lingo of pragmatism that the party has so fluently spoken and pushed the envelope of since July 2024; that the best decisions are those that deliver, however unappealing and controversial. If the public grit their teeth, surrender and brace for a small but consequently relieving period of strife, that eventually there will be a rainbow at the end of the storm.

Pragmatism, so to speak, is the politics that will eventually come good. The issue, however, is that what is often called pragmatism is simply ideology that has forgotten it is ideology. It’s no use my insistence that the problem was the “wet paint” sign not being more thoroughly brought to my attention as I get up from the bench with a paint-sodden back. True pragmatism, in the end, is only what survives explanation.

All of this matters. If a political culture that cannot distinguish between explanation and justification, it eventually ceases to treat responsibility as meaningful at all. If every failure can be reclassified as a procedural defect, then nothing is ever finally owned by anyone in particular. And if nothing is owned, then nothing is truly answerable. The result, then, is not a more sophisticated politics, but a hollowed-out one whereby power is easily exercised without remainder and then retrospectively dissolved into an array of conveniently placed excuses to be wheeled out and reached for when necessary.

For this reason solely, the routine manufacture of excuses ought not to be treated as harmless spin or even familiar political theatre. Instead, it is an endemic blemish within the British high office which corrodes the most basic linchpin principles that we herald as what makes this country so unique – the unspoken bond that binds us all and prevents us from being subjugated by tyranny, a robust and proud history of checks and balances on power from Magna Carta to the Miners Strike – the idea that decisions can be held to account in any meaningful sense at all.

A democracy in which every mistake is immediately absorbed into a narrative of bureaucratic mishap and misunderstanding is one in which responsibility is permanently deferred. And what is deferred indefinitely, in the end, is the very essence of political judgment entirely.

Each account seems to point elsewhere: to a failure of communication, to a gap in procedure, to a misunderstanding at the relevant stage. Yet the effect is always the same. Responsibility is continually pushed one step back, until it becomes difficult to say where, if anywhere, it properly resides. What begins as explanation ends as evasion simply by accumulation. Quite simply, excuses are thin – especially that of the self-pitying, manufactured kind. It cannot continue. 

Mandelson is not the difficulty. Rather, he is merely the occasion for it. What matters is a twofold matter of both disgraced leaders of international pedophile cabals having close access to British national security affairs but also the ease with which politics learns to talk its way out of these humiliating debacles alls whilst the British public’s intelligence is insulted for the world to see. There is evidently no shortage of reasons being offered. There is, however, no excuse. 

Featured Image credits:  “Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosts a business roundtable” by Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Key Findings

Obesity is a complex, chronic, and relapsing condition that demands a new perspective. Intended for pathway system leaders across the NHS, the report emphasises the importance of reframing obesity as a disease influenced by biological, psychological, and environmental factors, rather than just an issue of personal responsibility. The Obesity Sprint, facilitated by Curia’s Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group under the leadership of Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE, and supported by Head of Improving Population Health at West Yorkshire Health and Care Partnership, Emmerline Irving and Obesity Programme Manager, Lisa Buchanan, brought together a wide range of stakeholders to address the fragmented approach to obesity care across the UK.

A Fragmented System

Despite numerous initiatives, obesity policy in the UK has suffered from fragmentation.

The system is often disconnected – across national and local priorities, between prevention and treatment, and even across different sectors responsible for obesity management. This lack of integration results in an insufficient response to a growing issue. As outlined in the report, the issue is not a shortage of ideas or expertise, but rather the inability to act cohesively on what is already known about the condition.

“The challenge now is not to generate more discussion, but to translate what we already know into action,” says Irving. The report stresses the urgent need for national leadership and a consistent policy framework, particularly across Integrated Care Systems (ICSs).

Addressing the Root Causes: The Dual Approach

Participants in the Sprint identified two critical pathways in addressing obesity: prevention and treatment. Prevention focuses on the broader societal and environmental factors that contribute to obesity, such as food systems, urban planning, and public health policies. On the other hand, treatment requires a more personalised, structured approach for those already living with obesity, recognising the complexity of the condition and integrating long-term clinical care, psychological support, and behavioural interventions.

“Obesity should be recognised as a chronic, relapsing disease influenced by a complex interaction of biological, psychological, and environmental factors.” Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE, Chair, Curia, Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group

The Stigma Barrier

Stigma surrounding obesity emerged as one of the most significant barriers to progress. Buchanan found when commissioning the More Than Weight 2025 report, that individuals reported avoiding social situations, workplaces, and even healthcare settings due to the stigma associated with their weight. “People with lived experience and the workforce are not getting the support needed. 74 per cent of participants living with obesity said they felt misunderstood by healthcare professionals, with only 35 per cent of those healthcare professionals reporting that they felt adequately trained to have sensitive conversations about weight.”  

Irving highlighted the importance of changing the narrative surrounding obesity: “Conversations about obesity do not only happen in clinical environments. They happen in schools, workplaces, and communities.” To break the cycle, stigma must be addressed at all levels – through cultural change, a unified public messaging framework, and embedding trauma-informed care within services.

Emerging Treatments: GLP-1 and Metabolic Medicines

The report also covers the potential impact of emerging metabolic treatments, particularly GLP-1 medicines. These therapies represent a significant shift in obesity care, offering patients a clinical tool to manage their condition. However, experts caution that these medicines should not be viewed as a standalone solution. They must be integrated into holistic care pathways that include psychological and behavioural support. The success of these treatments depends on their effective integration into the healthcare system.

“Metabolic medicines must be integrated within comprehensive care pathways that include behavioural support, psychological care, and long-term clinical management.”
Emmerline Irving, Head of Improving Population Health, West Yorkshire Health and Care Partnership

System Reform: What Must Change

The Obesity Sprint report presents a comprehensive set of recommendations to address the obesity crisis. These recommendations centre on three main areas: national coordination, workforce capability, and the integration of metabolic medicines into holistic care pathways.

1. National Coordination: Establishing a unified national obesity strategy is crucial. This strategy would recognise obesity as a chronic, relapsing disease and align policies across health, planning, education, and economic sectors.
2. Workforce Development: Strengthening workforce education across sectors is necessary to ensure that healthcare professionals are equipped to address the complexity of obesity with compassion and expertise. This includes integrating trauma-informed care into professional training and ensuring that workforce capabilities are aligned with the latest scientific understanding of obesity.
3. Metabolic Medicines: As access to GLP-1 therapies and other metabolic treatments grows, it’s essential to ensure equitable access and incorporate these treatments into comprehensive care pathways that include multidisciplinary support and long-term follow-up.

The Path Forward

For the UK to move forward in addressing obesity, a comprehensive, system-wide approach is necessary – one that integrates prevention with treatment, removes stigma, and aligns public policy with clinical delivery. While regional efforts, such as those in West Yorkshire, are paving the way for a more integrated approach, the report makes it clear that the key to lasting change lies in coordinated national leadership and a commitment to system-wide reform.

Final Thought

To create a system that truly supports people living with obesity, we must move beyond fragmented policies and embrace a unified, compassionate, and evidence-based approach. The opportunity is significant – what remains is the willingness to act on the insights we already have.

This report will be disseminated to leads across the NHS as they develop their neighbourhood commissioning pathways.

To find out more about this report and the work of Curia, please contact Chair, Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE at Andrew.stephenson@curia.com.

Curia will be hosting their annual obesity summit in Parliament in June, to find out more and register, visit: www.chamberuk.com/events.