Umang Patel

Chief Clinical Information Officer – Microsoft

This article sets out how technology, when embedded within the right system design, can move the NHS from pilots to delivery by creating capacity, improving productivity, and enabling the ambitions of the NHS Plan to be realised at national scale.

There are roughly five barbers or hairdressers for every NHS surgeon today. With waiting lists at historic highs, a far-fetched solution might be to borrow from medieval Britain and see whether any high street snippers are available for minor procedures.

That is, after all, where surgery began. Barbers were the first surgeons. They had sharp tools, steady hands, proximity to the public, and a willingness to help. What followed was not simply better instruments, but the creation of training, standards, sterile technique, governance, and dedicated environments for care. Systems, not tools alone, made surgery safe, trusted, and scalable.

That lesson matters now. In healthcare, new capability delivers impact only when embedded in the right operating model. Today, we have powerful digital and AI tools, but we are still too often treating them as pilots rather than infrastructure.

From Policy Direction to Market Creation

Over the past decade, national policy has established that digital health works. We have commissioned pilots, evaluations, and frameworks. This has been necessary. It has also reached its limit.

The centre of gravity must now shift from setting direction to creating markets.

Market creation means defining what good looks like nationally, validating it once, and scaling it many times. It means using national levers such as procurement, standards, assurance, and payment to ensure suppliers build for NHS realities, and that trusts are not forced to repeat the same evaluation hundreds of times.

In practical terms, when a redesigned digital pathway for a high-volume service is clinically assured, shown to be safe, and demonstrated to release capacity, it should become a reusable national building block rather than a bespoke local experiment. This is the difference between approving a product and commissioning a pathway. Approving a product confirms that a tool is safe and effective. Commissioning a pathway confirms that care can be delivered differently, at scale, and with technology embedded as infrastructure rather than added on at the margins. A market is created through pathway commissioning and orchestration.

The ambitions set out in the 10 Year Health Plan for England – moving care from hospital to community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention – are not abstract goals. They are delivery challenges. Technology is the lever. Market creation is the mechanism.

NHS Productivity: The Scale of the Opportunity

A simple worked example illustrates the difference. In a standard dermatology pathway, patients are referred, wait for an outpatient appointment, attend face to face clinics and are then reassured, treated or referred on. In redesigned digital first pathways, structured history and images are submitted upfront and triaged asynchronously, and only a minority require in-person review. Early deployments show that more than half of referrals can be resolved without a clinic appointment, reducing waiting times and freeing specialist capacity.

The scale of the prize is significant. In 2024 and 2025, there were 146.1 million outpatient appointments in England, with 8.1 million recorded as did not attends. Even small percentage improvements in pathway design would release capacity equivalent to entire hospital departments.

Virtual wards demonstrate what this kind of redesign can achieve. By late 2023, more than 240,000 patients had been treated at home, with over 10,000 virtual ward beds established, with evaluation suggesting one non-elective admission avoided for roughly every 2.5 virtual ward admissions on average.

AI as a Productivity Multiplier

AI adoption is not optional if we are serious about delivery. It is central to the economic case for reform, as productivity growth in healthcare is now essential to maintaining fiscal sustainability while demand continues to rise.

At the same time, AI has clear limitations that must be acknowledged explicitly. AI systems can hallucinate, can lack clinical judgment, and cannot be relied upon to diagnose or make final clinical decisions. Treating them as digital clinicians would be unsafe and would undermine public trust.

The opportunity lies elsewhere. AI can be used to perform structured administrative and preparatory work that is currently consuming scarce clinical time. For example, AI can guide patients through clinically relevant questions, collect structured histories, prompt the submission of relevant images or observations and organise this information for clinician review. In this model, the clinical content remains human, while the administrative burden is automated.

This approach aligns capability with accountability. Clinicians retain decision-making responsibility, while AI operates as a force multiplier that improves information quality, reduces friction and allows expertise to be applied where it adds the most value.

A recent national pilot reported average time savings of 43 minutes per person per day from AI co-piloting tools. At NHS scale, this equates to millions of hours returned to care.

This matters because productivity remains below pre-pandemic levels while fiscal constraints tighten. Without sustained productivity improvement, healthcare spending growth will increasingly crowd out other public priorities, limiting both service quality and wider economic resilience.

AI is not about replacing clinicians. It is about multiplying them, allowing scarce expertise to be applied where it adds the greatest value and reducing time lost to low-value administrative work.

National Infrastructure, Not Shadow IT

Public trust is critical. AI must operate under clear human oversight, with auditability, clinical accountability, and equity guardrails designed in from the outset. Market creation should reinforce these principles, ensuring that innovation strengthens trust rather than eroding it, and that benefits are distributed fairly across populations.

The UK is unusually well-positioned to lead. We have national evidence standards, assurance frameworks, statutory clinical safety requirements, and increasing regulatory coordination. Few health systems combine this scale, public trust, and institutional capability.

Market creation should make the safe option the easy option. Validate once, reuse assurance, align payment with redesigned pathways and scale what works.

This approach reduces risk, lowers transaction costs and accelerates adoption. It also creates operating models that are replicable nationally and credible internationally.

Payment, Productivity, and Value

Current payment mechanisms still largely reward activity rather than outcomes. AI enables outcomes to be measured at scale through remote monitoring, pathway analytics, patient-reported outcomes, and equity tracking.

These capabilities provide the foundation for genuine value-based care. Blended payment models can support redesigned pathways rather than historic clinic templates, making productivity gains structural rather than episodic, while reducing unwarranted variation and protecting safety.

From Local Delivery to National Scale and Export

Delivery must begin locally, focusing on a single high-volume pathway, with assurance applied upfront and clear measures such as reduced waiting times, avoided appointments, and staff time released.

Those successes then become national reference points. Specifications, safety requirements, and procurement routes can be standardised and reused, with operating models that are credible internationally and exportable beyond the UK.

Show. Do. Scale.

The tools are no longer the constraint. The question is whether we are willing to design the systems, including procurement, assurance, payment, and accountability, that allow them to be deployed safely and at pace.

If we do, we will not only improve care for patients in the UK. We will demonstrate that large-scale healthcare transformation is possible, affordable, and repeatable.

History shows that when capability is matched with system design, transformation follows. The opportunity is clear: move from intent to execution, and from planning constrained by workforce and physical capacity to deliberately designing in digital capacity.

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

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: St Thomas Hospital altered with ChatGPT.

Cllr Ricky Bell

COSLA Resources Spokesperson 

Rural Scotland Funding: Cllr Ricky Bell, Resources Spokesperson for COSLA, argues that the UK Government’s new Local Growth Fund risks undermining Scotland’s rural economies by slashing revenue funding and excluding entire regions, leaving councils unable to support jobs, skills, and vulnerable communities.

The announcements from the UK Government on the Pride in Place and the Local Growth Fund, which many see as a successor to the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, were an opportunity to support long and lasting growth for communities in Scotland. 

A Fund That Cuts as it Claims to Grow

For the avoidance of doubt, I must reaffirm that our members do recognise the potential importance of UK Government funding, targeted or otherwise, in supporting local economic development and regeneration. However, Scottish local authorities have made it very clear to us that the new funding profile represents a very significant reduction in revenue funding to local areas year to year. This puts jobs at risk and severely limits councils’ and partners’ ability to fund vital employability support, skills development, business support, and preventative economic interventions.  

COSLA firmly believe that the approach to the allocation failed to account for the real differences in need across communities, with no acknowledgement of the higher costs of living and doing business in remote and rural areas. The outcome for Scotland is unprecedented, with nine local authorities allocated nothing from a £50 million per year pot. 

Revenue Slashed, Jobs at Risk

It is not only those without an allocation that miss out. The decision to fundamentally shift to a majority capital allocation for the new funds means local authorities across Scotland collectively face a 72 per cent decrease in revenue funding from 2025/26 to 2026/27. This means many thousands of vulnerable and marginalised people could be left without access to the tailored help and support they need. 

Voluntary and community sector organisations currently involved in the delivery of these programmes will also be unable to sustain these targeted employability support services that invest in people and not bricks.

To further illuminate the differences and impact, it may be prudent to consider both the Scotland-wide and local perspectives.

Scotland-wide Perspective 

On 8^th January 2026, the UK announced that a new UK Government (UKG) Local Growth Fund (LGF) of £140 million would be distributed to five Scottish Regional Economic Partnerships (REP). The funding allocated to the REPs from the programme over the next three years (2026/27–2028/29) is:

The fund is approximately 70 per cent capital. The remaining three Regional Economic Partnerships did not receive an allocation:

The Regional Economic Partnerships not receiving an allocation are largely rural, indicating that the methodology used to allocate the Local Growth Fund in Scotland favours more urban regions. The investment was targeted at regions containing the areas with the lowest Real Disposable Household Income (RDHI) per capita. As an unintended consequence, this has produced an outcome that greatly favours urban high population-based areas over rural areas.

Local Perspective 

Among our rural and remote authorities, there is profound disappointment with the UK Government’s recent decision to curtail the Local Growth Fund. This, coupled with the exclusion of some rural authorities from previous allocations of Pride in Place (PiP) funding, is the realisation of the worst fears regarding the prioritisation of remote and peripheral areas in a post-Brexit United Kingdom.

Even for areas that appear to be benefiting from the allocation, the shift to capital constrains what we can consider investment in and means projects benefiting now will end for something that might help in several years’ time.

The UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) represented a step down in financial value from the previous European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF) that were in place prior to the UK leaving the European Union. The European Union previously recognised the socio-economic challenges faced by more peripheral areas and prioritised regional development funds to such areas accordingly. 

The UK Government’s decision on funding for economic growth represents a real-terms removal of this lifeline funding. This is a major oversight, and it will be perceived by the rural community as a significant lack of regard from central government. 

Rural Potential Overlooked

Rural communities in Scotland possess vast economic potential: being at the forefront of the energy transition in the UK; leading on developments in the space industry; and having strong local industries, including fishing and aquaculture. 

Communities far from the central belt require bespoke support in order to stimulate growth. The decision to base allocation methodology on household income indices simply ignores the higher costs of living and doing business faced by rural, remote, and island communities in Scotland.

This comes alongside another very poor settlement that fails to address the dire financial situation of local government in Scotland. This means that councils are, at present, having to make difficult decisions and present proposals for cuts to services across the country. 

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

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

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

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.

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

For a sitting Health Secretary to use the word “gaslighting” about his own department’s flagship public institution is, by any measure, a significant moment. But does the strategy that’s been laid out actually deliver?

The Problem It’s Trying to Fix

The backdrop to this strategy is bleak. The Women and Equalities Committee, chaired by Labour MP Sarah Owen, delivered a damning parliamentary report in December 2024 that used the phrase “medical misogyny” without apology. It found that women experiencing painful reproductive conditions: endometriosis, adenomyosis, heavy menstrual bleeding, PMDD –  routinely have their symptoms dismissed, normalised, and minimised. Women, for years, were told to “suck it up.” Their pain, the committee concluded, was treated as a personality failing rather than a medical complaint. 

The statistics sit behind that language like a wall. As of December 2024, there were over 586,000 women on incomplete gynaecology pathways in the NHS, with nearly 45% of those patients waiting more than 18 weeks, far beyond the NHS standard. Almost 19,000 had been waiting longer than a year. Endometriosis, affecting roughly one in ten women, currently takes close to a decade to diagnose on average. The gynaecology waiting list has more than doubled in eight years. Female life expectancy has declined. Only the wealthiest third of women, the strategy’s own authors note, can expect to remain in good health until retirement.

This is not a niche policy issue. It is a crisis affecting millions of people’s daily lives: their careers, relationships, fertility, and mental health.

What the Strategy Actually Does

The renewed strategy is built around four pillars: centring women’s voices and choices; transforming NHS performance in the services that matter most to women; supporting all women to live healthy, prosperous lives; and creating a structural approach to reform under the wider 10-Year Health Plan.

Several concrete commitments stand out.

1. For the first time, the strategy introduces a guaranteed standard requiring that women are offered appropriate and effective pain relief for invasive gynaecological procedures, including contraceptive coil fittings and hysteroscopies. This is long overdue. Campaigners and clinicians have been pushing for this for years following high-profile accounts, including from BBC presenter Naga Munchetty, of traumatic coil fittings conducted without anaesthesia. A Mail on Sunday investigation found that up to a third of women received no pain relief at all during coil insertion, even after guidance recommending it was issued in 2021. The strategy now moves that guidance to a mandatory standard of care; a meaningful shift, if enforced.
2. Women will be directed to the right specialist at the first attempt through a new single referral system, rather than being “passed from one appointment to another,” in Streeting’s words. Action will be taken to cut the near-decade-long diagnostic wait for conditions like endometriosis.
3. Perhaps the most structurally significant element is the proposal to link women’s feedback directly to provider funding through a new trial. Streeting was explicit about the logic: “We need to hit medical misogyny where it hurts –  the wallet.” Services that fail to listen to women would, in theory, face financial consequences.
4. The strategy reaffirms the government’s earlier commitment to set an explicit target to close the Black and South Asian maternal mortality gap, an issue of profound inequality. Black women are currently approximately 2.3 times more likely to die during or shortly after pregnancy than white women; South Asian women are around 1.4 times more likely. The government says it will invest £50 million through the National Institute for Health and Care Research to tackle maternity disparities.
5. A £1 million investment in a menstrual education programme aims to help girls distinguish between normal and abnormal periods earlier. This matters: the parliamentary report found that sex education has consistently failed to teach girls what constitutes “normal” menstruation, which contributes to diagnostic delays that stretch into adulthood.

The strategy is embedded in the government’s wider 10-Year Health Plan and its ambition to shift care from hospitals into communities. New Neighbourhood Health Centres are envisaged as single, accessible points for women’s health — if they can replicate the success already shown by the existing Women’s Health Hubs model, where GP practices pool specialist services in areas like menopause care and coil fitting, this could be transformative.

What the Strategy Doesn’t Do — Yet

Progress has been “too slow” before. 

The 2022 Women’s Health Strategy, published under the Conservatives, contained similar commitments and similar rhetoric. The parliamentary inquiry found its progress had been insufficient. The risk with this iteration is the same: a well-intentioned document that struggles to translate into consistent practice across a fragmented NHS. Structural reforms, like shifting commissioning to bring gynaecology and contraception under single funding streams, remain complicated and have historically been resistant to top-down policy fixes.

The waiting list problem is immense. 

While the strategy pledges to cut the gynaecology waiting list, the scale of the backlog is daunting. Even the commitment to move patients from the independent sector — where spare private capacity exists — into state-funded treatment represents a significant logistical undertaking. The elective reform plan announced earlier this year aims to reduce the longest waits from 18 months to 18 weeks, but the timeline remains unclear.

“Medical misogyny” requires cultural change, not just clinical protocols. 

The Women and Equalities Committee was unambiguous: the problem is not simply a lack of resources. It is a culture of bias, normalisation, and dismissal, embedded across primary and secondary care. Sarah Owen, chair of the committee, described it as “not a criticism of male doctors” specifically, but a “systemic misogyny” that runs through the whole structure. A new standard of care mandating pain relief is a policy. Changing the underlying attitudes of clinicians requires sustained training, accountability, and cultural leadership over years.

Intersectional inequalities need more than targets. 

The commitment to close the black and Asian maternal mortality gap is welcome and long overdue, but setting a target is not the same as achieving it. Significant variation in access to perinatal mental health services by ethnicity persists. ICB budget cuts risk undermining the specialist programmes that disproportionately serve the women who need them most.

Does It Tackle Misogyny? 

That depends on what you think tackling misogyny in healthcare looks like.

If it means naming the problem honestly and committing the government’s authority to confronting it: yes, this strategy does that more forthrightly than anything that has come before it. The language is not a bureaucratic euphemism. Calling out a “system that gaslights women” from the despatch box, and then legislating pain standards and accountability mechanisms to match, represents a qualitative shift.

Weighing in here myself (as a woman), I am split into two minds: we are finally moving in a positive direction for women’s rights in healthcare, but the fact that it has taken this long for us to acknowledge the sexism occurring frustrates me.

The menopause, for example, has only been given recognition in recent years, and that was mostly through relentless campaigning from the Menopause Mandate, an incredibly powerful movement from dedicated women for the menopause to be recognised properly in healthcare. It was through an aunt of mine that I discovered the sheer amount of symptoms that occur during the menopause, and upon further research I realised just how little women are taught about their health in schools.

Testosterone is not included in NHS prescriptions, costing from £60 monthly, something that most women need to feel like “themselves” again. Out of curiosity, I recently read a book on how to deal with the perimenopause (called the Feel Good Fix), and despite it not being in my imminent future, it made me truly admire all the women who have fought so hard to raise awareness of menopausal symptoms, and that women should not “disappear” once they reach a certain point in their lives.

Women’s contraception currently has one of the longest lists of side effects possible from a medication, and Plan B was only recently made free in pharmacies. After watching a Loose Women debate about medieval contraceptive methods, the pain described from inserting an IUD without anaesthetic to me feels, quite frankly, torturous. The lack of education surrounding the pill and its effectiveness is also alarming – it is not common knowledge that antibiotics stop it from working, or that Plan B is less effective if you are over 155-165 pounds.

So while this new Women’s Health Strategy is a step in the right direction, it is important to note that it is just that – a step. There is much more awareness and education needed surrounding women’s health, but for now, a government that names the problem honestly has at least cleared the first hurdle. The women who’ve been waiting a decade for a diagnosis will be watching closely to see if it clears the rest.

Featured Image Credit: House of Commons on Flickr

Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE

Chair, Curia, Health, Care and Life Sciences Research Group

Following the publication of AI Is Ready. Is the System? report by Curia and UKAI, Chair of Curia’s Health, Care and Life Sciences Research Group and former Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care, Andrew Stephenson writes that the NHS is well positioned to lead in AI-driven healthcare, but the challenge has shifted from innovation to implementation.

Across government, the NHS, academia, and industry, there is broad agreement that AI and advanced data science will transform healthcare and life sciences, particularly within the NHS. The science is advancing rapidly. British universities are among the strongest in the world. Our life sciences sector contributes more than £100 billion to the economy and supports hundreds of thousands of skilled jobs.[i] We have longitudinal health records, high GP registration, and a unique ability to link data across the life course. In many respects, we are better positioned than almost any nation, especially considering the advancements in the NHS.

And yet, as these discussions make clear, the central challenge is no longer invention. It is implementation.

From Innovation to Implementation: Why the NHS Must Move Beyond Pilots

Too often, innovation in the NHS remains confined to pilots. Promising technologies are tested, evaluated and praised – and then stall before reaching routine practice. The reasons are not mysterious. They include fragmented procurement, unclear lines of accountability, data governance complexity, workforce pressures, and, at times, a cultural instinct to equate the status quo with safety.

We must challenge that assumption directly. Doing nothing is not risk-free. In a health system and NHS facing rising demand, workforce shortages, and widening inequalities, standing still carries consequences of its own. Innovation, when properly evaluated and safely deployed, is not a threat to patient safety – it is an essential route to improving it.

Aligning NHS Regulation, Infrastructure and Growth to Deliver AI at Scale

Throughout these roundtables, three themes emerged repeatedly.

First, system readiness matters as much as technological capability. AI tools do not deploy themselves. They depend on infrastructure, workforce confidence, digital maturity, and governance that is proportionate rather than paralysing. Building the bridge from innovation to adoption requires effort on both sides.

Second, regulatory reform must strike the right balance. We must be safe, but we must also be fast and trusted. The regulatory framework for medical devices was not designed with adaptive AI in mind. We therefore need approaches that allow continuous monitoring, post-market learning, and clear accountability, without creating unnecessary delay. Businesses need clarity, boards need assurance, and patients need confidence.

Third, we must align economic growth with NHS transformation. Startups and scaleups cannot wait two years for data access while their runway expires. Equally, trusts cannot be expected to underwrite infrastructure without national support. If we want Britain to retain sovereign capability in AI-enabled healthcare, we must ensure that procurement pathways, data environments, and funding models enable responsible domestic innovation to scale.

Prevention and predictive medicine are particularly instructive. The science in genomics and risk stratification is advancing rapidly. Yet our funding structures in the NHS remain weighted toward treating illness rather than anticipating it. If we are serious about shifting from reactive to preventative healthcare, budgetary and accountability frameworks must evolve accordingly.

As Chair of Curia’s Health, Care and Life Sciences Research Group, my focus is on turning policy into practice. It is not enough to announce strategies. We must translate ambition into delivery at trust, system, and national level.

The discussions summarised in this report are candid – but practical. They highlight barriers to the adoption of AI in the NHS, but they also demonstrate appetite for change. Clinicians want tools that give them more time with patients. Innovators want clarity and partnership. Policymakers want solutions that improve outcomes and support growth.

Our task now is to convert shared insight into coordinated action. If we do so, the UK can become not just a leader in AI research, but a leader in responsible, system-wide deployment – improving patient care, strengthening our healthcare and life sciences sectors, and ensuring the NHS remains sustainable for generations to come.

References

[i] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-sciences-sector-plan-to-grow-economy-and-transform-nhs

Richard Kilpatrick

Head of Campaigns at the European Movement

News this week that the Government plans to use secondary legislation to dynamically align with certain EU standards has stirred debate. Yet aligning with Europe and evolving Single Market rules is exactly what many UK businesses have been calling for, and secondary legislation is the most flexible way to achieve it. It allows ministers to amend rules where it is in the national interest.

So-called “Henry VIII clauses” are a longstanding feature of the UK’s legislative process, enabling ministers to amend or repeal primary legislation without passing a new Act. Designed for responsiveness, they mean Parliament does not need to legislate afresh each time the EU updates its rules.

A Familiar Political Backlash

Cue familiar claims of “tyranny”, “lack of scrutiny”, and “Brexit by the back door”. Before critics rush to condemn Keir Starmer for deploying these powers, it is worth recalling how frequently they have been used in recent years.

Henry VIII powers were used extensively to deliver Brexit itself. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 granted ministers sweeping authority to revoke, replace or restate EU-derived laws. Secondary legislation was then used to determine the future of hundreds, potentially thousands, of measures across nearly 300 policy areas, from workers’ rights to environmental protections and food standards. This occurred alongside the abolition of the European Scrutiny Committee in 2024, removing Parliament’s dedicated mechanism for overseeing EU-related matters.

The Same Tools, A New Direction

Now the same legislative tools are set to facilitate alignment with EU standards in areas such as food and drink imports, access to the European electricity market, and emissions trading. More sectors are likely to follow as the Government builds on its “reset” with the European Union and explores future access to the Single Market and its 460 million consumers.

Secondary legislation is the most practical way to keep pace with evolving regulatory frameworks. It offers the flexibility to respond quickly without overloading the primary legislative timetable. Crucially, the enabling primary legislation will still pass through Parliament, allowing scrutiny of the mechanism itself, as in 2023.

Scrutiny and the Economic Case

Supporters of closer alignment should not dismiss concerns about oversight. Henry VIII clauses are typically subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring debate and approval in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. That provides a higher level of scrutiny than applies to many statutory instruments.

Greater scrutiny should be welcomed, not resisted. Rather than relitigating old arguments, ministers should use this moment to strengthen parliamentary oversight. That could include reinstating the European Scrutiny Committee and working more closely with groups such as the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Europe to ensure Parliament plays a full role in shaping the UK’s evolving relationship with Europe.

Dynamic alignment is not just a constitutional issue; it is an economic necessity. Red tape remains a significant barrier for UK businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises that form the backbone of the economy. For many, it directly constrains trade. Closer alignment could unlock access to the Single Market and enable more frictionless trade with European partners.

It must also be recognised that these are “gateway drugs”: the UK–EU reset depends on much more than easier trading with the bloc and eliminating unnecessary red tape. Youth mobility, Erasmus and Horizon have never been headline-grabbers, but they are important, and offerings of reconciliation: the easy pickings that demonstrate a willingness to leave the egregious absolutism of the “hard Brexit” behind. It was never a requirement. What can follow, if that hand is played carefully, is a boost to the economy that seemingly cannot be achieved by any other means, and which is needed from any Chancellor willing to take the coldest look at what needs to be done.

In the most pragmatic terms, from energy, to defence to trade, whatever needless barriers to growth can be undone, whatever opens the UK up once again to investment and trade, cannot come a moment too soon. At the moment, one option is staring us all in the face.

Photo Credit: Alexandre Lallemand (Unsplash)

Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary, Ed Miliband described the announcement as “a major milestone for Britain’s energy security”, emphasising that clean, homegrown power is essential to reducing reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets.

The decision reflects a wider shift in UK policy – towards long-term energy independence, resilience, and the rapid deployment of low-carbon infrastructure.

“A Historic Step” for Clean Power and Jobs

Industry leaders have been quick to underline the scale of the opportunity. Chief Executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, Tom Greatrex called the project “a historic step for clean power, industrial growth and skilled jobs in Wales”, adding that it marks “a significant and exciting new phase for the project and the people of Ynys Môn.”

The development is expected to support around 8,000 jobs, including approximately 3,000 roles at the Wylfa site and thousands more across the UK supply chain. It is also set to attract substantial investment into local communities and reinforce Britain’s industrial base.

Chancellor, Rachel Reeves framed the project as central to the government’s economic strategy, stating it will “strengthen our energy security, create skilled jobs and help to build a new generation of homegrown nuclear technology.”

Government: “National Renewal in Action”

The Wylfa project sits at the heart of the Government’s clean energy mission. Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer described the initiative as part of a broader national renewal, saying:

“We’re using all the tools in our armoury…to deliver the country’s first SMR in North Wales.”

He added that the programme will deliver “thousands of future-proofed jobs” and “cheaper energy bills in the long term.”

Similarly, Secretary of State for Wales, Jo Stevens called the announcement “one of the largest public investments in Welsh history”, highlighting its role in driving regional growth and prosperity.

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband reinforced this framing, stating:

“This landmark investment proves Britain can still build big projects that stand the test of time.”

Industry: A “Golden Age of New Nuclear”

For industry, the Wylfa decision signals the beginning of a broader nuclear revival. CEO of Rolls-Royce SMR, Chris Cholerton described the agreement as:

“The first step in what will be a 100-year commitment to clean energy, innovation, and community partnership.”

He added that the project will transform how nuclear infrastructure is delivered, using modular, factory-built components to “minimise the impact on local people” while increasing cost and schedule certainty.

Interim Chair for Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N), Simon Bowen echoed this, calling the deal:

“A historic moment for the UK…strengthening the UK’s energy independence and bringing long-term investment to the local economy.”

Meanwhile, GBE-N Chief Executive Officer, Simon Roddy described the agreement as a “landmark moment for the nuclear industry”, highlighting its role in supporting skills, innovation, and industrial capability across the UK.

Regional and Economic Transformation

The impact on North Wales is expected to be transformative. First Minister of Wales, Baroness Eluned Morgan described the decision as:

“The moment Ynys Môn and the whole of Wales has been waiting for…secure jobs and secure energy for the next generation.”

Business leaders have also welcomed the announcement. Ben Martin noted that nuclear expansion is critical to powering homes and businesses, while supporting skills development and SMEs across the supply chain.

Similarly, CEO of West Cheshire & North Wales Chamber of Commerce, Sarah Bailey described the project as “a transformative moment for North Wales”, pointing to its long-term impact on regional prosperity and innovation.

A Strategic Shift in How Britain Builds

At the centre of the Wylfa project is a new delivery model. SMRs are designed to be built in factories and assembled on-site, reducing costs, accelerating timelines, and improving scalability.

The three planned units are expected to generate enough electricity to power around three million homes for over 60 years, positioning SMRs as a key pillar of the UK’s future energy mix.

The Government has already committed billions in funding, alongside additional support from the National Wealth Fund, to de-risk the programme and attract private investment.

From Legacy Site to Future Leader

Wylfa’s selection is also symbolic. Once home to a nuclear power station that operated for over four decades before closing in 2015, the site now represents the next chapter in Britain’s nuclear story.

After years of stalled proposals, the revival of Wylfa signals renewed confidence in nuclear energy as both an economic driver and a strategic asset.

Beyond domestic priorities, the project positions the UK as a leader in next-generation nuclear technology. With potential export opportunities already emerging, SMRs could become a cornerstone of Britain’s industrial strategy.

As Greatrex put it, the sector now stands ready to put “Britain at the forefront of new nuclear development.”

Final Thought: ADefining Test for Delivery

The Wylfa SMR programme is more than an infrastructure project – it is a test of whether the UK can deliver large-scale, complex developments at pace.

With final investment decisions still to come and timelines stretching into the 2030s, delivery will be critical. But the alignment between government, industry, and regional stakeholders suggests a level of momentum not seen in decades.

If successful, Wylfa will not just power millions of homes, it will redefine how Britain builds its energy future.

(Photo: Open Government Licence v3.0)

Chris Sherwood

Chief Executive Officer at the NSPCC

Nudification: drawing on evidence from Childline cases and online monitoring, Chris Sherwood argues for stronger legal duties on AI developers and platforms to prevent the generation of child abuse material.

At the NSPCC, we are deeply concerned about the dangers children are facing from artificial intelligence.

While AI presents wonderful opportunities, it also poses significant safety risks to young people.

It’s a powerful tool that can easily be misused. Generative AI has made it terrifyingly easy for offenders to create abuse material at scale.

We’re no longer talking about hypothetical dangers or future threats. The harm is happening right now, in real time, to real children, and the systems meant to protect them are nowhere near strong enough.

Nudification Harm is Already Happening

Reports of AI-generated child sexual abuse material are growing at an alarming rate. The Internet Watch Foundation recorded a fourfold increase in this material in their annual report published last year.

Perpetrators are using image generators and nudification apps to create hyper-realistic child sexual abuse material, which can be used to abuse and blackmail young people.

Publicly available open-source AI models, such as Stability AI and Black Forest Labs, have been exploited by perpetrators to create child sexual abuse material.

It’s likely we only know a fraction of these cases, as offenders can edit and manipulate open-source models out of sight of the platforms and law enforcement.

This is simply not good enough, and we can’t allow it to continue.

Recent reports that X’s Grok has been misused to create child sexual abuse material and enable the creation of semi-naked and naked images of adults and children are inexcusable, and they show that this illegal content can be generated on popular social media sites and then used to harm children.

Devastatingly, through Childline, we are hearing from young people who experience abuse caused by the misuse of generative AI.

One 16-year-old boy, who contacted the service, told us that a girl claiming to be his age made fake sexual images of him and threatened to share them to his friends unless he sent her £200.

We are also hearing firsthand from young people about the devastating impact on their safety, mental health, and wellbeing when nude images of them are created and shared.

Each contact we receive illustrates to me that much more needs to be done to address the harms children tell us they are experiencing because of the misuse of AI.

Where the Law Falls Short

Currently, there is a patchwork of different legislation that protects children against some AI risk. This includes the Online Safety Act, which goes some way to mitigating the dangers by requiring many AI companies to conduct risk assessments and remove AI-generated child sexual abuse material when detected.

However, many AI chatbots are not in-scope of the Act. Grok was alarmingly easy to exploit and put children at risk of having illegal material generated of them, which could be used to bully, extort or torment.

It’s clear that the Online Safety Act does not require services to robustly test their training data to ensure child sexual abuse material cannot be generated, before models are rolled out.

The Crime and Policing Bill, currently progressing through Parliament, has a number of new measures to tackle AI-generated child sexual abuse material, which we welcome. These include criminalising image generators that have been designed to create this illegal content and banning nudification apps.

Criminalising these functions is a positive step. However, I believe that a more preventative approach is needed to ensure this content is not created in the first place.

Without stronger, comprehensive safeguards, we leave loopholes that offenders can exploit, putting children at serious risk.

A Preventative Duty of Care for AI

The NSPCC is calling for the creation of a Statutory Duty of Care for Children’s Safety, ensuring that there are comprehensive protections in place for children across all AI products and services.

As part of this Duty of Care, AI developers would be required to robustly test their models to ensure that child sexual abuse material cannot be generated on their service.

This would mean ensuring no images of children are included in datasets and requiring platforms to work with trusted partners to safely test models using sets of known child sexual abuse material.

The UK’s world-leading AI Security Institute, which already conducts tests on some of the most-used AI platforms in the world, should also support the effort to protect children.

We believe their role should be expanded to help prevent the creation of child sexual abuse material.

This Duty of Care would also ensure that children are always protected when they interact with AI-generated content, such as being able to report fake nude images of themselves.

I also think that practical guidance for parents and education in schools should be provided to give everyone a better understanding of the risks of this new technology.

These requirements and new support would help ensure that services are held fully accountable for protecting children from this horrific type of online abuse and stopping illegal activity at source.

We must act now. Unless technology companies are compelled to use every tool available to combat this sinister and illegal abuse, children will continue to pay the price.

The digital world is a fundamental part of young people’s lives; they must be able to enjoy its benefits whilst staying safe.

Image Credit: Shutterstock

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

You can buy your copy here.

Retailers including Lidl and Amazon, alongside manufacturers such as EcoFlow, are working with government to bring the technology to the UK market. The systems, already widely used across Europe, allow households to plug solar panels directly into a standard mains socket, reducing the amount of electricity drawn from the grid and cutting energy bills.

Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary, Ed Miliband said the policy was driven by both energy security and the cost of living crisis.

“The Government is determined to fight people’s corner in this crisis, which is why we have acted to prevent unfair practices like price gouging and provided immediate help for the most vulnerable facing spiralling heating oil prices.

The Iran War has once again shown our drive for clean power is essential for our energy security so we can escape the grip of fossil fuel markets we don’t control.

Whether through solar panels fitted as standard on new homes or making it possible for people to purchase plug-in solar in shops, we are determined to roll out clean power so we can give our country energy sovereignty.”

Housing, Communities, and Local Government Secretary, Steve Reed said the reforms would also ensure new homes are cheaper to run.

“Building 1.5 million new homes also means building high-quality homes that are cheaper to run and warmer to live in.

“As we make the switch to clean, homegrown energy, today’s standard is what the future of housing can and should look like. Not only will these changes protect hardworking families from shocks abroad but will also slash hundreds of pounds off their energy bills every year.”

Future Homes Standard and Discounted Wind Power

Alongside plug-in solar, the Government confirmed that the Future Homes Standard will require most new homes in England to be built with solar panels and low-carbon heating systems as standard. These homes could save families up to £830 per year on energy bills and produce at least 75% fewer carbon emissions compared to homes built to 2013 standards.

The Government is also launching a new scheme to offer discounted electricity on windy days in areas where wind farms are currently paid to switch off due to grid constraints. Instead of wasting excess wind energy, households and businesses – particularly in Scotland and the East of England – will be offered cheaper electricity during periods of high wind generation.

Industry and Energy Sector Reaction

The announcement was widely welcomed across the energy sector, with retailers, suppliers, investors and industry bodies backing the reforms.

Georgina Hall, Corporate Affairs Director at Lidl GB, said:

“At Lidl GB, we are committed to making sustainable living affordable for everyone and we welcome the Government’s move to modernise regulations in the UK. Updating the regulatory landscape for this ‘plug-and-play’ technology is a positive step towards empowering British households to manage their energy costs and support the nation’s net-zero ambitions.”

Greg Jackson, Founder and CEO of Octopus Energy, said:

“People want to be free of these fossil fuel crises – since the conflict in the Middle East began, interest in solar has shot up 50%, heat pump and electric cars are also seeing surges.

“Every solar panel, heat pump and battery cuts bills and boosts Britain’s energy independence. And the Government’s latest steps can help cut the costs of electrification.

“With solar, many homes can produce and use their own electricity, and cut their bills further by selling the excess back to us. With heat pumps and electric cars, their own electricity can slash heating and driving bills – stuff you simply can’t do with gas and petrol.

“And it’s great that the Government want to give homes and businesses cheap electricity on windy days instead of paying wind farms to switch off. Once this is permanent, companies and families will be able to invest confidently in electric vehicles, batteries and heat pumps – knowing they’ll be cheap to run.”

Chris Norbury, Chief Executive of E.ON UK, said:

“Cutting red tape on plug-in solar is an encouraging move and we will help ensure it works alongside, or as part of, whole-home solutions that genuinely empower people to take control of their energy use and cut bills.
At E.ON Next, we’re already seeing how powerful that shift can be. Whether it’s giving customers more control through innovative time of use tariffs or helping people get income from generating and storing energy at home via steerable assets, the direction is clear: simplicity, transparency and providing real financial rewards for doing the right thing.

“Pair that with future homes built to a genuinely modern standard that prioritise affordable living and you start to build a system that works with and for people, not around them. The opportunity now is scale and simplicity. If we get that right, this isn’t just policy, it’s progress. It’s how we make new energy work – for everyone.”

Chris O’Shea, CEO of Centrica, added:

“As the UK’s biggest installer of low-carbon heating, we welcome today’s announcements, including the Future Homes Standard. It’s a chance to ensure new homes come ready for the full benefits of modern energy systems – where low-carbon heating, solar and smart technology are designed to work together from the start and reduce energy consumption. Our army of engineers stand ready to continue to keep Britain’s homes warm.”

Josh Buckland, Strategy & Policy Director at EDF, said:

“Electrification is fundamental to future proofing the country with homegrown electricity putting Britain back in charge of its destiny and helping keeping bills low for all in the long term. This is why we welcome the Government’s Future Homes Standard and the decision that all new homes will have clean heating as standard. We are also pleased to see the focus on unlocking further investment in solar, offering customers a practical way to reduce both their bills and their impact on the environment.”

Dhara Vyas, Chief Executive of Energy UK, said:

“The Future Homes Standard is a landmark moment for clean energy in Britain. New homes built under this standard will benefit from clean heating solutions and solar, protecting households from volatile gas prices and putting energy security within the home itself.

“Combined with higher fabric efficiency standards, these homes will be warmer and cheaper to run – offering real and tangible change in people’s homes.

“Critically, plans for rooftop solar with the possibility for households to export excess energy back to the grid mark a genuine shift in how people can engage with the energy transition, easily allowing them to save money from an increasingly flexible energy system.

“The Future Homes Standard gives businesses the long-term certainty they need to invest in manufacturing, scale up supply chains, and build the skilled workforce that will make the targets set in the Warm Homes Plan a reality.”

Chris Hewett, Chief Executive of Solar Energy UK, said:

“Expanding solar energy and battery storage is a rapid and inexpensive solution to the looming energy crisis – for cutting bills, for the economy and for our nation’s energy security. From the largest installations to the smallest domestic systems, every battery and panel counts towards weaning us off reliance on imported and polluting fossil fuels. That’s why ensuring that new homes and other buildings are built with solar and boosting retrofits is so vital, and so welcome.”

Charlotte Lee, Chief Executive of HPA UK, said:

“We are delighted to get confirmation that following a transition period, all new homes and buildings will benefit from low carbon heating such as heat pumps and heat networks. Coupled with solar PV, heat pumps and connections to heat networks provide a future proofed solution which will strengthen the UK’s energy security.”

Dave Sowden, Chief Executive of the Sustainable Energy Association, said:

“We are delighted to see the publication of the Future Homes and Buildings Standard, which will provide much needed clarity for the low carbon heating and energy efficiency sectors. Today’s news will mean that the UK’s future building stock will provide residents with warm, comfortable, efficient, and cost-effective homes for decades to come.

“Additionally, it is encouraging to see the Government recognise exciting low carbon innovations such as plug-in solar. The technology will be welcomed by consumers and businesses as we navigate the uncertain long-term impact on fuel bills due to a range of geopolitical factors.”

Madeleine Gabriel, Director of Sustainable Future at Nesta, said:

“Many households are understandably concerned about paying for rising energy costs in the future because of the volatility of fossil fuel prices. With the Government now making it even easier to switch to electricity to heat and power your home, there has never been a better time for people to consider installing solar panels, storage batteries and heat pumps.”

Mike Childs, Head of Policy at Friends of the Earth, said:

“Making it easier to install plug-in solar panels and ensuring new homes come with heat pumps and solar power is a welcome step that will help protect families from future price shocks.
But we must go further to end our reliance on fossil fuels, strengthen energy security and cut the carbon pollution driving the climate crisis.”

Rachel Solomon Williams, Executive Director of the Aldersgate Group, said:

“Measures that require homes and commercial buildings to include low-carbon heating and energy efficiency would play an important role in driving the transition. To ensure that these measures also contribute to reduced bills for households and businesses, it will be vital to continue work on addressing the rising cost of electricity.”

Garry Felgate, CEO of The MCS Foundation, said:

“The confirmation that the majority of all new homes in England will have solar panels and low carbon heating systems such as heat pumps is very good news – for energy security, for the UK’s progress toward a carbon-free future, and for the countless households that will benefit as a result.”

Janine Michael, Chief Executive at the Centre for Sustainable Energy, said:

“The Future Homes Standard is a significant step forward in futureproofing our homes and our energy system. Building solar and low carbon heating into new builds as standard will create jobs, strengthen energy security and cut household bills, accelerating the green transition.”

Elli Moody, Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said:

“Mandating solar panels on new homes and making solar more accessible to renters as well as homeowners will deliver meaningful climate action without placing further pressure on iconic landscapes and productive farmland.”

Ed Lockhart, Chief Executive of the Future Homes Hub, said:

“The publication of the Future Homes Standard isn’t just about a change in regulation – it’s a promise to consumers that new homes will be more comfortable, more efficient, and more secure against the volatility of unstable fossil fuel markets.”

Dr Tom Dollard, Chair of the Good Homes Alliance, said:

“The Good Homes Alliance welcomes the launch of the Future Homes and Building Standard as a positive step towards net zero and low energy homes.”

Lorna Wallace-Smith, Head of UK Communications for EcoFlow, said:

“Allowing plug-and-play solar is a very positive step for expanding access to renewable energy in the UK. Seeing these systems available in stores by summer would be a major win for households.”

James Alexander, CEO of the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association, said:

“Well-implemented guidelines that raise the overall quality and sustainability of new properties can attract billions in private investment, support thousands of skilled jobs and contribute to wider economic growth.”

Lawrence Slade, Chief Executive of the Energy Networks Association, said:

“Today is a significant step in the UK’s clean energy transition and in supporting the connection of additional home-grown solar power.”

Charlie Mercer, Policy Director at Startup Coalition, said:

“Today marks another excellent step forward in placing innovation and cutting-edge technologies at the heart of the UK’s energy security agenda.”

Mohamed Gaafar, Co-Founder and CEO of Gryd Energy, said:

“This is a landmark moment that will redefine the role of homes in the UK’s energy system.”

Simon McWhirter, CEO of the UK Green Building Council, said:

“We welcome the Government’s decision to adopt the more ambitious Future Homes Standard, putting new homes firmly on a path away from fossil fuels.”

A Structural Shift in the UK Energy System

Taken together, the introduction of plug-in solar, the Future Homes Standard, and discounted wind power represent a structural shift in how energy is generated, used and paid for in the UK. The direction of travel is clear: more decentralised energy, more electrification, and more control for households over their own energy costs.

If implemented at scale, these reforms could fundamentally reshape the UK’s energy system – turning homes from passive energy consumers into active energy producers, while strengthening national energy security and reducing exposure to global fossil fuel markets.

Find out more

To find out more about Curia’s Clean Energy and Environment Research Group, contact Partnerships Director, Ben McDermott at ben.mcdermott@chamberuk.com.