Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has plunged the British farming industry into deep financial uncertainty, driving sharp increases in the cost of fuel and fertiliser. Red diesel prices have soared by 60%, while nitrogen fertiliser is now approximately £50 more expensive per tonne compared with 2025. For farmers already operating on narrow margins, increased pressure on production has exacerbated concerns over profitability and long-term resilience.

Against this backdrop, the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has unveiled a new Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI26): a £240 million scheme designed to support family farms, strengthen resilience, and help industry stakeholders meet the demands of modern agriculture. The funding package also includes an additional £50 million for new Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier (CSHT) agreements, available from this year to support targeted environmental improvements where they will have the greatest impact.

This announcement represents one of the Labour Government’s more significant interventions in rural policy since taking office, but questions remain over whether the funding package will be sufficient to achieve its ambitious environmental goals.

Public Money for Public Goods: Sustainable Farming Incentive

The scheme forms part of the government’s wider Environmental Land Management (ELM) framework, which is centred around the principle of “public money for public goods”. Under this approach, farmers receive financial support in exchange for adopting practices that deliver environmental benefits. These include improving biodiversity, protecting wildlife habitats, enhancing water quality, reducing soil degradation, and helping communities become more resilient to environmental hazards such as flooding and drought.

According to Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds, SFI26 seeks to address the inadequacies of the previous Sustainable Farming Incentive, which was suspended in 2025 after reaching its funding cap. Ministers argue that the earlier scheme disproportionately benefited larger landowners; Reynolds claims that “a quarter of funding went to just four percent of farms”.

The revised programme is intended to be simpler, fairer, and more accessible, particularly for smaller and family-run farms which often struggle with administrative requirements. Announcing the package, Reynolds explained, “We redesigned it to be simpler and fairer, helping more farms grow, boost productivity and protect the natural environment they depend on”.

A Gap Between Funding and Ambition?

However, this announcement has already been met with concerns that the package will not stretch far enough. The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) has welcomed efforts to simplify and broaden access to environmental funding but argues that government ambition is not being matched by investment.

Vice-President Robyn Munt is reportedly “incredibly frustrated” and has warned that “the budget won’t stretch far enough to support those already delivering for nature to move into SFI26”. For the NFU, the issue is not simply how funding is distributed, but whether it will enable farmers to deliver on the government’s own environmental and food-security objectives.

These concerns are heightened by an already strained relationship between the British farming community and the Labour administration. Rachel Reeves’ 2024 budget proved unpopular among farmers, particularly the proposed reforms to Agricultural Property Relief which limit inheritance tax exemptions on family farms. Celebrity farm owner, Jeremy Clarkson, has been particularly vocal in his criticism of Government measures, condemning the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s plan as “actively anti-farming”.

In the latest episode of Clarkson’s Farm, he also expressed frustration over the bureaucracy associated with accessing the revised CSHT grants, clashing with farm manager Charlie Ireland over specifications required for a government-funded ‘small leaky woody dam’ project. His objections highlight a tension at the heart of Labour’s reforms: whether the government can simplify access to environmental funding while maintaining the standards required to produce positive ecological outcomes.

It is clear that the Government has set out an ambitious, legally binding vision for sustainable agriculture, but whether SFI26 can successfully cut the red tape, deliver meaningful environmental gains, and rebuild farmers’ trust, remains to be seen.

You can still get a copy of our new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Hawkstone and Number 10

The letter reads as a stark warning about the UK’s defence position. Healey lays out a record of achievements under the Government: increased defence spending, strengthened alliances, major export deals, and the publication of a Strategic Defence Review. Yet the tone is brutal when addressing funding.

At the heart of the disagreement is the long-delayed Defence Investment Plan (DIP). Healey argues that the financial settlement agreed by the Treasury “falls short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time.” He says funding increases are, in his view, backloaded, while immediate operational pressures demand urgent investment.

His conclusion is that by remaining in post he would have to accept decisions that could reduce military readiness and “increase the risk to personnel on operations.”

Mounting Pressure on the Prime Minister

The timing of the resignation is politically challenging for the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister is preparing to attend the G7 summit on Monday, where he is expected to meet with US President, Donald Trump. Such meetings typically require a strong and stable domestic footing, particularly on defence and international security. Starmer was already under pressure on defence spending prior to the resignation. Therefore, expect Trump to humiliate the Prime Minister following Healey’s departure over defence spending.

The resignation also feeds into a broader narrative of strain within government and the Parliamentary Labour Party. While the letter is respectful and measured, its content signals a significant policy divide at the top of government – specifically between defence priorities and Treasury constraints.

Politically, the immediate question is not only about defence policy, but about leadership stability. Although there is no indication of an imminent Cabinet move against the Prime Minister, the absence of certain key figures in Westminster may delay any collective response. Nonetheless, the symbolic damage is immediate.

Defence Spending: The Core Fault Line

Healey’s resignation centres on a fundamental disagreement over defence spending. The former Defence Secretary makes clear that he supports a faster and more ambitious funding increase, including hitting 3% of GDP by 2030.

By contrast, the current plan outlined in his letter would see spending rise more slowly, reaching around 2.68% by 2030 – barely above levels already projected. To Healey, this is insufficient given the scale of global threats.

He explicitly references intelligence assessments suggesting a potential Russian attack on NATO “as soon as 2030”. This framing elevates the dispute beyond routine budgetary wrangling, positioning it as an urgent matter of national security.

The letter also highlights expanding UK commitments, from Middle Eastern operations to leadership roles in NATO missions, and increased involvement in Ukraine. In this context, Healey argues that underfunding risks undermining both operational capability and international credibility.

Beyond domestic politics, the resignation could have implications for the UK’s international status. Healey emphasises the importance of alliances and the UK’s leadership role within NATO. His departure raises questions about continuity in defence leadership at a time of heightened global tension.

There are also immediate practical uncertainties. A planned visit to a drone facility, expected to be attended by the Prime Minister alongside John Healey and Al Cairns, now comes into question. With Healey no longer in post, it is unclear whether the visit will proceed in its original form, be reshaped, or be postponed altogether.

Such visits are typically designed to showcase defence innovation and government commitment to military capability. Any disruption risks reinforcing perceptions of instability at the top of defence policymaking.

The Prime Minister now faces a politically dangerous balancing act. On one hand, maintaining fiscal discipline remains central to the Government’s economic strategy. On the other, Healey’s resignation amplifies calls for increased defence spending at a time of rising geopolitical risk.

In his closing remarks, Healey offers continued support for the Government, suggesting the split is one of policy rather than personal rupture. However, the public nature of his critique ensures the issue will remain at the forefront of political debate. As Starmer heads to the G7 summit, he does so under intensified scrutiny – not only from international partners, but from within his own party and government.

Healey’s departure has transformed what might have been a managed policy disagreement into a significant political crisis – one that could bring down a Prime Minister.

Photo Credit: Simon Dawson, No.10 Downing Street

You can still get a copy of our new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

The duty, introduced through the Equality Act 2010, requires public bodies to consider how their decisions affect people with protected characteristics, including age, disability, race, sex, pregnancy, and sexual orientation. It applies across schools, hospitals, councils, police forces and other public authorities.

For Badenoch, the duty has become a symbol of what she argues is wrong with the modern state. In her speech at the Institute of Government, she claimed that public bodies have “spent so long worrying about institutional racism that they have become institutionally incompetent”. Her argument is that equality law has drifted from protecting individuals against discrimination into encouraging public institutions to treat groups differently.

The phrase that will likely define the speech was her claim that equality law should be “a shield, not a sword”. It was a direct attempt to draw a distinction between anti-discrimination protections, which she says should remain, and public sector processes she believes have become bureaucratic, divisive and counterproductive.

Scrapping the Public Sector Equality Duty

The Conservatives are presenting the policy as part of a wider programme to “restore common sense” in public life. Badenoch argued that the Public Sector Equality Duty should not be replaced with a new mechanism, but removed altogether.

That position has drawn a lot of attention. The duty is not a small administrative rule, it is a long-standing principal that has acted as a foundation for how government acts with service users. It is one of the main ways public authorities are expected to show they have thought about equality when making decisions. Supporters argue that it helps prevent disadvantage from being overlooked, particularly in areas such as disability, maternity, race, secuality, and access to services.

Badenoch’s criticism is that the duty has encouraged the wrong kind of decision making. She says it has led institutions to focus on process, categories and perceived group interests rather than fairness, competence, and equal treatment under the law.

Her opponents have moved quickly to challenge that framing. Labour has argued that removing the duty would weaken protections for women, disabled people and older workers. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has defended the purpose of the duty, saying it helps public authorities make better decisions.

The Reform and Labour pressure

The speech also shows how much pressure Badenoch is under in trying to demonstrate that anyone is listening. Reform UK has pushed harder on the issue, arguing that the Conservatives are still not going far enough. Labour, meanwhile, is strengthening its own emphasis on socio-economic background, including within the civil service.

Badenoch’s answer is to try to occupy a half way house. She is not calling for the whole Equality Act to be scrapped, but she is arguing that the public sector duty has warped the law’s purpose. She believes this will give the Conservatives a sharper message than they have had on equality policy for some time.

The risk is that the argument becomes trapped in culture war territory. Many voters are frustrated by bureaucracy in public services, but they will also want reassurance that removing the duty would not weaken protection against discrimination.

A Test of Seriousness

Badenoch’s speech will appeal to Conservatives who want the party to challenge what they see as institutional overreach and identity-based decision making. It also gives her leadership a firmer ideological shape.

But the policy now needs detail. Which obligations would disappear? How would public bodies be expected to prove fairness in decision making? What safeguards would remain for groups who already struggle to be heard? Several of these questions were asked of Shadow Equalities Minister, Claire Coutinho on the media round this morning, but answers were batted off with further promises of reviews and internal policy discussions.

Those questions matter because the Conservatives cannot simply argue that the current system is flawed. They need to show that their alternative would improve public services, strengthen public trust and preserve the principle of equal treatment.

Badenoch has chosen equality law as a major battleground. Whether that becomes a serious governing agenda or another front in Britain’s culture wars will depend on what comes next.

You can still get a copy of our new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: The Conservative Party

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) withdrawal would do little to address illegal migration while creating serious constitutional, diplomatic and security risks for the United Kingdom, according to a major new report launched this week by the Conservative European Forum (CEF).

Authored by former Attorney General Rt Hon Dominic Grieve KC, the report argues that leaving the European Convention on Human Rights has become a “false solution” to a complex and pressing challenge. Instead of pursuing withdrawal, Grieve calls for reform of the Convention’s application in migration cases, closer cooperation with European partners, and practical measures to improve returns and border enforcement.

The report, Patchwork Quilts and Threadbare Solutions: Why Proposals to Control Irregular Migration by Leaving the ECHR Would Not Work, directly challenges the growing argument within Conservative circles that departure from the Convention is a necessary prerequisite for tougher immigration controls.

According to the report, the evidence does not support claims that the ECHR has significantly obstructed the UK’s ability to deport foreign criminals or control irregular migration. Between April 2016 and June 2021, only 922 foreign national offenders successfully appealed deportation on human rights grounds, representing around 3.5 per cent of all deportation cases. Appeals based solely on Article 8 family life rights accounted for an even smaller proportion.

Since 1980, there have been only twenty-nine judgments by the European Court of Human Rights concerning removals from the UK, with just thirteen resulting in findings against the Government. The UK was found in breach of the Convention only once in 2023 and once in 2024.

ECHR Reform Rather Than Withdrawal

Rather than advocating withdrawal, the report calls for substantial reform of how Convention rights are interpreted in immigration cases.

Grieve argues that Article 3 protections concerning healthcare and prison conditions should be more narrowly applied, while Article 8 family life considerations require firmer guidance for immigration tribunals and officials. He also supports domestic reforms including changes to the Human Rights Act, a strengthened public interest test in immigration cases, and the introduction of a single appeals route modelled on the Danish system.

“The current Conservative policy to leave the ECHR is not merely flawed and incapable of delivering its stated objectives to tackle illegal migration – it is actively preventing us from developing policies that could work,” Grieve said.

The report also highlights the opportunity presented by the recent European migration summit in Chișinău, where several countries discussed reforming migration frameworks and strengthening cooperation on returns.

Among its recommendations are a new European sanctions regime targeting countries that refuse to accept the return of their nationals, closer collaboration with the European Union, and renewed UK access to key security databases including Eurodac and the Schengen Information System (SIS II).

Constitutional and Security Risks

A significant section of the report focuses on the wider consequences of withdrawing from the Convention.

It argues that leaving the ECHR would create substantial constitutional difficulties across the UK. Convention rights are embedded within the devolution settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, while the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement explicitly commits the UK to incorporating Convention rights into Northern Irish law.

The report warns that withdrawal could undermine political stability in Northern Ireland and provoke fresh disputes over the interpretation of the peace settlement.

Beyond domestic concerns, Grieve argues that departure from the Convention could damage Britain’s standing within the Council of Europe and potentially jeopardise aspects of UK-EU security cooperation. Existing arrangements covering law enforcement cooperation, passenger data sharing, extradition processes and access to criminal intelligence systems could all come under pressure.

The report notes that abandoning the ECHR would not remove many of the legal protections currently available to migrants, as the UK would remain bound by a range of international treaties and longstanding common law principles, including obligations relating to non-refoulement.

A European Solution to a European Challenge

The report concludes that irregular migration is a challenge shared across Europe and one that requires coordinated international action rather than unilateral withdrawal from established legal frameworks.

CEF President Sir David Lidington said the Conservative Party was right to prioritise migration but argued that proposals to leave the ECHR required much greater scrutiny. He pointed to previous examples, including the Brighton Declaration negotiations, as evidence that meaningful reform of the Convention can be achieved through political engagement.

Former Justice Secretary Sir Robert Buckland similarly argued that the UK should seize the opportunity to shape reforms already being discussed across Europe rather than embarking on a lengthy withdrawal process.

CEF Chair Stephen Hammond said the report demonstrated that leaving the Convention would solve none of the practical problems at Britain’s borders while risking lasting damage to the Union and international security partnerships.

The report concludes that any future Conservative migration strategy must move beyond what it describes as the “threadbare solution” of ECHR withdrawal and instead focus on practical reforms, stronger international cooperation and more effective administration of the asylum and deportation system. As debate over migration continues to dominate politics across Europe, Grieve’s intervention seeks to reframe the discussion around reform rather than withdrawal.

You can still get a copy of our new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credits: Mickaël Schauli and Attorney General’s Office

A tech economy built on British talent

Speaking in London, the Prime Minister said the UK is already the third largest technology economy in the world and that British startups have raised close to half of all European tech investment this year. He argued that this success reflected Britain’s talent base, its growing investment environment and the Government’s approach to regulation, skills and procurement.

At the centre of the speech was a wider argument about the kind of country Britain should become as artificial intelligence reshapes the economy. Starmer rejected both passivity and a completely deregulatory approach, instead presenting a path in which Government backs British businesses, supports risk takers and ensures that the rewards of technological progress are felt across the country.

AI as local renewal, not just national growth

The Prime Minister used the example of Warrington, where a former Unilever soap factory is being transformed into an AI data centre, as a symbol of how technological change could bring new skilled jobs and investment to places that have previously felt left behind.

“We choose to make AI work for the whole of our country.” Sir Keir Starmer, UK Prime Minister

He said young people should be able to look at such sites and see “not what their community used to be…But what it can become”, linking the growth of data centres and AI infrastructure to the Government’s wider mission on local growth and national renewal.

A new sovereign compute strategy

A major announcement in the speech was a new strategy to develop sovereign compute capability. This includes a commitment of around £400 million to purchase specialist AI chips, which the Prime Minister described as a “generational opportunity” for some of Britain’s most promising startups.

The Government will also scale its testbed for AI compute systems into a national capability, designed to support British startups through a multi billion pound infrastructure programme. Starmer framed this as part of an active industrial strategy for technology, with Government acting not only as a regulator but as a partner and customer.

Public procurement was a key theme, with the Prime Minister arguing that Government should use its own buying power to support British ingenuity and give domestic innovators a better chance of competing for public contracts.

Putting working people at the centre

However, the speech was not only focused on economic opportunity. Starmer also sought to address public concerns about the speed and consequences of technological change, particularly around jobs, children’s safety and the risk that the benefits of AI are concentrated in London or among those already ahead.

“Tech should adapt to the needs of society…Not the other way around.” Sir Keir Starmer

He said the Government’s “north star” would be working people, and argued that the British public must see the benefits of AI in their own communities if the technological revolution is to carry public consent.

Child safety and tech responsibility

Child safety formed one of the strongest sections of the speech. The Prime Minister called on tech companies operating in the UK to introduce device controls that prevent children from sending and receiving sexually explicit images.

He said that if companies failed to act voluntarily, the Government would change the law, arguing that “standing by is not an option” when it comes to protecting children from online harm.

Speaking to Politics UK, Chief Executive of trade association for the AI economy in the UK, UKAI, Tim Flagg said “We welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement giving social media companies three months to remove explicit images from their platforms.

“This is an issue on which we have been calling for stronger action from Government, and we believe the direction set out today is the right one. Businesses should always act responsibly first, particularly where there is clear risk of harm. But when action is too slow, inconsistent, or the problem becomes excessive, it is right that Government steps in to set clear expectations.

“This should not be seen simply as a challenge for social media companies alone. It is a reminder of the collective responsibility we all have across industry to ensure technology is used safely, responsibly and in the public interest.

“Going forward, we hope this announcement will encourage platforms to be more proactive, to take more responsibility, act more quickly, and work constructively with Government, regulators and wider industry to prevent harmful content from spreading.”

Skills, jobs and public services

The Prime Minister also highlighted the Government’s skills agenda, saying that 1.7 million workers have already received AI training since he set a target last year to upskill 7.5 million workers by 2030. He linked this to apprenticeships, higher education reform, technical learning and the Youth Guarantee, presenting them as part of a broader response to a changing economy.

Starmer pointed to practical examples of AI already being used in public services, including faster NHS diagnoses, reduced court backlogs and quicker planning decisions. He also announced a new AI jobs tool to help people out of work find suitable roles, create CVs and move back into employment.

A choice to shape the future

The speech closed with a clear message: Britain should not simply watch the future unfold, but help build it. For Starmer, the test is whether AI can support growth, revive communities and give working people a real stake in technological change.

His central argument was that Britain can lead the AI revolution – but only if it does so with British firms at the front, public safety protected, and communities across the country able to share in the rewards.

Read the Prime Minister’s full speech here.

(Picture: Simon Dawson/No 10 Downing Street)

New agentic AI platform uses large scale human genetics data to support faster, safer and more effective medicine development.

Genomics has launched Mystra AI, a new agentic artificial intelligence platform designed to help scientists identify and validate drug targets using large scale human genetics data.

The UK founded TechBio company says the platform will make genetic insights easier to access across pharmaceutical and biotech research teams, helping researchers make better decisions earlier in the drug development process.

The launch comes as the pharmaceutical industry faces continuing pressure over the cost, risk and productivity of research and development. Genomics says 95 per cent of drug candidates entering clinical trials fail, with the average cost of bringing a new medicine to market now exceeding $2.3 billion according to Deloitte.

By using human genetic evidence to strengthen decisions about which targets to pursue, the company argues that Mystra AI could help reduce risk, improve success rates and support the development of safer, more effective medicines.

According to Genomics, drug targets with human genetic support are 2.6 times more likely to succeed in clinical trials.

A New Platform for Genomic Intelligence

Mystra AI is built on Genomics’ human genotype and phenotype database, which the company says is the largest and most diverse of its kind globally.

Its Foundational Data Collection includes more than 45,000 genome wide association studies and trillions of rows of data. Over the past decade, Genomics says it has used this platform to identify more than 100 drug targets across diseases including cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

The platform is designed to make complex genetic analysis accessible through a conversational chat interface. Scientists can ask questions in plain language, without needing specialist analytical expertise, and receive answers grounded in data from the Mystra platform.

Genomics says every answer is supported by evidence, visuals and proprietary analytical tools, giving users transparency over how the platform has reached its conclusions. The aim is to make outputs reproducible, verifiable and useful in day-to-day scientific workflows.

Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of Genomics, Professor Sir Peter Donnelly said the platform would allow scientists working across research and development, as well as business development and licensing, to harness genetics more easily when identifying new targets, assessing acquisition opportunities or expanding existing medicines into new indications.

He said the result could be “safer, more effective treatments for patients, faster”, describing the launch as “the start of a new era of genomic intelligence”.

President at Genomics, David Thornton said the company had built the largest human genetics dataset to deepen understanding of human biology and disease. By integrating that catalogue of human association data into an advanced AI platform, he said Genomics was giving scientists the tools and information needed to discover the next generation of treatments.

From Oxford TechBio Spin Out to Transatlantic Life Sciences Scale Up

The launch of Mystra AI also builds on Genomics’ wider position as one of the UK’s most closely watched life sciences scale ups.

Founded as an Oxford spin out in 2014 by leading statistical and human geneticists, the company has grown into a transatlantic TechBio business with teams across the UK and the United States. Its model combines large scale genetic and health data with advanced analytics to support both drug discovery and predictive, preventative healthcare.

Earlier this year, Genomics opened its flagship London office in the Knowledge Quarter, underlining its growth as a UK science led company with international ambitions. At the opening, the UK Government described companies like Genomics as among the “jewels in our crown”, placing the company within a wider national ambition to make life sciences both a healthcare and growth priority.

That wider context matters. The UK has long held major strengths in genomics, artificial intelligence, NHS data, academic research and life sciences. The question for policymakers is how those strengths can be translated into commercial scale, new medicines, better prevention and improved outcomes for patients.

Mystra AI is one example of how that agenda is beginning to take shape.

Linking Drug Discovery and Prevention

Although Mystra AI is focused on drug discovery and target validation, it sits within a broader shift in healthcare and life sciences: the adoption of novel innovation to help people live longer healthier lives. In healthcare, this wave of adapting for the future has been focused on the move towards earlier intervention, prediction and prevention.

Genomics’ work spans both life sciences and healthcare. Alongside its drug discovery platform, the company has developed tools using polygenic risk scores to identify an individual’s risk of developing common diseases before symptoms appear.

This connects the launch of Mystra AI to a wider policy debate about the future of healthcare and adoption of innovation in the UK. The NHS is under pressure from rising demand, long term conditions and constrained resources. Better use of genomics and predictive analytics across life sciences and healthcare could help identify new treatments, as well as patients at higher risk, direct people into the right screening or prevention programmes, and support a more personalised approach to care.

In its earlier work, Genomics has argued that the UK is already a global leader in genetics and genomics. The challenge in healthcare now is not just scientific discovery, but scale. That means ensuring that new tools reach patients, support clinicians, strengthen UK industry and help the NHS move from reactive treatment towards more proactive, preventative care.

Industry Adoption

Genomics says Mystra AI has already been adopted by pharmaceutical and biotech organisations, including BridgeBio Pharma and Relation Therapeutics.

Xue Zeng, Associate Director, Statistical Genetics at BridgeBio Pharma, said the platform was making it easier and more efficient to mine genomics data, accelerating day to day workflows.

Chief Executive Officer at Relation Therapeutics, David Roblin said the company was proud to be an early adopter of Mystra AI, adding that the platform had helped its research teams explore and evaluate biological insights at pace.

The platform has also received backing from wider industry leaders. Chief Medical Officer at Amazon Web Services, Rowland Illing said Genomics had developed a platform that could change how diseases and targets are identified for the next generation of drug discovery.

Chief Executive Officer at the BioIndustry Association, Professor Chris Molloy said the release and rapid adoption of Mystra AI demonstrated the UK’s ability to harness genomic data for the benefit of patients and the economy. He said the platform showed the breadth of the UK life sciences community and its ability to discover new medicines at world class pace and scale.

A Test of UK Life Sciences Ambition

For policymakers, the launch of Mystra AI highlights a broader opportunity facing the UK economy.

Britain has world class research institutions, valuable health data assets, leading genomics capability and a growing artificial intelligence sector. But turning those strengths into globally competitive companies, new treatments and better patient outcomes requires more than scientific excellence.

It requires investment, commercial ambition, regulatory clarity, trusted data use and stronger connections between the NHS, industry, academia and government.

Genomics’ growth story – across its life sciences and healthcare divisions – reflects that wider opportunity. The company says its platform can be accessed through different engagement models, including direct software access, partly managed projects combining client data with Genomics’ datasets, and fully managed collaborations with its team of statistical genetics scientists.

That flexibility is designed to support pharmaceutical and biotech partners at different stages of the research process, from early target discovery to deeper analysis of proprietary datasets.

As pressure grows to develop safer and more effective medicines, platforms such as Mystra AI suggest that the next phase of drug discovery may be shaped not only by laboratory science, but by the ability to interpret complex biological data at speed and scale.

For the UK, the opportunity is clear. If companies such as Genomics can turn national strengths in genomics, artificial intelligence and life sciences into practical tools used by global pharma and the NHS, the benefits could be felt in new medicines, better prevention, high value jobs and long-term economic growth.

The challenge now is ensuring that promise is matched by scale.

You can still get a copy of our new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Genomics Ltd

Linden Kemkaran

Leader of Kent County Council

With Reform and the Greens riding high in the polls, local government is faced with an influx of new councillors with little experience of power. In this article, Linden Kemkaran, Leader of Kent County Council, sets out what she thinks local government really needs from central government, the leadership lessons she has learned from the front line, and why Kent chose to raise council tax in its latest budget.

Leading a county council in today’s environment is not a theoretical exercise. It is not an abstract debate about governance models or fiscal frameworks. It is a daily test of judgment, responsibility, and leadership under sustained pressure.

For more than a decade, local government has been told to “do more with less”. At first, this was framed as a challenge to innovate. Over time, it became an expectation. Today, it has hardened into an assumption that councils can absorb rising demand indefinitely through efficiency alone.

Kent County Council is one of the largest local authorities in the country. We deliver services to more than 1.6 million residents, many of them statutory, many of them demand-led, and almost all of them under growing strain. Like other councils across England, we are dealing with rising costs in adult social care, children’s services, special educational needs, and temporary accommodation, while operating within a funding system that remains short-term, uncertain, and increasingly disconnected from reality.

Linden Kemkaran: Efficiency Has Limits

Efficiency has limits. Resilience has limits. And pretending otherwise does not protect public services, it quietly erodes them.

Local government does not need sympathy from Westminster. It needs honesty, trust, and reform.

One of the clearest lessons I have learned since becoming Leader is that the pressures facing councils are no longer cyclical. They are structural. Demand is rising faster than funding, and councils are too often left to absorb national policy decisions without the resources, flexibility, or timescales required to implement them properly. Announcements are made centrally, expectations are set publicly, and delivery is quietly delegated to local authorities already operating at the limits of resilience.

The uncomfortable truth is that the gap between responsibility and resource has widened year after year.

This is not a sustainable model.

Unsustainable

What local government needs from Westminster is not more initiatives, but a different relationship. Multi-year funding settlements would allow councils to plan responsibly rather than react defensively. Greater flexibility would enable local leaders to design services around local need rather than national prescription. Most importantly, there must be recognition that councils are delivery partners, not administrative outposts.

Leadership at local level matters more than ever, precisely because the margins are so tight. There is no room for complacency or delay. Decisions that might once have been deferred must now be confronted directly. That requires political courage, strong working relationships with officers, and a willingness to be honest with residents about the challenges we face.

In Kent, my focus has been on restoring grip and realism. That means understanding where pressures genuinely sit, challenging assumptions, and acting early rather than allowing risks to compound. It also means recognising that leadership is not about choosing the most politically convenient option, but the most responsible one.

That approach was tested most visibly during this year’s budget.

When we took office, plans were already in place for a 4.99 per cent council tax increase. That option was available to us. It would have been easy to accept it as inevitable, particularly given the scale of financial pressure councils are under. Many would have argued that taking the maximum allowed rise was the safest course.

We chose a different path.

We concluded that a 3.99 per cent increase was the correct course. That decision required discipline. It required confidence in our grip on the budget and a willingness to be held accountable for the choice we made.

This was not an attempt to minimise the seriousness of the council’s financial position, nor to pretend that pressures can be wished away. It was a conscious decision to demonstrate restraint, to recognise the cost pressures households are already facing and to show that local government can exercise judgment rather than default to the maximum permitted rise.

Social Responsibility

Leadership is often revealed in small but significant choices. In this case, it meant sending a clear signal that we would not automatically reach for the highest available option simply because it existed. It meant proving that financial discipline and social responsibility are not mutually exclusive.

The reality is that councils like Kent will continue to face profound challenges in the years ahead. But local government is not broken. What is broken is the framework within which it is expected to operate.

With the right support from Westminster, councils can be financially responsible, operationally innovative, and genuinely responsive to the communities they serve. Without it, even the best leadership will be forced into managing decline rather than delivering progress.

The choice facing central government is straightforward. Treat local government as a trusted partner in national renewal, or continue with a system that stores up risk and pushes difficult decisions further down the line.

From where I sit, leadership under pressure has taught me one thing above all else: local government does not lack capability or commitment. What it lacks is a system that matches the scale of the responsibility it carries.

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

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Linden Kemkaran

Sokratis Papafloratos

Founder & CEO, Numan

This article is a sponsored feature, produced in partnership with Numan.

Arguing from the frontline of digital healthcare, Numan founder and CEO Sokratis Papafloratos makes the case that only an Open Banking-style, patient-controlled data framework can unlock the full potential of artificial intelligence in healthcare.

The UK aspires to be a global life sciences superpower. This is one of the pillars of the government’s Industrial Strategy, and for good reason. Few sectors offer such a powerful combination of economic growth and direct public good. Digital healthcare has the power to be a huge part of that, yet there is a growing tension at the heart of this ambition. We are building a 21^st-century digital health system on 20^th-century data infrastructure.

Healthcare in the UK is rapidly digitising. Patients move seamlessly between NHS services, private providers, and digital platforms, generating clinically valuable data at every stop. At the same time, artificial intelligence is no longer a future prospect in healthcare, it is already reshaping how patients seek care, how clinicians work, and how services are delivered.

More patients booked GP appointments online than over the phone in the past year for the first time, over 39 million patients are now registered on the NHS App, and many patients are increasingly turning to AI tools to interpret symptoms, understand test results or decide whether to seek care. Clinicians and providers are successfully beginning to implement AI to triage demand, reduce administrative burden and personalise treatment.

Artificial intelligence in healthcare is advancing quickly – often faster than policy and regulation can adapt – but the data foundations are not

The fact is that health data remains fragmented across NHS services, private providers, and digital platforms. And the result is duplication, delay, and missed opportunity – creating a gap is becoming a serious constraint on both care quality and the UK’s life sciences ambitions.

The debate is often framed around whether health data should be shared. That is the wrong question. Data already flows – just imperfectly, inconsistently, and without clear accountability. The real issue is who controls access, under what conditions, and with what safeguards.

We Have Seen This Issue Play Out Before in an Unlikely Place: Banking

Before Open Banking, financial data was locked inside institutions. Consumers had little visibility, limited portability, and no practical way to authorise third-party access. PSD2 and Open Banking changed that, establishing clear rules for consent, interoperability, and liability.

Specifically, a particularly powerful shift came through Account Information Services (AIS), which enabled authorised third parties to access aggregated financial data with explicit, time-limited user consent. Customers could grant read-only, purpose-specific access to their information, improving coordination and insight without increasing execution risk.

The Principles are Highly Transferable to Healthcare

Health data governance still assumes patients receive care within a single system, from a single provider, anchored to one institutional record of truth. That assumption no longer holds. Patients move between NHS services, private providers, and digital platforms. Each interaction generates clinically valuable data, yet too often, that information cannot be securely shared back into the wider system.

This matters not only for patient care, but for the UK’s competitiveness – particularly in life sciences.

For example, AI thrives on high-quality, interoperable data. But for this technology to deliver on its promise of earlier diagnosis, more personalised care, and better prevention, it needs access to accurate, up-to-date, and connected patient data. Today, this does not exist, and it creates a paradox. The UK cannot credibly aim to lead in AI-enabled life sciences while its data architecture limits what AI can safely and effectively do.

Innovation cannot exist in a vacuum – it depends on regulatory clarity. In England alone, responsibility for AI in healthcare is spread across multiple regulators and oversight bodies. For responsible innovators, navigating this landscape can be slow, fragmented, and unclear. That is not conducive to growth in a globally competitive life sciences market.

An Open Banking-style Approach to Health Data Would Address Both Problems

A consent-led, patient-centred national framework – allowing individuals to authorise specific providers to access defined parts of their record for clear clinical purposes – would create the conditions for digital healthcare and AI to flourish.

Access could be time-bound, purpose-specific, and revocable, supported by transparent audit trails and clear liability structures. Accredited private providers and NHS services could securely share information, improving coordination rather than entrenching silos. Patients would gain meaningful control, while clinicians would gain the visibility required for safe, effective care.

Trust will be critical. In banking, consumer confidence did not emerge from good intentions. It emerged from clear rules, defined liability, and visible enforcement. Health would benefit from a similarly clear framework. Likewise, patients trust systems when they understand who is responsible for what, and when regulators visibly uphold those standards. Clear governance would not slow innovation, it would accelerate it.

Digital healthcare is now a permanent feature of the UK health landscape. The genie cannot be forced back into the bottle. This is why the digital health conversation in 2026 needs to ask the question: are the data foundations beneath the entire UK ecosystem fit for purpose? 

The Solution

For the UK’s life sciences strategy to succeed, it must address the data foundations beneath our national and digital health ecosystem. AI can make healthcare more proactive, personalised, and resilient, but only if regulation evolves at pace and patients are given control of their own data.

The choice is clear. We can continue with a fragmented system that is seemingly digital in form but analogue in function, or we can build a modern, interoperable, patient-centred data framework that underpins both better care and sustainable growth.

If we get this right, we will not just modernise healthcare and improve patient outcomes. We will strengthen one of the pillars of the UK’s Industrial Strategy and cement our place as a global leader in life sciences innovation.

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

You can buy your copy here.

Photo Credit: Numan

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.

Miles Bennington

Editor – Chamber UK

The first report of Alan Milburn’s independent review into young people and work established by the Government will be released today as UK unemployment has hit 5% and the number of NEETs (young people not in education, employment or training) hits over a million according to the ONS.

Today’s 200 page report will set out the problems faced by young people, with a further report later this year setting out recommendations to Government as to how to alleviate the NEET problem. It comes as a painful reminder that as Labour contemplate ditching Keir Starmer as Prime Minister, his administration is only just getting to grips with some problems, two years after their landslide victory.

NEETs Problem

As the ONS has today announced. There are now over a million young people not in education, employment or training. This represents a steady rise since 2021 and is higher as a percentage of young people than anytime since before the pandemic.

Combined with unemployment hitting 5% in between January and March, it signals a weakness in the labour market which is worrying the Government. For context unemployment last exceeded 5% at the height of COVID and exceeded 8% in the aftermath of the financial crash in 2011.

During this morning’s press conference. Milburn stated that the NEET problem has been decades in the making. Citing declines over the last decade in low and medium skilled jobs, Saturday jobs, roles in hospitality, apprenticeship starts and entry level jobs he paints a bleak picture for young people looking for work. All this before any impact from the “AI revolution” is felt.

Alan Milburn’s Potential Recommendations

Speaking on a media round today, Milburn suggested that some historic Labour policies may be on the chopping block in his recommendations coming later this year.

On the Today Programme, when asked if he would ask the Government to “think again” on the rise in employer national insurance and the increase of the minimum wage, he said: “Yes, I am … Every employer that I talk to, they will say the same thing. There’s no doubt that the changes that were made a couple of years ago have had an impact on employers.”

On Times Radio he said: “Well, certainly every employer that we spoke to raised these issues as real concerns, the minimum wage. No employer really wants to be paying poverty wages to young people, that’s not what you come across.”

During his press conference, he cited mental health issues as a new and growing issue among NEETs but dismissed that these claims were false. He praised young people’s effort but cites the vicious cycle of a lack of demand for entry level roles leading to long term unemployment. Hinting at the need for cross government reforms he cited failures in schools, the NHS and the welfare system all spending more money dealing with the NEET problem than on preventing it.

Final Thoughts

Listening to an articulate, coherent diagnosis of a serious problem in the UK labour market, one can’t help but wonder why Labour did not arrive in Government with this diagnosis to hand and remedies ready to implement. Milburn’s deliver also harks back to the hyper competent media training of the Blair era. Careful to acknowledge the concerns and counter arguments of voters but confident in his narrative; Milburn’s performance is a stark contrast to the Starmer era’s muddled missions and milestones, timid delivery and cack-handed comms.  

As Westminster holds it’s breath, for June 18^th and the potential end of the Starmer era, Labour may take on Milburn’s recommendations, but they must take on his competence.

Miles is the Editor of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

• Photo Credit:
  • Alan Milburn: UK Government
  • Number 10: RachelH_
  • Job Centre sign: Sunolafjagtenben-hur
  • Image Composition: ChatGPT

Helen Dent

CEO of British In Vitro Diagnostics Association (BIVDA)

Despite alignment across government, industry, and the NHS under the 10 Year and Life Sciences Sector Plans, innovation is failing to scale because capital is not reallocated to fund adoption, and only a shift from revenue to capital funding will unlock system-wide implementation, growth, and better patient outcomes.

Across the UK, particularly now in the year after the launch of both the 10 Year and Life Science Sector plans, there is energetic agreement across the system that change can happen. Experts across industry, the NHS, and government have aligned and determined what needs to happen. The challenge is that the people who know what needs to happen are not the people who need to make it happen.

It is obvious to us all. We have watched, participated and sometimes navigated around problems, and everyone involved can provide examples of issues, both evidenced and anecdotal, but the frustration is that they are theoretically able to be overcome.

NHS Procurement: The System Isn’t Broken, It’s Disconnected

The problem is the system itself. It’s not a single system; individual elements perform very well, and the quality of each part of the system is world leading – just as we aim to be. The problem is that the system is not a high-functioning team. There is no handover of the baton and no momentum to deliver.

The NHS is running a relay but not passing the baton on to the next leg. No one takes responsibility for a successful changeover, and we end up with different parts of the system tripping each other up and dropping the baton.

How can a government-funded innovation that has been developed based on system need reach market readiness through every part of the process, at significant cost, and not be implemented across the system that said it needed it?

How can innovation funds make this ready, yet people in the trusts are able to decide it isn’t innovative enough?

How do products reach this stage and then be overlooked because they’re not proven, or because it’s cheaper not to change and to continue to do what is already being done?

When Innovation Funding Leads Nowhere

The funding needs to follow the products if innovation is to be adopted. The technology or process that is being replaced should be de-funded and those funds should be mandated to support the implementation of the replacement technology.

It shouldn’t be up to the individual hospitals or trusts to find new money for products that come through innovation funding. This means that government funds are being wasted. Development money will get no return on investment, and increasing innovation funds is pointless if the funds for using these products are not provided.

To be clear, this isn’t about increasing money flowing into the system. This is about a systemic process that reallocates funds to products that are meeting the needs of the patients.

Capital, Contracts, and the Cost of Delay

This needs a system restructure. Currently, NHS contracts in high technology are often too long in order to spread setup costs over time. They need to be shorter to encourage new entrants and me-too products. To address this, capital funding should be available, as long contracts are not cheaper for the NHS. When cost of capital is applied, the NHS pays up to 30 per cent more for equipment. It’s simple financing; the monthly payment might be lower to manage revenue budgets, but the cost overall is higher. If an amount of capital were available to support innovation entry, there would be the potential to reduce overall costs by around a third.

This would support innovation by allowing for more frequent replacement cycles, thereby reducing the need to cover capital costs through revenue over extended contract periods. In turn, that would allow the NHS to respond to technical developments, and ensure that industry is supported by de-risking the market and attracting international investment.

Outcomes would improve for the NHS, and the UK could reap the benefits of a thriving life sciences sector, as set out in the Industrial Strategy and Life Sciences Sector Plan, enabling growth, investment, and R&D opportunities for companies to set up, scale and grow.

Capital availability for new technology would make procurement more agile and cost-effective, as Trusts would not be locked into long contracts. This would create better opportunities for SMEs, who are unable to finance long term contracts through their own financing and investment. Currently, it’s often too risky to secure inward investment.

Unlocking Growth for SMEs and the UK Economy

There would be less concern over fruitless payments or stopping the use of technology that is still not fully paid for, because the asset would be owned outright. Equipment could be resold on the second-hand market (within regulations), creating opportunities for cost savings through future tenders.

Capital funding would mean that products could be procured, used and replaced in sensible replacement cycles, encouraging returns for investors and resulting in product improvements for patients, increased competition, and a market sector for large and small companies. This would result in cash releasing savings for the NHS because regular competition cycles encourage this.

This wouldn’t require a complete overhaul of process, as some technology areas are slower in innovation and stable, but enabling new technology through capital would simply open up the market entry and allow new technology to scale.

Cash Not Credit: a Simple Structural Fix

The capital funds into SMEs is gold dust and secures their futures, their capital, and their ability to invest in the UK for employment and skills, and also secures further investment to make the UK attractive for multi-nationals as a global destination for product launches, with a good headwind. The UK could attract more manufacturing as there would be a return within acceptable timescales and the risk would be mitigated.

Capital instead of revenue isn’t more money. It’s the same GDP used differently, and such an easy fix to bring technology, innovation, and investment to the UK.

It could be argued that making market entry easier for innovation through capital would also reduce the noise of other reasons for lack of adoption.

Is there really an issue with regulation? Is there really a problem with NICE? Is there really a stuffy procurement regime?

Or is it just that good products and good companies don’t get bought by the system because the system is too full of long-term commitments and processes that are introduced to make the monthly costs affordable? Making capital funds available for innovation addresses several actions – both micro and macro – in the 10 Year and Life Science Sector plans, and it doesn’t cost any more than currently, yet has so many benefits for patients, companies, UK growth, international attractiveness, inward investment, and skills and competition. Cash instead of credit for innovation is an easy enabler to kick-start our economy and achieve several elements of our health plans.

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

You can buy your copy here.

The UK and Australia are deepening cooperation on artificial intelligence (AI) security, with a new agreement designed to help both countries respond to fast-moving risks from powerful AI systems.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), announced as ministers meet in Canberra, will bring together the UK AI Security Institute and the Australian AI Safety Institute. The partnership will focus on frontier AI capabilities, including how advanced systems could be used in cyber-attacks, as well as how AI could strengthen cyber defence.

The agreement comes at a time when governments are increasingly concerned about the speed at which AI systems are developing. While AI is expected to support economic growth, improve public services and strengthen national capability, ministers are also warning that the same technology could be used to scale cyber threats, automate malicious activity or accelerate the discovery of new vulnerabilities.

Under the new partnership, the two institutes will share information on AI capabilities, collaborate on research into emerging risks and work together on international best practice for testing and evaluating AI systems. The agreement will also allow for staff exchanges between the two institutes, building day-to-day cooperation between teams working on AI safety and security.

Ministers seek to stay ahead of fast-moving risks

UK AI Minister, Kanishka Narayan signed the agreement alongside Australia’s Assistant Minister for Science, Technology and the Digital Economy, Dr Andrew Charlton, in Canberra.

Narayan said the UK and Australia had “always worked closely” to protect their citizens, adding that the partnership “matters more than ever in the age of AI”. He warned that the technology is moving quickly, particularly in areas such as cyber security, and said: “No country can tackle that alone.”

His comments reflect a growing international consensus that AI safety and security cannot be managed by individual countries acting alone. As frontier models become more capable, governments are seeking to develop shared approaches to evaluation, risk monitoring and technical testing.

The UK has placed significant emphasis on AI safety since hosting the first global AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park in 2023. The AI Security Institute has since become a central part of the UK’s approach to understanding the risks posed by advanced AI systems and informing policy decisions.

The new agreement with Australia adds another layer to that international work, strengthening bilateral cooperation with a close ally while contributing to wider efforts to build common standards for frontier AI assessment.

Frontier AI and the cyber security challenge

The Government said the agreement is being driven partly by new research from the UK AI Security Institute, which indicates that advanced AI systems are improving rapidly in their ability to carry out complex cyber-attacks. That creates risks for businesses, critical infrastructure and the wider public, but it also opens up opportunities for defenders to use AI to identify vulnerabilities, detect attacks and strengthen resilience.

This dual-use challenge is one of the central questions facing policymakers. The same capabilities that could help a security team analyse code, monitor threats or respond more quickly to incidents could also be misused by malicious actors to automate parts of the cyber-attack chain.

The UK and Australia’s approach appears to be based on the view that technical cooperation is essential. Rather than treating AI security as a purely domestic policy issue, the two countries will work together on testing, evaluation and research, helping to ensure that both governments have a stronger evidence base as the technology develops.

“This is exactly the kind of international cooperation we need to see more of. The UK has already established itself as a leader in AI security, and by working closely with trusted partners like Australia we can build the coalitions needed to stay ahead of fast-moving risks while ensuring AI is developed safely and responsibly.”

Tim Flagg, CEO, UKAI

Building international best practice

The partnership will also support work on international best practice for AI evaluation. That is likely to become increasingly important as governments, companies and research bodies seek clearer ways to assess whether powerful AI systems behave as intended.

The Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources said MOU will provide a framework for technical cooperation and promote the safe and responsible use of artificial intelligence. It said the agreement would help both countries share expertise on emerging AI capabilities and risks, conduct joint research, and support international work on AI measurement, evaluation and science. The department added that the partnership would help both countries “keep pace with change” while ensuring communities share in the benefits of AI.

The UK AI Security Institute already works with research bodies across major economies through the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, as well as through bilateral partnerships. The Australia agreement adds to that growing network of cooperation.

AI security enters a new phase

The UK-Australia pact signals a shift in how allied governments are approaching AI risk. The pact demonstrates how governments are looking to move away from high-level principles or broad ethical statements. Increasingly, governments are moving towards practical technical cooperation: sharing research, testing models, evaluating capabilities and building institutional links between AI safety and security bodies.

That reflects the pace of change in the technology itself. As AI systems become more capable, the risks they pose are becoming more operational, particularly in cyber security. The challenge for governments is to keep pace without slowing the benefits AI can bring to innovation, economic growth and public services.

The agreement between the UK and Australia is therefore both a security measure and a strategic partnership. It aims to ensure that two close allies can better understand emerging AI risks, strengthen their defences and help shape the international standards that will guide frontier AI development in the years ahead.