Andrew Muir MLA

Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in the Northern Ireland Executive

In this exclusive piece, Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in the Northern Ireland Executive argues that the effects of climate change are already being felt across Northern Ireland and sets out why investing now in climate adaptation, nature restoration and resilient infrastructure is essential to protect communities, strengthen the economy and secure a sustainable future.

Climate change is not a distant or future threat; the impacts are being clearly felt both globally and locally. Temperatures continue to rise, and extreme weather events are experienced with increased frequency and intensity.

Andrew Muir: Why Climate Adaptation in Northern Ireland Cannot Wait

In Northern Ireland we have just had our wettest January for 149 years, with 170% of our average rainfall for that month. In July last year, Killowen in Co Down got almost a month’s worth of rain in one afternoon. Storm Eowyn was our most significant storm event for over 25 years, with over 240,000 homes and businesses without power.

Climate change is also contributing to the blue-green algae blooms which for successive summers has blighted Lough Neagh, the UK’s largest freshwater lake.  This has had costly impacts for the environment and the many people who depend on the Lough for drinking water, recreation and their livelihoods.

At the same time, we are facing a biodiversity crisis. Maintaining a rich variety of animal and plant species is vital to addressing climate change and ensuring the provision of natural resources, clean air, habitats for wildlife and sites for recreation.

Just this month we have seen how reliance on fossil fuels for home heating makes households in Northern Ireland particularly vulnerable in the face of global volatility arising from the US military action in the middle East.

I am acutely aware of the scale and urgency of the challenge. But I also see the opportunity for Northern Ireland to be part of the solution with climate action providing economic prospects for good green jobs, plus a clean and green environment with associated health benefits. 

My Department has set out a pathway towards net zero emissions through its draft Climate Action Plan, working with public bodies and communities to create policies and actions that will have a positive impact on our environment.

Responding and adapting to the impacts of climate change is critical for our future security, stability and wellbeing. I am committed to ensuring my Department supports and coordinates measures that protect and benefit our communities, businesses and environment.

We need to take proactive steps to prepare for climate change – helping to protect homes, livelihoods, vital infrastructure and public services.  My Department is leading the development of Northern Ireland’s Climate Change Adaptation Programmes, with input from across other Departments. Climate adaptation requires a whole society approach and so our third adaption programme includes actions from a range of stakeholders across the public and private sector including Translink, NI Water, our local councils, academia, the community and voluntary sector and businesses.

Any weakening of climate targets or reduction in investment for climate action will only increase our vulnerability to climate risks and place greater financial demands on households, government and businesses. Postponing adaptation efforts has real environmental and economic consequences.

Climate Adaptation in Northern Ireland: The Economic Case for Acting Now

As the Climate Change Committee (CCC) made clear: investing early in climate adaptation brings notable economic advantages. It reduces damage costs, improves resilience, increases confidence among investors and also helps achieve long-term savings for public services. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), climate damage could cost 8% of the UK’s GDP by the early 2070s – hindering productivity, slowing economic growth and resulting in workers, including those in Northern Ireland, being financially worse off.

Within my own Department we are seeing firsthand the impact of climate change on Northern Ireland’s food and farming sector, with the recent sustained period of wet weather impacting on the harvesting of crops and the storage of slurry on farms. These are real issues that are being exacerbated by climate change.

In the face of these challenges, my officials are working closely with colleges and universities in Northern Ireland and other academic institutions across these islands to ensure we have better research, monitoring and data to fill in the evidence gaps – so we can improve our understanding of climate risk and strengthen our decision making. This work includes examining our supply chain vulnerability, modelling our climate systems, building ecosystem resilience and supporting practical adaptation measures through nature-based solutions, such as peatland and wetland restoration.

Rather than seeing adaptation as simply an expense, it should be viewed as an essential investment and I am dedicated to helping Northern Ireland make the most of these opportunities.

How Climate Adaptation Will Benefit Households Across Northern Ireland

Climate action will deliver tangible improvements in our daily lives. For households across Northern Ireland, these benefits will include:

• More energy‑efficient homes, meaning warmer houses and reduced heat loss;
• Lower energy bills through cleaner, locally generated and more secure power and better insulation;
• Cleaner air, resulting in better health outcomes and fewer respiratory issues;
• Safer infrastructure that is more robust to storms, floods, and heat.

These are not abstract benefits. They translate to steadier household budgets, healthier communities, greater food and energy security and resilient local economies.

By ensuring our climate policies are fair, well designed and properly supported, my Department can help communities to withstand the impacts of climate change.

A Just Climate Adaptation Transition for Northern Ireland

This is particularly important for rural communities and my Department is working with rural stakeholders to ensure our climate policies recognise the specific challenges faced by those living in rural areas.  Climate action must be fair and just which is why I am establishing a new Just Transition Commission with representation from sectors including agriculture, the environment, trade unions, youth groups, the rural sector, academia, civic society, fisheries, energy, transport, the built environment and green finance.

In the face of escalating climate impacts, my message is clear: climate adaptation is fundamental to protecting and safeguarding the future of our people and our communities. It offers a roadmap towards creating a more sustainable future. Protecting our homes, strengthening our food and energy security, underpinning our economic stability and ensuring that Northern Ireland remains a safe and prosperous place to live.

Photo by Michael Shannon on Unsplash

As part of the broader Industrial Strategy portfolio, the sector strategy focuses on the UK’s ambition to become one of the world’s top three leading locations for digital growth and technological development.

D&T Sector Strategy: Goals and economic significance

The Digital and Technologies Sector Strategy revolves around the strategic goal for the UK to become the third-largest destination for tech investment globally after the US and China by 2035, effectively transforming Britain into a digital superpower.

Currently, the British digital and tech sector contribute approximately £207 billion in gross value added (GVA) to the economy, whilst supporting over 2.6 million jobs, and maintaining productivity levels 19 per cent higher than the national average.

As a result of the D&TSP, sector GVA contributions are forecast to increase by £90 billion, creating 500,000 jobs by 2035, to enhance regional development and international competitiveness.

The six policy pillars of the sector strategy

The sector strategy is structured around six key areas of intervention: Research and development, access to finance, skills and workforce, infrastructure, regulation, and international engagement.

1. Public research and development investment

Public R&D investment is primed to increase to £22.6 billion annually by 2029/30. In addition, the government aims to leverage £3 of private investment for every £1 of public funding, although the means by which this will be achieved haven’t been explicitly revealed.

Agencies such as UKRI and ARIA are expected to play central roles in funding early-stage and breakthrough technologies, with ARIA, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, leading projects in fields such as AI computers and hardware.

2. Finance and investment access

The British Business Bank will expand its support for tech-focused companies, increasing overall investment capacity to £25.6 billion.

A new £4 billion Industrial Strategy Growth Capital fund will be launched, aiming to generate an additional £12 billion of private investment.

Pension market reforms and targeted co-investment initiatives are hoped to provide longer-term capital to emerging tech companies.

3. Skills and workforce development

A new national programme, TechFirst, will be introduced with £187 million in funding, focusing around bursaries, outreach, apprenticeships, and fellowships to develop a skilled workforce in AI, data science, and other high-growth areas.

Additionally, visa pathways for international talent will be expanded, including the Global Talent and High Potential Individual visas.

4. Infrastructure expansion

In regards to infrastructure expansion, the D&TSP also pledges £1 billion in investment to exponentially expand AI computer capacites.

Culham in Oxfordshire will serve as the UK’s first AI Growth Zone, whilst planning reforms and a Connections Accelerator Service have been announced to facilitate faster development of essential infrastructure, including data centres and gigabit broadband networks.

5. Regulatory innovation

A new Regulatory Innovation Office will be launched to coordinate pro-innovation regulatory approaches. The government will expand regulatory sandboxes to support AI, engineering biology, and digital markets. A digital standards strategy will also be developed to facilitate safe data interoperability.

6. Global partnerships and strategic cooperation

International engagement includes renewed participation in Horizon Europe, strategic alignment through AUKUS, and technology-focused trade partnerships with countries such as Japan and Singapore.

The Ministry of Defence has committed to allocating 10 per cent of its equipment budget to advanced technologies, including dual-use systems.

Priority technologies

In addition, the plan identifies six frontier technologies for focused investment:

1. Artificial intelligence: AI Growth Zones, data access reform, and large-scale computer infrastructure.
2. Advanced connectivity: 6G, satellite communications, and secure networks.
3. Cyber security: Focus on post-quantum cryptography and national cyber defence.
4. Engineering biology: Development of bio-manufacturing infrastructure and regulatory frameworks.
5. Quantum technologies: Support for commercialisation in sectors such as healthcare and finance.
6. Semiconductors: Strengthening of domestic R&D, supply chain resilience, and IP protection.

Final thought

Whilst the sector strategy certainly does articulate clear targets and investment plans, delivery remains contingent on effective implementation. Arguably, the D&TS Plan lacks enhanced regional funding mechanisms, stronger educational pipelines in secondary and further education and clearer ethical guidelines for AI and biotechnology use.

Overall, however, the government has committed to working with devolved administrations, industry stakeholders, and international partners to ensure that the sector strategy delivers long-term economic, technological, and societal benefits.

With an emphasis on boosting key public services and long-term economic growth, the spending review sets out the government’s departmental budgets from 2026 to 2029.

The final package followed intense, last-minute negotiations with senior ministers: Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner pushed for increased funding for social housing, while Home Secretary Yvette Cooper tried to secure additional resources for policing.

The Chancellor framed the spending review around the “priorities of working people” – with big investments in defence, education, health and local government.

Departmental spending will rise by an average of 2.3 per cent a year in real terms over the period, adding £190 billion in day-to-day public service funding compared to previous plans.

This marks a notable shift from the austerity budgets of the 2010s, with most areas of government now seeing at least some real-terms increase in funding. 

However, Reeves’ upbeat messaging came with an acknowledgment of trade-offs: The biggest boosts are concentrated in a few priority sectors, meaning other departments will face tighter settlements or even cuts despite the overall spending growth.

Biggest winners in the Spending Review

Under Reeves’ plan, health and defence stand out as two of the biggest winners with significant funding increases. Departments with above-average settlements include Defence, slated for a 3.6 per cent annual real-terms increase, and the National Health Service (NHS), which receives roughly 2.8 per cent annual real growth in its budget. These uplifts significantly outpace the 1.5 per cent overall growth rate projected for later years of the review period. 

Nearly 40 per cent of all day-to-day government spending will go to the health service alone by the end of the period – underlining the NHS’s protected status even amid tight finances.

Beyond health and defence, a few other areas also see real-terms boosts. Local government is one: After years of strain on council budgets, Reeves aims to ease local pressures through an extra £3.4 billion by 2028-29 for local authorities, equating to around 3.1 per cent annual growth in real-terms in core council funding over the review period. 

The justice system is another relative winner – the Ministry of Justice secures funds to expand prison capacity and probation services, contributing to a 1.8 per centyearly real increase for justice spending. Policing resources will rise by roughly 2.3 per cent per year, in line with the average, supporting frontline officer numbers. 

This includes £7 billion over five years to build 14,000 new prison places and up to £700 million extra per year by 2028-29 to reform probation services. These investments aim to expand capacity in overcrowded prisons and implement recommendations from a recent sentencing review, modernizing how offenders are managed. 

Crucially, capital investment was a focal point of the spending review. The Chancellor stressed the need to “build for the future” as part of her economic renewal agenda.

Major infrastructure and innovation programs were among the headline commitments: £39 billion was earmarked for a 10-year programme to build affordable homes – almost doubling annual housing investment.

Similarly, record funding for research and development (R&D) – £86 billion over four years – was confirmed to spur innovation and underpin Britain’s growth mission.

Big-ticket projects in clean energy and transport were highlighted too, such as a new £14 billion nuclear power station and over £16 billion for regional public transport upgrades.

Defence and Security

In light of the ongoing war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over the future of the transatlantic alliance – particularly following U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed warnings against automatic defence of NATO allies, the UK has increasingly positioned itself as a key pillar of European security.

Aligned with this mission, defence spending is set to climb significantly, reflecting evolving global threats and a political resolve to strengthen the UK’s armed forces.

Reeves confirmed that defence expenditure will rise to 2.6 per cent of GDP by 2027, with an ambition to reach 3 per cent of GDP in the longer term “when economic and fiscal conditions allow”.

Concrete commitments include bolstering both hard power and intelligence capabilities. The Strategic Defence Review, published alongside the Spending Review, outlined plans to modernise forces and equipment.

To support this, the budget for Britain’s intelligence agencies will rise by £600 million in real terms over the period, ensuring MI5, MI6, and GCHQ can stay “at the cutting edge of technology” in countering hostile state and cyber threats. Reeves also highlighted the importance of domestic security.

In response to the ongoing issue of small boat crossings in the English Channel, the Spending Review allocates up to £280 million extra by 2028-29 for a new Border Security Command within the Home Office. This funding will target the criminal gangs behind people smuggling, as part of a broader effort to “reduce irregular migration and the flow of illicit commodities” into the UK.

Another pillar of the security theme is energy security, treated as a strategic priority in light of recent volatility in global energy markets.

Reeves announced the government is “ending decades of delay” on critical energy projects by giving the green light to the Sizewell C nuclear power station, support for a new Small Modular Reactor, and funding for carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) initiatives.

These long-term investments, while categorized under energy and climate policy, also serve national security aims by reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. 

Defence industry leaders have broadly welcomed the increased spending, noting it provides more certainty for long-term projects.

However, fiscal analysts caution that ambitions could outstrip resources. The Oxford Economics chief UK economist, Andrew Goodwin, pointed out that meeting NATO’s expected higher defence spending targets could require even more funding – and Reeves gave “no guidance on how…plans would adapt” if NATO raises the bar.

Health and Social Care

The Health sector – particularly the NHS – is the single largest beneficiary of the 2025 Spending Review in absolute terms.

With the health service being a central point of voter priorities, Reeves pledged to cut record waiting lists and times, and “invest in Britain’s health” and tackle record waiting lists. 

Annual NHS England spending will increase by £29 billion in real terms from 2023–24 to 2028–29, reaching a total of £226 billion by 2028–29.

This represents roughly three per cent average real growth each year for the NHS, and marks one of the most generous settlements the health service has seen in modern spending reviews.

By comparison, the NHS budget will now account for nearly 40 per cent of day-to-day government departmental spending – illustrating its primacy in the national finances.

What will this money be used for?

The aim is that by the end of this Parliament, 92 per cent of patients will start treatment within 18 weeks of referral for non-urgent conditions. Reeves also underscored mental health and primary care as areas receiving targeted support, though specifics were left to the Department of Health and Social Care to allocate.

On top of day-to-day spending, the review delivers a significant jolt of capital investment in health. The NHS capital budget will see a £2.3 billion real-terms increase (about £4 billion more in cash) by 2029-30.

This is projected to be the largest health capital budget ever, amounting to over a 20 per cent real-terms rise. This will cover building new hospitals, upgrading old facilities, improving A&E departments, and adopting new medical technologies and digital systems.

In theory, this capital injection should help modernise the NHS estate (some of which dates to the mid-20th century) and improve productivity – for instance, by replacing outdated equipment with faster, more efficient models.

Despite these headline figures, many health experts warn that the NHS funding boost, may only stabilize the system rather than transform it.

The British Medical Association (BMA) reacted to the Spending Review by cautioning that the NHS budget increase still “falls short of the investment needed to fulfil the NHS workforce plan” and other long-term needs.

Dr. Latifa Patel of the BMA noted that with an ageing population and existing care backlogs, it is “simply not good enough for healthcare spending to keep systems treading water”.

The government’s own projections reportedly suggest that even with this funding, meeting the 18-week treatment target by 2029 could be challenging. A major concern is the workforce: Resolving NHS staff shortages and pay disputes will “need funding” beyond what has been outlined, the BMA argues.

Local Government and Social Housing

Local councils in England will see their core spending power rise by just over 3 per cent per year in real terms. This includes funding to support vital services like social care, libraries, and bin collections, as well as money to help struggling councils balance their budgets. 

Despite the uplift, it comes on the back of more than a decade of austerity. Between 2010-11 and 2024-25, council core funding per person fell by around 18 per cent in real terms, with some estimates pointing to even sharper declines – up to 26–27 per cent in the most deprived areas.

These conditions forced councils to drastically reduce spending on culture, leisure, housing, transport, and planning – some sectors saw cuts of 35-43 per cent since 2010.

Several authorities have even issued Section 114 notices – effectively a declaration of financial crisis – most notably Birmingham City Council, which reported an £87 million deficit in September 2023 and cut services dramatically.

The devolved governments get a sizable boost too via the Barnett formula. The Welsh Government, for example, is set to receive an average of £22.4 billion per year – its largest funding settlement in real terms since devolution in 1999.

Part of this will enable long-sought investments for rail infrastructure which local leaders hailed as “hugely welcome” and long overdue.

Scotland and Northern Ireland likewise benefit from increased block grants, empowering them to invest in areas like transport, health, and education in line with their priorities.

Alongside this, the Spending Review unveiled what ministers described as the largest government-backed social housing investment in a generation.

A ten-year, £39 billion capital package aims to boost the supply of affordable and council housing across the UK. This will be channeled through a reformed Affordable Homes Programme and targeted funds for local authorities and housing associations.

The new funding is designed to address chronic shortages that have left over one million households on waiting lists and driven rising homelessness in many urban areas.

Local authorities will also benefit from a £950 million Local Authority Housing Fund aimed at improving temporary accommodation and reducing the costly reliance on emergency B&B placements.

Education and Skills

Education saw a more mixed outcome in the Spending Review – receiving a modest uplift for schools and skills, but with concerns that funding may not go far enough.

The Chancellor announced that the core schools budget will grow by £2 billion in real terms over the spending review period. In cash terms, that’s a £4.7 billion increase by 2028-29 (compared to 2025-26 levels), which translates to roughly 1.1 per cent average real-terms growth per pupil each year.

This money is intended to cover rising costs and deliver previously agreed teacher pay raises. Importantly, Reeves reaffirmed the government’s commitment to improving school infrastructure: about £2.4 billion per year is allocated to the School Rebuilding Programme, underpinning a pledge to rebuild or refurbish over 500 schools across England.

Investments in skills and further education were also highlighted. The spending review sets aside funding to ensure 1.3 million 16–19 year-olds can access high-quality training opportunities in coming years.

There is a £2 billion real-terms boost to skills spending, which government sources say will expand apprenticeship programs and technical education pathways. These measures align with the broader aim of boosting productivity and helping “every region and community” benefit from growth, by equipping young people with practical skills. 

However, not all parts of the education sector benefited equally. In a move framed as a reprioritisation, the government confirmed it will no longer fund level seven apprenticeships for people aged 22 and older, aiming instead to focus resources on lower level programmes that cater to school leavers and early-career workers.

While officials argue this will increase access and equity, critics warn it may undermine efforts to upskill the workforce at more advanced levels.

Meanwhile, the Turing Scheme – the UK’s post-Brexit replacement for Erasmus+ saw a real-terms reduction in funding. While its continuation was confirmed, education leaders have voiced concern that the cut could limit the number of students able to access international study and work placements, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Who are the “losers” of the Spending Review?

Despite the substantial numbers on paper, not everyone gained from the 2025 spending review. Other departments saw more modest increases or even cuts in funding, with their budgets reallocated to more popular issues. 

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) will see its budget reduced by around five per cent per year. This largely follows the government’s earlier decision to stick to spending 0.5 per cent of Gross National Income on overseas aid (down from the previous 0.7 per cent commitment), meaning foreign aid budgets are being squeezed.

Additionally, the Home Office non-policing functions face a 4.5 per cent annual cut, implying less funding for areas like immigration and asylum processing, border management (apart from the specific security initiative), and administrative operations. 

The Treasury hopes to offset some of this by implementing a “cheaper system” for handling asylum seekers’ claims – potentially through reforms to accelerate processing or use more basic accommodation facilities, though those plans are controversial.

Agriculture and environment departments may also have to tighten belts in the latter part of the period, as implied by overall limits, though exact figures were not spotlighted in the Chancellor’s speech.

It is also worth noting that all government departments have been told to find at least 5 per cent in efficiency savings, and administrative costs by at least 16 per cent. 

While Reeves trumpeted this as “ruthlessly bearing down on waste” to focus funds on front-line priorities, some observers are skeptical. The IFS’s Paul Johnson warns that many departments might “find it hard to stick to the targets” for efficiency after so much past trimming..

The Institute for Government lauded the publication of detailed efficiency plans for the first time (a transparency move by the new Office for Value for Money), but noted that many planned savings rely on initiatives already in progress rather than entirely new reforms.

Reaction and Opposition

The reaction to Rachel Reeves’ 2025 Spending Review has been mixed, with opposition benches being unsurprisingly critical. The Conservative Party argued that Reeves’ spending plans are overly optimistic and potentially unsustainable. Mel Stride, the Conservatives’ finance policy chief, warned that the numbers simply might not add up without further tax increases. 

“She will have to come back here in the autumn with yet more taxes, and a cruel summer of speculation awaits,” Stride told MPs.

In context, the Labour government, elected on a promise to end austerity and “rebuild Britain,” is under pressure as it faces mid-term unpopularity and the rise of Reform UK in polls. Reeves’ sunny talk of “renewal” and visible investments in communities can be seen as an attempt to shore up support.

The Opposition, however, remains unconvinced. They point to Labour’s slipping poll numbers and recent U-turns as evidence that the government’s economic strategy is faltering. 

Featured image via Martin Suker / Shutterstock.

The Turing Scheme, the post-Brexit replacement for the EU-run Erasmus+ programme, will receive a 29 per cent budget cut for 2025/26. The budget will be £78 million, down from £110 million the previous academic year.

Many universities, colleges and schools rely on the scheme to fund overseas educational and vocational placements.

Scottish institutions have also received a smaller share of Turing Scheme funding each year, with approximately £6.9 million of funding coming their way in 2024/25, down from £8.9 million in 2023/24 and £9 million in 2022/23.

Scottish Government Education Minister Graeme Day said the move would “cause significant concern” and questioned “what it says about the commitment to return to Erasmus+”.

George Adam MSP, who sits on the Scottish Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee said: “This is just another example of Labour letting down our young people. They promised change and a new direction, but it’s clear the only direction Labour is going is backwards.

“Starmer is slashing opportunities for Scottish students and heaping further financial costs on our world-class universities.

“The SNP want our young people to have the same opportunities they had before Brexit. We know how important student exchanges can be for a young person’s confidence, in building lifelong friendships and important life skills. That’s why we have been calling for a return to Erasmus+.

“It’s clear that only an independent Scotland will take us back into the EU and only the SNP will stand up to Labour’s devastating cuts.”

This comes as many Scottish higher and further education institutions face mounting financial pressure due to factors such as a drop-off in international student numbers, and increases in employer National Insurance payments.

Universities such as Edinburgh, Dundee and Robert Gordon in Aberdeen have had to make job cuts while salaries for executive staff have been increased, resulting in industrial action.

Further education institutions are also coming under financial pressure. Fife College is currently reviewing its offerings following a £1.3 million cut due to changes to the Scottish funding model for further education.

The Labour Government has committed to rejoining Erasmus+ as part of the new deal with the EU. However this is only one area that will be covered in the coming months and years of negotiations.

There have so far been few signs of progress on the rejoining of Erasmus+, with some signs that an agreement may not be reached until 2028 when the EU’s next 7 year budget is set out.

The UK Government’s approach to education has also involved investment to encourage young people into key industries such as AI, with a recent announcement of funding for MSc scholarships in the sector.

Featured image via Monkey Business Images / Shutterstock.

Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE

Curia Advisory Board Member

Former Local Government Minister

The public wants more homes. That much is clear. But they don’t believe the Government can – or will – actually deliver them.

New polling from Opinium commissioned by policy institute, Curia presents a sobering message for ministers and opposition leaders alike: While the majority of people agree Britain needs more housing, faith in political promises to deliver that housing is in dangerously short supply.

Only 17 per cent of the public believe Labour will meet its house building pledge. Among the very voters most likely to support new development – so-called “YIMBYs” – more than two-thirds still doubt the party can deliver. The Conservatives fare even worse, and the Liberal Democrats barely register.

In an age of political distrust, it is not enough to be right on policy. You have to convince people you can follow through.

That’s Labour’s credibility challenge – and the Government’s delivery crisis.

The polling underscores a central contradiction that has haunted successive governments on housing policy for decades: While national support for new homes sits at a healthy net +37 per cent, that plummets to just +7 per cent when it comes to people’s own local areas. It’s not that people are inherently anti-housing.

It’s that they’ve seen promises made without infrastructure delivered. They’ve seen beauty and place sacrificed for volume and speed. And they’ve stopped believing that the system will act in their interests.

This isn’t just about “NIMBYs” vs “YIMBYs”. The data reveals a public torn between a national sense of urgency and a local sense of risk. Forty-five percent favour protecting local character by restricting development, while 37 per cent want more housing to address shortages and prices.

Few are fully convinced by either camp. Meanwhile, more than twice as many people think the planning system is failing than performing well.

So how can the Government – any government – bridge this divide?

The answer lies in rebuilding trust through tangible, place-based delivery. Nearly half the public say they would support more housing if homes were of high quality and in keeping with local character.

A similar proportion want infrastructure – transport, schools, services – to come first. Prioritising brownfield development remains a key trust signal.

There’s another insight buried in the data that policymakers must heed: People support infrastructure far more than housing. Net support for local infrastructure development sits at +42 per cent, compared to just +7 per cent for housing. Wastewater plants, rail links, and broadband projects all receive strong backing.

The public’s message is clear: Lay the groundwork before you lay the bricks.

Yet the Government’s narrative on innovation and reform still isn’t landing. Just 21 per cent think AI growth zones will benefit their area – and one-third of respondents admit they don’t even know what they are. That matters. When it comes to delivering housing and infrastructure, framing and familiarity are as important as policy detail.

Even widely assumed grievances – such as hostility to environmental protections – are being overstated. Only 14 per cent think current regulations are too restrictive. Many more believe they are too weak or about right. Even dormice win majority support for protection.

Final Thought

In short, this is not a public waiting to be persuaded with flashy announcements or combative rhetoric about planning reform. It is a public that is asking – politely but firmly – for competent, thoughtful, community-aligned delivery.

Labour now has a rare electoral window in which to act boldly on housing. But it must bring people with it – not just through national messaging, but through local trust-building and visible progress. The polling gives the blueprint. The question now is whether the political class has the courage, discipline, and humility to follow it.

Because the public doesn’t just want homes. They want to believe in the people building them.

Read the full Curia and Opinium report here.

Featured image via Lichtwolke / Shutterstock.

Despite widespread support for house building, with 54 per cent of all UK adults supporting more construction, Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson argues that “it is not enough to be right on policy. You have to convince people you can follow through”.

The polling coincides with the upcoming debates in the House of Commons on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, planned for June 9 and June 10.

The report outlines a number of strategies the government could undertake to increase trust in their housing policy, including ensuring that new builds are high quality and in keeping with local character and showing tangible development through transforming vacant brownfield sites.

The report, which polled a nationally representative sample of 2,050 UK adults, also found significant divergences in trust and support between NIMBYs and YIMBYs.

It defined NIMBYs as UK adults who support limiting new building projects in order to preserve the character of local areas, and YIMBYs as those who support increased construction to address housing shortages and rising property prices.

Using these definitions 45 per cent of adults were classed as NIMBYs and 37 per cent as YIMBYs.

While 17 per cent of all UK adults believed that Labour would hit its target of 1.5 million new homes, this rose to 25 per cent of YIMBYs and fell to 13 per cent of NIMBYs.

Support for house building also differed, with 79 per cent of YIMBYs supporting new house building, almost double NIMBY support of 39 per cent and the UK average of 54 per cent.

They also cited different ways in which the government could increase support for house building, with NIMBYs supporting the use of brownfield land in order to protect green spaces as the strategy they would support the most (57 per cent), and thinking that prioritising affordable housing for low income households is less important (36 per cent) than the average UK adult (42 per cent) or YIMBYs (56 per cent)

In contrast, YIMBYs prioritise high-quality, attractive homes that fit local character (56 per cent) and affordable housing (56 per cent) while supporting brownfield development (47 per cent) and infrastructure (44 per cent) slightly less than NIMBYs (57 per cent and 53 per cent) and the UK average (47 per cent and 44 per cent).

Support for infrastructure development significantly outperformed support for housing (48 per cent compared to 37 per cent), while 44 per cent of adults said that building infrastructure before adding housing would increase public trust and support in Labour’s construction plans.

This suggests a shift from housing to public infrastructure projects could also be more beneficial, building trust in the government’s wider construction plans, with Stephenson saying the government should “lay the groundwork before you lay the bricks”.

The contrast between infrastructure and housing support is particularly apparent in local areas, where house building was only supported by 7 per cent of people if it took place in their local area, compared to 42 per cent support for local infrastructure investment

Support is particularly strong for projects like wastewater plants (53 per cent), rail infrastructure (49 per cent), wind farms (49 per cent), and digital infrastructure (46 per cent).

Despite high support for digital infrastructure, AI projects appear to suffer from a lack of clear understanding, with 32 per cent of people saying they don’t understand what the government’s new AI growth zones are meant to be, and only 21 per cent believing they will benefit their local areas.

Stephenson explains that the public “don’t want sweeping rhetoric about growth zones or deregulation – they want to see real infrastructure, better quality homes, and trust restored at a local level.”

Another roadblock for the government’s plans is its approach to environmental regulation, with 30 per cent of UK adults believing protections do not go far enough and allow “too many things to be built which have a damaging environmental impact”, compared to 14 per cent who believe they are too restrictive, and 28 per cent who believe it is “about right”.

Support for environmental protections also increase for certain species like ancient trees (84 per cent), wild birds (82 per cent) and butterflies and otters (78 per cent).

As a response to the findings, Curia’s Housing and Infrastructure Research Group, which commissioned the polling and co-designed the research with Opinium, is calling for policy to focus on place-based delivery, brownfield-first development, and early infrastructure investment to rebuild confidence in planning and development.

“Labour has successfully positioned itself as the party of house building”, said James Crouch, Head of Policy and Public Affairs at Opinium, “but that won’t shield the government from voter backlash if it fails to meet its own housing targets.”

Find the full Curia and Opinium report here.

Featured image via Simon Dawson / No 10.

Author: Jamie Calder.

Together with Fiona Hill, a British-born former national security profession in the US Government and advisor during the first Trump Administration, Lord Robertson has completed this thankless task with the announcement of the Strategic Defence Review’s findings today. 

While the name “Strategic Defence Review”  implies high level strategic decisions and a clarifying of UK objectives in such a way that will shape the world moving forward, more often it is a reactive document setting out how the UK will fill the gaps exposed by the latest challenge presented by world events. 

It’s a balancing act where the authors must prioritise threats such as Russia, China and terrorism, while the various sections of the armed forced: The Army, Navy and Air Force, all vie for funding and politics as politicians lobby for the industry and infrastructure in their areas. 

Unlike past Strategic Defence Reviews this one deals with the challenges presented not only by enemies and rivals but allies as well. The Trump administration has upended the worldview that has underpinned the UK’s long-term foreign policy, placing further importance on the UKs short-term defence planning as it can no longer rely upon American support.

Past Reviews

Key to understanding how a Strategic Defence Review (SDR) will be judged will be the challenges Britain faces in the years following it’s being published. 

2021 Integrated Review: Delayed by Covid, this review focussed on building up the navy and cooperation with the United States, particularly in the indo-pacific region. While the Strategic Defence Review identified Russia as an “acute threat”, it’s investment seemed tilted towards China’s “systemic challenge”.

It failed to anticipate the shell shortages, long range fire requirements and drone warfare of the brewing war in Ukraine and continued the UK’s long-term integration into US foreign policy despite the looming threat of a second Trump administration. 

2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review: The last terrorism focused review was torn between the potential threat from ISIS and resurgent aggression from Russia. With UK forces still engaged in Afghanistan there was a focus on special forces and maintaining the size of the army and upgrading attack helicopters crucial when fighting an insurgency while holding air dominance.

The evacuation of Afghanistan and the failure to maintain the size of the army, which has shrunk by over 12,000 since 2015, and dipped below the 82,000 target in the same Parliament, meant this SDR did not age well. A renewed focus on the navy however has been carried forward since. 

2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review: This review was perhaps the most honest and inward facing review of recent times. Focussed on cost cutting, the 2010 Strategic Defence Review cut short-term capability in search of savings in the hope that brighter fiscal weather would allow for their restoration in the future.

While the fiscal headwinds have not let up, capability, in particular the commissioning of the second Queen Elizabeth-Class carrier into service reversed one of the major decisions of this SDR. 

Today’s Announcements

• Warfighting Readiness: The UK Armed Forces are to shift towards a state of “warfighting readiness” to deter potential conflicts in Europe and the Atlantic, particularly in response to threats from Russia.
• Nuclear Submarine Programme: Plans to build up to 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines under the AUKUS partnership with the US and Australia, replacing the current Astute-class fleet from the late 2030’s.
• Nuclear Weapons Investment: An additional £15 billion will be invested in modernising the UK’s nuclear weapons production at Aldermaston, supporting over 9,000 jobs.
• Defence Spending Increase: Defence spending is set to rise to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, with an ambition to reach 3 per cent in the next Parliament.
• Munitions Production: £1.5 billion allocated to build at least six new munitions and energetics factories, aiming to produce up to 7,000 long-range weapons and create approximately 1,800 jobs.
• Home Guard Revival: Proposal to establish a volunteer-led Home Guard to protect critical national infrastructure, allowing regular forces to focus on other duties.
• New Cyber and Electromagnetic Command: Introduction of the Digital Targeting Web by 2027. Taking lessons from the Ukraine war, this system will allow forces to more quickly deliver targeting information. 

Final Thought

Unsurprisingly, the war in Ukraine has overshadowed today’s announcements, with munitions manufacture and a new Cyber and Electromagnetic Command coming directly from lessons learned, but rising defence budgets have also allowed for continued investment in the navy.

Nuclear powered attack submarines built under the AUKUS agreement with Australia and the United States signal a focus on the Atlantic, but could still be relevant to any stand-off in the Pacific. 

The dog that hasn’t barked is any sort of distancing in the partnership with the United States. One might have expected that with Trump’s wafer thin commitment to Ukraine, bellicose attitude on Greenland and blowing hot and cold on NATO that the UK would start pragmatically replacing the United States in our supply chain and investing in replacements for alliance capabilities currently handled by the United States.

There is precious little sign of change in this area with the US still planning to supply the UK’s nuclear deterrent and according to reports in the Sunday Times, considering an additional purchase of 5th generation fighters to deliver air-launched nuclear weapons. 

It’s clear that the government is hoping the MAGA storm will blow over and things can return to normal. History will judge this SDR on whether that hope is realised.

The report Transforming Care, Saving Lives: Revitalising UK Life Sciences and Diagnostics brought together leading experts from industry, academia, and the NHS to look at ways in which the sector can innovate and transform to improve patient outcomes. 

At the event in Portcullis House, the audience heard speeches alongside a panel discussion that shed light on the transformative potential that better collaboration, innovation, and regulation can have on healthcare. These themes underlined the collective efforts required to shape a health system that not only meets current challenges but also anticipates future needs.

Our speakers and panellists included:

• Simon Opher MP, Member of Parliament for Stroud (host) 
• Andrew Gwynne MP, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention, Department of Health and Social Care
• Professor Lucy Chappell, Chief Scientific Adviser, Department of Health and Social Care
• Professor Sir Stephen Powis, Medical Director, NHS England
• Dame Lyn Chitty, Deputy Director of the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust Biomedical Research Centre
• Helen Dent, CEO, BIVDA
• Professor Sir Mike Richards, CBE MD, DSc, FRCP, Chair, UK National Screening Committee
• Dr Stuart Adams, Honorary Associate Professor at UCL and Consultant Clinical Scientist at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust
• Dr Richard Scott, CEO of Genomics England 
• Martin Keil, Vice President and General Manager Europe Commercial, Revvity

Collaboration: A pillar of healthcare progress

The recurring emphasis on collaboration highlights its critical role in advancing outcomes across life science and healthcare sectors. Across various speeches, leaders praised the UK’s ability to unite academia, the NHS, industry, and charity sectors to drive innovation and improve patient outcomes.

Sir Stephen Powis, Medical Director of the NHS, argued how on this front, the UK is a world leader, saying: “It does have the ability that other health systems don’t have – to come together as one very large health system and act collectively.”

In his speech, Powis gave examples of some of the ways in which this takes effect, showcasing programs such as the NHS Innovation Accelerator and Clinical Entrepreneur Program, which nurture small enterprises and startups to develop groundbreaking solutions. 

However, there were many calls at the event for collaboration to go further to improve outcomes and create greater efficiency in the system. During the panel, Sir Mike Richards, Chair of the UK National Screening Committee, urged researchers to work more with the regulators, saying: “One of the ways we’re doing that is for the screening committee to work closely with researchers and say, is the research going to answer the sort of questions that the screening committee is going to want to have?

“Because what you don’t want is to do a research study and then say, oh damn, we haven’t answered the questions we need. So, we are working really hard on that”, he added.

Innovation: Transforming healthcare delivery

Innovation emerged as a central theme, with discussions spanning cutting-edge technologies like AI, genomics, and digital health tools. Leaders expressed optimism about the NHS’s capacity to integrate these advancements into everyday healthcare.

AI was frequently spotlighted for its potential to enhance productivity and patient outcomes. Andrew Gwynne MP, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Public Health and Prevention, described his experience with AI assisting with a mock consultation, recalled: “I had the privilege on Sunday of visiting Great Ormond Street Hospital, and I had a mock consultation where we talked about football and politics and my family. And the AI automatically dumped all the irrelevant rubbish stuff about football and politics and my family and picked out all the stuff about my health that I chatted about with the consultant.

It wrote the consultant’s notes, and they were perfect, and sent me a letter, probably before Id left the hospital, outlining not only what the consultation was about and what was found and what the doctor’s opinion was, but also the date for my next appointment.” 

“It is literally science fiction becoming science fact,” he remarked, emphasising how such technologies have the potential to revolutionise healthcare delivery.

However, the use of AI was cautioned as needing the right regulatory framework to go alongside it. During our panel, Sir Mike Richards argued how AI needs to be trained to work effectively across diverse populations to be able to take account of people’s different ethnicity or body type.

Richard Scott of Genomics England also stressed the importance of an AI regulatory framework, emphasising the need to protect patients’ data when AI learns of data sets.  

Diagnostics: Enabling earlier and accurate healthcare interventions

Diagnostics took centre stage as a critical area for enhancing healthcare outcomes. Speakers emphasised the importance of diagnostic tools to facilitate early detection and intervention, which can significantly improve patient outcomes. 

Screening programs in particular were highlighted as an important tool in improving diagnostics in the UK. Richards noted how offering targeted screening is working to diagnose people earlier; he pointed to the success of the Targeted Lung Check for those with a history of smoking, as well as the Jewish BRCA testing program. Alongside targeted screening, Richards also advocated for trials regarding widening participation in other screening programs, such as the Breast Screening Programme. 

Richards pointed out that currently, the proportion of cancers diagnosed by screening is low, but with improvements to these screening programs, it could rise, saying: “The answer is actually a surprisingly small number. It’s 5 or 6 per cent. But I believe that we’ve got the possibility of really increasing that to 10 per cent, 15 per cent.” 

This rise in diagnosis via screening is beneficial for both patients and the NHS, ensuring that a patient can receive a diagnosis quicker and through a less invasive process, which in turn, reduces the burden on the NHS.     

Putting patients first: Building trust and participation in healthcare

A more patient-first approach was a theme that was spoken about throughout the event. In his speech, Andrew Gwynne MP spoke of Labour’s 10-year mission for the NHS. A key part of it was a pledge to not only reduce health inequalities in the UK, but to move to a more preventive approach to healthcare. Gwynne highlighted the importance of this, telling the audience that 40 per cent of NHS spending was on illness that could be prevented. 

Gwynne also promoted a shift towards more localised healthcare, saying: “Firstly, from hospital to community, there is so much more that can be done within a community setting, or even, dare I say it, in the home setting, that needn’t be done in hospitals.

“Now, of course, there will always be a need for specialisms, there will always be a need for emergency healthcare, and there will always be a need for hospitals. But still, in our healthcare system, far too much is currently being done in hospitals that could be done in other more convenient settings.”

Following on from this patient-first theme, there was consistent reference to how to make healthcare more user-friendly for patients. Lucy Chappell, the Chief Scientific Advisor and CEO of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), gave examples of how the NIHR is working to invest in medical devices, such as wearables, so patients can better track their health and speed up diagnostics.  

Simplifying processes, such as switching to user-friendly screening tests, was also cited as an effective strategy. For instance, replacing the faecal occult blood test with a single-sample FIT test increased participation by 10 per cent. 

Another topic discussed by the panel was how to better gain public approval for sharing and use of their data. Richard Scott of Genomics England gave a successful case study on how the NHS can better do this, saying: “I think the NHS Change Programme is a key example of public engagement on the shift in general. That includes a shift in how our data is used and held, and we need to do that.

“We found with our work, data is at the heart of it. Before we design programs and, actually, our newborn genomes programme, a really big component of it is engagement – about people, people’s attitudes to it, both on the acceptability of joining a program and also looking to the future and saying ‘What would the models be that you’re comfortable with?’ It’s not just, ‘How do we influence the public?’ it’s the public also influencing and helping design the system.” 

Final Thought

The launch event for Curia’s parliamentary report showcased some of the big achievements and successes of the life science industry, not just in innovation, but in securing better patient outcomes.

The speakers and experts at the event celebrated how the UK is one of the best in the world in how it supports the industry with its framework and operating model. A key theme of the evening was how this could be harnessed further to revitalise the industry as well as the NHS. 

For this to happen, the Government must take on board the key concerns of the industry and healthcare experts, namely, to reduce regulatory hurdles, foster better collaboration not only within the industry but also data sharing within NHS Trusts and, finally, to promote a greater shift to preventive healthcare and earlier diagnostics to reduce pressure on the NHS as well as improve patient outcomes.

In doing this, the Labour Government can not only fulfil its 10-year plan for the NHS but achieve economic growth alongside saving lives.    

To watch the videos, please visit: https://youtu.be/AqZi7lzX_uE 

However, there is hope. Change is rarely linear; it is often exponential. With enough people pushing in the right direction, significant progress can be made against climate change. 

The Power of Education: A Call To Action

I explained that if, as students, they can learn what society needs to do to decarbonise, and then share that knowledge with their parents, they can help accelerate the pace of combat against climate change.

With two billion young people in the world, each one needs only to persuade just three adults, and we can change society fast enough. This approach is why we think educating and empowering our children is key to stopping climate change.

I urge everyone to consider what small actions they can take to push the needle further and accelerate the pace of change.

Joanna Singleton, a Year 8 student at St Christopher’s CE High School said: “A lot of people just don’t realise what issues there are, so we need to raise awareness that the planet is being destroyed, temperatures are rising, ice caps melting, and much more. And we need to let people know about the changes that they can make to help.”

Funding Sustainability Education

To support this education, we developed a means to fund it by installing solar panels on schools. This initiative not only harnesses the sun to fund education, but the solar also serves as a practical learning tool and an example of how to achieve sustainability.

In the UK, the Government could fund sustainability education in schools relatively easily with various motions, such as those led by Lord Jim Knight that advocate for its inclusion in the curriculum. However, many parts of the world struggle to teach basic subjects like maths and literacy, let alone climate change, energy and decarbonisation. By funding solar panels on school buildings, we can deliver this crucial education globally.

Overcoming Bureaucratic Challenges

We built a software platform and a funding mechanism to facilitate this process by bringing funders, installers, and schools together to go solar – enabling us to deliver decarbonisation education. Yet despite the technical and financial feasibility, bureaucratic challenges have limited our progress to about 250 schools in the UK over nearly nine years.

The process involves persuading numerous stakeholders, from headteachers to local authorities, making it incredibly slow. It takes 20 people to install solar panels on a school: One person to install the solar panels and 19 to get out of the way. A sad but rather true joke.

The current process requires convincing each headteacher that installing solar panels is beneficial, cost-free, and provides educational resources. Despite the clear advantages, the bureaucratic hurdles remain significant. Schools enter into a finance agreement with a society of schools, joining a club – run by the schools themselves –that manages these systems.

To make these projects viable, we raise funds from individuals, parents, and contributors, and through grants – for example, school grants totalling £2.7 million across five years from National Grid Electricity Distribution.  

The Potential of Solar Power

The UK has the potential to install about two gigawatts of solar power across its educational estate, requiring around £2 billion in funding. This investment could save between £2 billion and £6 billion in electricity costs over the next 25 years, after covering all maintenance and funding costs. Furthermore, the funding could be raised from the private sector if needed, enabling individuals and the local community to invest in these projects safely, and without imposing a burden on taxpayers. 

For Politicians

For politicians, this means examining and simplifying the processes involved in implementing sustainable solutions and climate change prevention strategies.

Many departments have started, but much more is still needed. MPs should look at their constituencies to identify opportunities for solar installations on public buildings and, in particular, schools, and Solar for Schools can help with this.

In addition to saving money and reducing carbon emissions, installing solar will also inspire young people and empower them to contribute to the battle against climate change. 

For Companies

Companies can also play a role by funding projects that need a financial boost, similar to the support provided by National Grid Electricity Distribution, which provides grants when needed to enable solar to happen when it would otherwise not be commercially viable.

For Individuals

Finally, as individuals, we can make a difference by choosing where to invest our money. Many of us keep our money in banks that fund the status quo, but we can move our funds to banks that support decarbonisation efforts.

Triodos Bank works hard in numerous decarbonisation efforts aimed at tacklong climate change, such as solar on schools, and there are over 300 community energy groups across the country working to deploy solar power on suitable buildings. Join one of these groups to fund solar locally, or join the Solar for Schools Community Benefit Society – a not for profit entity funding solar on schools across the country by offering five-year 5.5 per cent interest-bearing bonds.

Further details can be found at www.solarforschoolscbs.org.uk and there’s also a short video about how the solar itself engages and empowers students as a learning opportunity.

Final Thought

Ultimately, we must all consider how we will answer the question posed by future generations, “What did you do to stop climate change?” I encourage you to work on the answer. 

Robert Schrimpff

Designation

Co-founder and CEO of Solar for Schools

Circular Economy Minister Mary Creagh said: “For too long, single-use vapes have blighted our streets as litter and hooked our children on nicotine. That ends today.”

The vape ban will impact single-use disposable vapes, but reusable and rechargeable vapes will still be available for purchase.

As part of the vape ban, measures will be taken against any traders breaking the rules with a fine of £200 for the first incident, and the products will be seized. However, for those who keep reoffending, they will face hefty penalties including increasingly harsh fines or even jail time.

The vape ban was announced last year under Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government, as statistics from the public health charity Action on Smoking Health (ASH) showed that in 2024, 5.6 million adults were vaping in the UK. This included 7% of 11- to 17-year-olds in the UK who were also using vapes. 

Previous governments had supported vaping as an anti-smoking measure, offering tobacco smokers a less harmful alternative, but in recent years concerns have grown over the number of young people vaping when they otherwise would not have smoked.

Ahead of the vape ban, new data from ASH shows the number of vapers has fallen from last year, from 30% to 24% in 2025. The percentage of vapers aged 18–24 in particular decreased dramatically in 2025 from 52% to 40%.

Caroline Cerny, Deputy Chief Executive, Action on Smoking and Health, said: “It’s promising to see that many people switched away from disposable vapes to reusable products well ahead of the ban.”

She continued saying that this vape ban is aimed particularly at young people who are more likely to use these disposable products because of how attractive and affordable they are. Young people have also been especially targeted by vape companies in their marketing in recent years.

Disposable vapes are often colourful, with sweet flavourings and are presented as harmless compared to tobacco, despite this not being true with the NHS warning that vaping could lead to an addiction to nicotine and negatively impact brain development in young people, particularly effecting the part of the brain that controls emotional regulation and attention spans.

Due to their non-refillable nature, people typically discard these single-use vapes as general waste without recycling them. This contributes to the “flood of litter blighting the country”, as the government described while passing the bill. Even if recycled, the process is slow and costly, as waste industry workers must disassemble them by hand. The batteries themselves represent a fire hazard, and the chemicals inside are harmful for the environment.  

“This new law is a step towards reducing vaping among children while ensuring products are available to support people to quit smoking. It will be up to manufacturers and retailers to ensure customers are informed and able to reuse and recycle their products, securing a real change in consumer behaviour and reducing environmental waste,” Cerny explained.

The government has reported that they have been working closely with retailers to ensure a smooth transition once the legislation has been passed. In its guidance for businesses preparing for the vape ban, the government explains what products and devices can’t be sold and how to get rid of current stock safely.

Association of Convenience Stores chief executive James Lowman said: “Convenience retailers have been preparing for the disposables ban for several months, adapting their ranges and training colleagues on the products that they can sell.

“We have been working with Trading Standards officers across the country to ensure they know what to look for once the ban comes into force and support robust enforcement activity to take illegal vapes off the streets.”

However, according to a BBC report, it is doubtful whether the vape ban will undermine the appeal of vaping. Hazel Cheeseman, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), told the BBC that “new reusable vapes are very similar to single-use vapes, meaning it is “unlikely will have that much impact.”

Justin Greenaway, Commercial Manager at SWEEEP Kuusakoski, said: “We hope this ban will succeed in reducing the amount of vapes being discarded. Every vape has the potential to start a fire if incorrectly disposed of. Logically vape unit waste will reduce as single-use stops and multi-use must start, but it does rely on consumers changing from a disposable mindset to refilling.”

Featured image via Vaping369 / Flickr.

Author: Ana Garcia Sancho

Although first patented nearly a century ago by Joseph Robinson in the US, electronic cigarettes, or vaporizers (vapes) have become a mainstay in the public consciousness as an alternative to smoking following the introduction of flavoured disposable vapes in 2019.

Since then, vapes have been the subject of public scrutiny for several reasons. Some say their colourful packaging and wide array of flavour choices are intended to bag a younger demographic of customers. Others say that the departure from naming them based on their ownership is deceptive and intended to wash away the bad reputations of “big tobacco.”

June 1, 2025 marks the official disposable vape ban in the UK. However, Westminster’s stance on the matter was not always so rigid. It seems not long ago under the Tory-Lib Dem coalition that then PM David Cameron encouraged the use of vapes.

Famously, a 2015 independent report commissioned by the government claimed that vaping was “95 per cent less harmful,” than smoking. The Tory stance on the matter did not shift under Prime Minsters Theresa May or Boris Johnson. It was not until 2020, under PM Truss’ brief leadership that vapes were under scrutiny. This coincided with the mass-market release of disposable vapes in a wide range of flavours.

But it was not until Prime Minister Sunak’s leadership that any legislative efforts were made to address the problem. The Tory government from 2023 introduced the Tobacco & Vapes Bill, aimed at further regulating the industry.

However, the snap-election was called, campaigning was underway and the bill did not make it during the “wash-up” period following the election’s announcement. It appeared to be tabled, indefinitely. As the dust settled on the election, the King’s speech that opened parliament re-introduced the Tobacco & Vapes bill.

This time however, their goals went beyond just banning disposable vapes, 260 million of which are thrown out annually in the UK. They intend on curbing the packaging, flavours available and points-of-sale, in an effort to make the whole affair less attractive to consumers.

But – will these steps actually curb vaping? With corner shops selling vapes that retail for nearly £5.99 at a fraction of the price, consumers can hoard vapes to skirt the ban, at least until their personal supply runs out.

They cannot go back to disposables after; they will have to settle for refillable vapes available only in a few flavours. Some researchers warn that this sudden tightening of regulations may lead to users turning to more dangerous cigarettes to get their nicotine fix.

Despite the act of vaping mostly being associated with younger Gen-Z consumers, research from tobacco free nicotine retailer Haypp, suggests that 89 per cent of middle-aged male vapers will be stockpiling the banned substance.

While not illegal, it brings into question the aspect of black-market retailers. This is a common problem in countries like Bhutan, where a total tobacco ban (cigarettes or otherwise,) came into effect in 2010, but resulted in a fledgling black market for the products. Is this the future for the UK’s vapers too?

This vape ban could not come at a worse time for the tobacco industry either. British American Tobacco (BAT), one of the world’s largest tobacco manufacturers, reported in late 2024 that they were on track to make more profits from selling vapes than any other tobacco product.

BAT also sponsored research in Toxicology Letters, which resulted in a favourable analysis of vapes as containing “fewer harmful substances,” than cigarettes. BAT is not the only one taking part in this shady practice. The aforementioned 2015 report commissioned by PM Cameron’s government was also alleged to be biased, and authored by those with ties to tobacco giants.

The Lancet Journals criticized the report as a guesstimate at best. They wrote that the PHE report suffered from a “lack of hard evidence for the harms of most products on most of the criteria.”

Retailers like off-license shops and product-specific vape shops are also to blame for selling vapes to underage customers. A University of Edinburgh report showed that the profit margin for vapes was nearly 4 times higher than that of tobacco products.

The number of products sold has also increased nearly tenfold in the three years they studied. The Met Police recently conducted a raid on one such corner shop only to find several thousands of pounds worth of illegal vapes hidden away behind the shops.

What stops stockpilers from doing the same and creating a vast black market beyond the vape ban?

The harms of vape are obvious and abundant. Teenagers end up in hospital on what seems to be a weekly basis with vaping-related conditions, be they a collapsed lung or a life-threatening lung infection. The government’s steps to address youth overconsumption of vaping may end up a success, but, what about the issue’s source? Tobacco companies like Philip Morris International (PMI), or R.J.

Reynolds and British American Tobacco who sponsor major sports teams like McLaren Motorsports in the UK or British American Tobacco sponsoring Tomorrowland, a music festival popular with the younger generations?

How effective will the vape ban really be: If big tobacco can change their product’s name and wipe their reputation clean and appeal to a younger generation once, can’t they do it again? It was disposable vapes yesterday; might it be heated tobacco tomorrow? And vape Juices for refillable vapes the day after?

Featured image via B..Robinson / Shutterstock.

Author: Adithya Dattatreya

The stark reality is that 4 million people are out of work due to ill health – a situation that not only impacts individual well-being but also burdens our health system and national productivity.

Compounding these issues is a concerning trend in the UK life sciences sector. In recent years, we’ve witnessed a significant drop in inward investment from global life science companies.

Between 2021 and 2023 alone, there was a staggering 58 per cent decrease in foreign investment. Life sciences is one of the most valuable sectors in the UK, so this decrease represents a missed opportunity for economic growth at a time when we need it most.

However, amidst these challenges lies an incredible opportunity. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent proposals for modernising the NHS, including leveraging AI to optimise NHS operations.

If harnessed effectively and responsibly, these innovative technologies could help to address some of the pressing issues facing our NHS whilst also driving economic growth.

The Future of Innovation in Healthcare

AI has the potential to transform the entire value chain in pharmaceuticals – from the initial discovery of molecules to testing in clinical trials, manufacturing and supply, and the delivery of care to patients.  

To put this in perspective, consider the traditional drug development process. On average, it takes 12 years to take a molecule from initial discovery in the lab to becoming available to patients.

Behind that one success is a series of sometimes 5,000 candidates that were assessed and ultimately deemed unsuitable. At Sanofi, we’re at the forefront of the AI healthcare revolution. Our goal is to halve the time needed for this process so that new medicines and vaccines can reach patients faster than ever before. 

In drug discovery, we’re using AI to analyse vast quantities of data and identify the most promising molecules. For example, our BioAIM program uses AI to identify high-quality candidates that fit the right profiles of need in areas like cancer and rare diseases.

It functions like a flight control hub guiding a spacecraft to the moon. Just as a mission control team gathers data to adjust the spacecraft’s path for success, BioAIM helps carve out the drug discovery route that has the best possible chance of success before we take off.

In clinical trials, AI is helping us to identify trial sites that reach and engage a more diverse range of patients. This means that communities that have historically been underrepresented can take part in clinical research, such as older adults, ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities.

Lastly, we’re using AI to accelerate patient pathways. We have a number of pilot projects in partnership with the NHS across the UK. For example, we’re using AI to analyse data from electronic health records and identify people at risk of rare genetic conditions. This helps to speed up diagnosis times, support individual patients and reduce strain on the overall healthcare system.   

The UK is well-positioned to lead globally in AI application to healthcare. We boast the world’s third most valuable tech sector, a wealth of NHS healthcare data to leverage, and globally renowned academia in science and technology. However, successfully launching this innovative technology – and indeed, reaping the rewards of the new medicines it can help discover – will require significant investment from global life sciences companies. To make that happen, we need to fix the medicines access environment and make the UK an attractive place for investment. 

Improving the UK Life Sciences Environment to Harness AI

Currently, there’s a significant gap in access to new medicines between the UK and other European countries. When a doctor prescribes a medicine to a patient, they assume they will be getting the best. In reality, they will receive only the best medicine available in the UK.

For every 100 patients receiving a new medicine in its first year of launch in EU countries, only 21 patients in the UK will do so. This disparity is not just a statistic; it represents missed opportunities for better patient outcomes and improved quality of life. The UK sees poorer health outcomes versus comparable countries, with significantly worse results for many conditions, including cancer, heart disease, and stroke. It also impedes economic growth and puts additional challenges on our healthcare system.

So, how can we improve things? 

Other countries have implemented forward-thinking policies and flexible approaches to medicine access, enabling swift launches of new treatments. In the UK, we need to update the NICE appraisal process and improve the commercial options available for companies bringing forward new medicines for use in the NHS. The ABPI and the NHS Confederation estimate the economy could be enabled to achieve productivity gains amounting to almost £18 billion through improved uptake of innovative medicines – and that estimate is across just four classes of medicines. 

Final Thought: Kick-starting a Virtuous Circle

We now have a genuine opportunity for our industry to collaborate with government, harness the power of AI and create a virtuous circle of health and wealth. 

By improving access to and uptake of innovative medicines, we can create a healthier and more productive population. This improved operating environment will also, in turn, make the UK an attractive place for investment from global life sciences companies and enable the adoption of new and innovative technologies such as AI. Our sector was worth over £94 billion to the UK economy in 2021 and employed 280,000 people – a contribution that could grow substantially with a re-energised operating environment. 

Together, we can make the UK a healthcare and life sciences powerhouse, benefiting patients, the NHS, and the economy as a whole. The future of healthcare is here, and it’s powered by AI and innovation. Let’s seize this opportunity and lead the way. 

Cover image via Shutterstock AI/ Shutterstock: Other Images supplied by Sanofi.

Rippon Ubhi

Designation

Country Lead, Sanofi UK & Ireland