UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • King Charles III – 2026 Statement on the Arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

    King Charles III – 2026 Statement on the Arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

    The statement made by King Charles III on 19 February 2026.

    “I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office.

    What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities.

    In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation.

    Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.

    As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter.

    Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all.

    Charles R.”

  • Sarah Edwards – 2026 Speech on School Minibus Safety

    Sarah Edwards – 2026 Speech on School Minibus Safety

    The speech made by Sarah Edwards, the Labour MP for Tamworth, in the House of Commons on 12 February 2026.

    It is good to see so many hon. and right hon. Members present to take part in this important debate on school minibus safety. No family should ever have to question whether their child will return home safely from a school activity. For my constituents Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, that unthinkable fear became a devastating reality. In November 1993, a minibus carrying 14 children was involved in a catastrophic crash on the M40 near Hagley. Twelve children and their teacher lost their lives, and among them was Liz and Steve’s beloved daughter, Claire.

    I first met Liz and Steve while campaigning in my by-election in 2023. They bravely shared their story with me and invited me to support their ongoing campaign to make school minibuses safer, so that no child would ever be put at risk while travelling to or from school activities. Since then, I have stood with them in their tireless efforts to improve safety, not just for the children who travel in these vehicles, but for the teachers and staff who are asked to drive them. More than 30 years have now passed since that tragedy, and while important improvements have been made in areas such as seatbelt provision and vehicle construction standards, the underlying regulatory framework that allows teachers to drive minibuses without full professional training remains largely unchanged.

    Children’s safety should not be up for debate. This is about reducing risks that we already know can be prevented. It is about asking whether the legal framework that governs the transport of pupils to and from school activities truly matches the weight of that responsibility. Every time a child steps on to a school minibus, parents place their trust in the system that stands behind it. That system must be strong, consistent and—above all—capable of keeping every child safe. At the moment, many of us believe that that system falls short.

    The system that governs school minibuses is built around section 19 permits, introduced under the Transport Act 1985. These permits allow not-for-profit organisations, including schools, to run minibuses without holding a full public service vehicle operator’s licence. Under that system, drivers must meet certain basic licensing conditions, but they are not required to hold a full passenger carrying vehicle licence. Nor are they required by law to undertake accredited professional training.

    The official guidance, which dates from 2013, states that drivers must be suitably trained and correctly licensed. It even recognises that driving a minibus requires additional skills, and is simply not the same as driving a large car. However, it is guidance, so it is advisory, and there are no checks by the Department for Education or Ofsted on its implementation or use. Schools are encouraged to consider specialist training, but they are not required to do so. At the moment, the guidance is not strong enough to guarantee children’s safety. That is why, alongside Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, and the NASUWT, I have been calling for stronger, clearer regulations to make sure that every child can travel safely, and that teachers and staff are properly trained and supported to carry out that responsibility.

    It is also important to understand how and why the framework came about. Section 19 and 22 did not emerge from a careful review of child passenger safety. They were shaped largely by European market rules designed to regulate competition. In other words, the system that we rely on today was driven more by economic considerations than by the safety of schoolchildren. That historical origin has left us with a fragmented and confusing framework.

    Private schools that are not charities are treated as commercial operators, and they must hold a full operator’s licence, meet strict financial and safety requirements, appoint a qualified transport manager, and employ fully licensed, professionally trained drivers with regulated hours. That comprehensive legal framework is designed to protect children and ensure accountability. By contrast, many state schools transport children daily under section 19 permits without the same safeguards. They operate largely on guidance rather than law, with no mandatory professional training or oversight. In practice, teachers may drive minibuses at the end of a full teaching day without the protections required of commercial drivers.

    That raises simple but troubling questions. Why should a child’s safety depend on the type of school they attend? Why should children in private schools travel under a full safety regime, while children in state schools rely on discretion and good will? I criticise not independent schools, which are complying with the law, but the two-tier system that affords different levels of protection to children—that is unfair and unacceptable.

    The inconsistency goes further. Across the UK, standards vary by nation. In Northern Ireland, for example, driving a school minibus without a full D1 licence can be a disciplinary offence. Children’s safety should not depend on postcode, school type or geography. Every child deserves the same standards, protections and assurance that those responsible for their transport are properly trained and accountable.

    The Government recently stated before the Transport Committee that they do not wish to relax D1 licence requirements for community minibus drivers, citing road safety concerns. Around one in five candidates fails the D1 test, even after extensive training. That failure rate is a clear indication of the level of skill and competence required to operate such vehicles safely.

    Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)

    I am concerned that under the current system, someone could fail their test to drive a minibus in a professional setting and it would not stop them from driving one in a school setting, which does not require a D1 licence. Why is that licence not required to drive children to and from school activities? It fundamentally does not make sense. Does my hon. Friend agree?

    Sarah Edwards

    That is precisely my concern. It does not make sense at all given that failure means an inability to drive safely. We should surely apply the same standards or higher when children are involved.

    Under the current school system, a teacher over the age of 21 who holds only a standard category B car licence and has just two years’ driving experience can legally drive a minibus carrying children, without holding a full passenger carrying vehicle licence and without undertaking any mandatory accredited training—so, too, can the individual who has failed their D1 driving test. This creates a stark and troubling inconsistency in the Government’s own stated aims.

    In every other context, professional passenger transport is treated as high risk, with rigorous training, testing and regulation designed to protect passengers. Yet the law allows schoolchildren—the most vulnerable passengers, some might argue—to be transported under a system that relies on guidance rather than on statutory safeguards. We must ask ourselves: if the Government recognise the dangers and the skill required to drive a minibus in every other setting, why do they not apply the same standards to those entrusted with the lives of children? The safety of our school pupils should not be left to chance or good will.

    Current guidance recognises the dangers of driver fatigue and advises against long journeys after a day of work, but those are only recommendations. In practice, teachers are often expected to drive minibuses at the end of long teaching days. They are responsible for driving larger, more complex vehicles while supervising pupils at the same time. In some cases, they are the only adult on board. That presents serious risks in the event of a breakdown, an emergency or a behavioural incident. This is not about blaming teachers—they are dedicated professionals—but the system places enormous responsibility on them without the professional safeguards that exist in other areas of passenger transport. It is no surprise that growing numbers of teachers are choosing not to drive minibuses, citing stress and concerns about personal liability.

    There is also clear confusion and inconsistency in the system. Guidance on section 19 permits has been interpreted in different ways, and some local authorities and academy trusts apply their own requirements that differ from national guidance. That uncertainty does not make children safer. The NASUWT teaching union has described the current regime as “not fit for purpose”, and a 2024 survey found inconsistent compliance with legal requirements and guidance across many schools. In some cases, management is aware of the shortcomings. In others, problems arise because guidance is unclear and training is lacking. Vehicle faults and poor maintenance have been identified, leaving teachers unknowingly responsible for the vehicle’s roadworthiness. The same survey found that 24% of teachers felt pressured to drive a minibus despite feeling unqualified to do so. Although NASUWT guidance is available to teachers, the union ultimately advises staff not to drive minibuses at all, due to the legal, safety and personal liability risks involved.

    Concerns have also been raised about the use of lightweight minibuses, which are basically converted vans fitted with seats. Many of these vehicles weigh less than 3.5 tonnes, which allows schools to bypass the training and licensing requirements that would otherwise apply to those who obtained their category B car licence after 1997. In effect, these vehicles have become a cheaper workaround for schools, but that cost saving comes with significant safety compromises: these lightweight minibuses often lack essential features such as side impact protection or full airbag coverage, leaving children and staff more vulnerable in the event of a collision. In practice, gross vehicle weight limits are not always routinely checked before journeys begin. Many teachers are unaware that once they take a vehicle on to the road, they are legally responsible for not only their driving but ensuring that the vehicle is roadworthy and compliant with regulations.

    This combination of under-equipped vehicles, insufficient oversight and limited professional training creates a serious safety risk. Teachers can find themselves responsible for dozens of children in a vehicle that is not designed to carry them safely, with no back-up if something goes wrong. The risk is not theoretical; it is a real and present danger that must be addressed. We should not accept a system where cost, convenience or outdated loopholes determine the level of protection that children receive. Every child, in every school, should be transported in a vehicle that meets robust safety standards, driven by someone who is properly trained, and supported by a clear and enforceable legal framework.

    The so-called short distance exemption further complicates matters. Section 19 permits assume that journeys will normally take place within a 10-mile radius, except in rural areas, but many schools, including church schools and large multi-academy trusts operating across several counties, regularly travel well beyond that distance for sports fixtures and other activities. When what is meant to be exceptional becomes routine, it is reasonable to ask whether the legal framework is still fit for purpose.

    At the same time, parents are often unaware of the regulatory distinctions that underpin school transport. Traditional written consent forms once gave parents a clear understanding of arrangements. Increasing reliance on digital systems means that many parents simply assume that robust, uniform standards are already in place. How many parents have been informed prior to a trip and asked whether they were happy for their child to be driven in a minibus by a teacher or staff member who could not demonstrate the level of training required for professional minibus operators?

    Everything that we have heard and considered today makes it clear that the current system is failing both children and staff. We are allowing a two-tier approach to safety, where the protection that a child receives depends on the type of school that they attend. That cannot continue.

    Sarah Edwards

    I met Ministers from the Department for Transport in May 2025 and from the Department for Education more recently, but the suggested changes are yet to be made. The issue was not mentioned in the Government’s road safety strategy. I have already raised that concern with the Minister, and I am raising it in the House today to provide the detail and substance behind those concerns for the official record.

    The road safety strategy sets out excellent ambitions for the protection of road users and cites issues around appropriate licences, which I applaud. I know the Minister is rightly proud of the strategy as a piece of work. I raise the issue of the continued use of permits for school minibus driving precisely because it cuts across the sentiment of the strategy, and I am disappointed that terms like “community transport” or “school minibuses” do not appear in the document at present, despite these inconsistencies being known to Departments.

    I ask the Minister to take action about the following suggestions that I will set out. All schools, whether state-funded or independent, must be held to the same safety standards, with best practice an absolute minimum. Section 19 permits for schools should be replaced with statutory regulations, moving from guidance-based advice to enforceable legal standards, and aligning all school minibus operations with road safety priorities rather than simply community exemptions.

    The Department for Education should have a list of all associated minibuses that schools use and operate, regardless of whether they are a local authority or an academy trust school. This information should be jointly shared with the Department for Transport, because at present no such information exists, nor does the ability to extract minibus accident data from generic passenger vehicle data, meaning that minibuses are treated in the same way as buses or coaches in Government data. That makes further analysis of the issue difficult.

    The professionalisation of school minibus driving must be mandated. All drivers should hold a passenger carrying vehicle licence or D1 qualification in order to operate a school minibus. Every school fleet should be overseen by a transport manager, and drivers must undergo checks on eyesight, health and driving records.

    The use of lightweight minibuses must be phased out or banned. Children should travel in vehicles built to proper safety standards, not those chosen to save costs. A national inspection and enforcement regime must be introduced. DVSA inspections should cover all school transport, not just commercial operators, with vehicles and drivers tracked in a centralised, transparent system.

    Legal grey areas must be clarified. Government guidance should remove ambiguity around terms such as “volunteer”, “hire or reward” and “non-commercial”, and the guidance must be court-tested and enforceable.

    Teacher wellbeing and safety must be protected. Driving duties should not fall to teachers after a full working day. Minibus driving should be recognised as a specialised responsibility in schools, not an informal task. We also believe that transport safety should be included in Ofsted inspections, and the long-term impact of accidents on both pupils and staff, including mental health and trauma, must be taken seriously.

    In closing, these are not abstract or minor reforms. They are essential steps to ensure that every child can travel safely to and from school activities, and that the adults entrusted with that responsibility are fully supported, trained and accountable. I think of Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, and the courage it has taken them to turn their personal tragedy into a tireless campaign for safer school transport. Their determination reminds us all why reform cannot wait, because sadly during the time that we have been campaigning together and meeting Ministers, other such tragedies have occurred.

    I urge the Government to take steps to close the ambiguity and to further their aims for road safety for all who use them. Our children deserve nothing less than a system that guarantees their safety, values the teachers who transport them and removes the inequalities and risks that underpin the current framework. It is time for decisive action. I thank the Minister for coming here today and I commend this debate to the House.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2026 Comments on the Death of Alexei Navalny

    Yvette Cooper – 2026 Comments on the Death of Alexei Navalny

    The comments made by Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, on 14 February 2026.

    Since Yulia Navalnaya announced the loss of her husband here in Munich two years ago, the UK has pursued the truth of Alexei Navalny’s death with fierce determination

    “Only the Russian Government had the means, motive and opportunity to deploy this lethal toxin against Alexei Navalny during his imprisonment in Russia.

    Today, beside his widow, the UK is shining a light on the Kremlin’s barbaric plot to silence his voice.

    Russia saw Navalny as a threat. By using this form of poison the Russian state demonstrated the despicable tools it has at its disposal and the overwhelming fear it has of political opposition.

  • Keir Starmer – 2026 Speech at the Munich Security Conference

    Keir Starmer – 2026 Speech at the Munich Security Conference

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 14 February 2026.

    For many years, for most people in the United Kingdom, war has been remote. Something that concerns us deeply, but which happens far off.

    But now we feel the solidity of peace, the very ground of peace now softening under our feet. It is the job of leaders to be ahead of these seismic shifts. Yet that is against the grain of history.

    Time and again, leaders have looked the other way, only re-arming when disaster is upon them. This time, it must be different. Because all of the warning signs are there.

    Russia has proved its appetite for aggression, bringing terrible suffering to the Ukrainian people. 

    Its hyper-threats extend across our continent, not just threatening our security, but tearing at our social order. 

    Collaborating with populists to undermine our values. Using disinformation to sow division. Using cyber-attacks and sabotage to disrupt our lives and deepening the cost-of-living crisis.

    It is true that Russia has made a huge strategic blunder in Ukraine, and the Russian casualties number well over a million. But even as the war goes on, Russia is re-arming, reconstituting their armed forces, an industrial base. 

    NATO has warned that Russia could be ready to use military force against the Alliance by the end of this decade. In the event of a peace deal in Ukraine, which we are all working hard to achieve, Russia’s re-armament would only accelerate.

    The wider danger to Europe would not end there. It would increase. So we must answer this threat in full.

    At the outset, it is important to be prepared. We do not seek conflict. Our objective is lasting peace, a return to strategic stability, and the rule of law.

    And in the face of these threats, there is only one viable option. 

    Now, to break the convention of a house of speeches, we are not at a crossroads. The road ahead is straight and it is clear.

    We must build our hard power, because that is the currency of the age. We must be able to deter aggression. And yes, if necessary, we must be ready to fight.

    To do whatever it takes to protect our people, our values, and our way of life. And as Europe, we must stand on our own two feet. And that means being bold.

    It means putting away petty politics and short-term concerns. It means acting together to build a stronger Europe and a more European NATO, underpinned by deeper links between the UK and the EU, across defence, industry, tech, politics, and the wider economy. Because these are the foundations on which our security and prosperity will rest.

    This is how we will build a better future for our continent. True to the vibrant, free, diverse societies that we represent, showing that people who look different to each other can live peacefully together. But this isn’t against the tenor of our times.

    Rather, it’s what makes us strong, as we’re prepared to defend it with everything that we have.

    And we are not the Britain of the Brexit years anymore.

    Because we know that in a dangerous world, we would not take control by turning in.  We would surrender. 

    And I won’t let that happen. That’s why I devote time as Prime Minister to Britain’s leadership on the world stage.

    And that’s why I’m here today. Because I am clear, there is no British security without Europe, and no European security without Britain. That is the lesson of history, and is today’s reality as well.

    So together we must rise to this moment. We must spend more, deliver more, and coordinate more.

    And crucially, we must do this with the United States.

    The US remains an indispensable power. Its contribution to European security over 80 years is unparalleled. And so is our gratitude.

    At the same time, we recognise that things are changing. The US National Security Strategy  spells out that Europe must take primary responsibility for its own defence. That is the new law.

    Now, there have been a series of thoughtful interventions about what this means, including the argument that we’re at a moment of rupture. 

    Now, I would agree that the world has changed fundamentally, and that we must find new ways to uphold our values and the rule of law. But in responding to that, we must not disregard everything that has sustained us for the last 80 years.

    That could be a moment of destruction. And instead, I believe, we must make this a moment of creation. Instead of a moment of rupture, we must make it one of radical renewal.

    So, rather than pretending that we can simply replace all US capabilities, we should focus on diversifying and decreasing some dependencies. We should deliver generational investment that moves us from over-dependence to interdependence. I’m talking about a vision of European security and greater European autonomy.

    It does not herald US withdrawal, but answers the call for more burden-sharing in Europe and remake the ties that have served us so well. Because we know the value of our own power. The nature of our power is at the core of human decision.

    It achieved something that leaders have been trying to do for centuries. From Westphalia to the Congress of Vienna to Versailles. After centuries of conflict, the founders of NATO finally united our continents in peace and security.

    Our militaries, that once faced each other on the battlefield, now stand side-by-side, pledged to each other’s defence. It is a shield over our heads every single day. And whilst some on the extremes of our politics chip away at this alliance, we defend it.

    I am proud that my party fought for NATO’s creation. While our then Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin called it a spiritual union of the West. And we’ve shown our fidelity to that idea, asserting each other’s sovereignty, as we did on Greenland.

    And crucially, coming to each other’s aid under Article 5. We fought together in Afghanistan, at terrible cost to many in my country and across many allied countries. And so I say to all NATO members, our commitment to Article 5 is as profound now as ever. And be in no doubt, if called on, the UK would come to your aid today.

    Instead, we must move forward together to create a more European NATO. As I see it, Europe is a sleeping giant. Our economies dwarf Russia more than ten times over.

    We have huge defence capabilities, yet too often this adds up to less than the sum of its parts. Fragmented industrial planning and procurement have led to gaps in some areas, and massive duplication in others. 

    Europe has over 20 types of frigate, and 10 types of fighter jet. We have over 10 types of main battle tank, whilst the US has one. It’s wildly inefficient, and it harms our collective security. The US security umbrella has allowed these bad habits to develop. But now we must break them. 

    And we have shown that we can coordinate in great effect, as was just set out. Supporting Ukraine in a way that Putin never really imagined. Creating the Coalition of the Willing, which now covers almost all of Europe, as well as Canada and our friends in the Asia-Pacific. And going further in our support, with the UK announcing over £500 million this week for more air defence for the Ukrainian people. To meet the wider threat, it is clear that we are going to have to spend more faster. 

    And we have shown our collective intent in this regard as well. With the historic agreement to increase spending to 5% on security and defence. And we are prepared to explore innovative solutions. So we are stepping up work with like-minded allies on options for a collective approach to defence financing, to help accelerate this vital investment.

    And as we increase spending, we must use it to its full potential. We must come together to integrate our capabilities on spending and procurement and build a joint European defence industry. I welcome the steps that we have taken so far, which could allow us to participate in the £90 billion Euro loan to Ukraine.

    I hope we can work together like this going forward. Because, look, the logic of defence is solidarity and collective effort, not market access. 

    In a crisis, our citizens expect us to be ready. So we need to deliver a step change in collaboration. 

    And I am proud of the work we are already doing together. Delivering cutting-edge drones with Ukraine. Developing next-generation long-range missiles with Germany, Italy and France. Working with our JEF allies to protect our northern flank.

    Doubling our deployment of British commandos in the Arctic. Taking control of NATO’s Atlantic and Northern Command in Norfolk, Virginia. And transforming our Royal Navy by striking the biggest warship deal in British history with Norway.

    We are building a fleet of warships to hunt Russian submarines and protect undersea infrastructure. We want to replicate this level of collaboration with other allies across the High North and the Baltics. 

    And I can announce today that the UK will deploy our Carrier Strike Group to the North Atlantic and the High North this year led by HMS Prince of Wales, operating alongside the US, Canada and other NATO allies in a powerful show of our commitment to Euro-Atlantic security.

    That is also why we are enhancing our nuclear cooperation with France. For decades the UK has been the only nuclear power in Europe to commit its deterrent to protect all NATO members. But now any adversary must know that in a crisis they could be confronted by our combined strength.

    It shows beyond doubt how vital it is that we work together. So, we must also look at what more we can do with the EU. 

    We must go beyond the historic steps that we took at last year’s UK-EU summit to build the formidable productive power and innovative strength that we need. British companies already account for over a quarter of the continent’s defence industrial base. 

    They are a job-creating, community-building machine employing around 239,000 people across the UK, including in Wales, where this month we’re launching the first of five regional defence-grade deals.

    We want to bring our leadership in defence, tech and AI together with Europe to multiply our strengths and build a shared industrial base across our continent which could turbocharge our defence production. 

    That requires leadership. To drive greater coherence and coordination across Europe. That is what we’re doing with Germany and France in the E3, working closely with EU partners, particularly Italy and Poland as well as with Norway, Canada and Turkey. 

    So my message today is the United Kingdom is ready. We see the imperative. We see the urgency. We want to work together to lead a generational shift in defence industrial cooperation. 

    Now this includes looking again at closer economic alignment.

    We are already aligned with the single market in some areas to drive down the prices of food and energy. We are trusted partners. And as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this week, deeper economic integration is in all of our interests.

    So we must look at where we can move closer to the single market in other sectors as well where that would work for both sides. 

    The prize here is greater security. Stronger growth for the United Kingdom and the EU, which will fuel increased defence spending and the chance to place the UK at the centre of a wave of European industrial renewal.

    I understand the politics very well. It will mean trade-offs. But the status quo is not fit for purpose.

    And to me there is no question where the national interest lies. I will always fight for what’s best for my country. 

    I started today talking about avoiding mistakes of the past like delaying action or fragmenting our efforts. 

    But there is something else. In the 1930s, leaders were too slow to level with the public about the fundamental shift in mindset that was required. 

    So we must work harder today to build consent for the decisions we must take to keep us safe. 

    Because if we don’t, the peddlers of easy answers are ready on the extremes of left and right and they will offer their solutions instead. 

    It’s striking that the different ends of the spectrum share so much. Soft on Russia. Weak on NATO. If not outright opposed. And determined to sacrifice the relationship we need on the altar of their ideology.

    The future they offer is one of division and then capitulation. 

    The lamps would go out across Europe once again. But we will not let that happen.

    If we believe in our values, in democracy, liberty and the rule of law. This is the moment to stand up and to fight for them. That is why we must work together.

    And show that by taking responsibility for our own security, we will help our people look forward. Not with fear, but with determination. And with hope.

    Thank you very much.

  • Emma Reynolds – 2026 Speech on Food Security

    Emma Reynolds – 2026 Speech on Food Security

    The speech made by Emma Reynolds, the Environment Secretary, at the British Ambassador’s Residence in Paris on 12 February 2026.

    Good evening, bonsoir, mesdames et messieurs. Distinguished guests, colleagues and friends. Thank you for welcoming me to Paris this evening.

    And thank you Andrew for that kind and rather cheesy introduction.

    Je suis ravie d’etre ici ce soir avec vous. Paris occupe une place toute particulière dans mon cœur. J’ai travaillé en France dans ma tendre jeunesse à l’âge 19 ans comme serveuse a la gare de Lyon Partdieu. J’en ai retenu deux choses essentielles: l’importance d’un service de qualité… et une passion toujours aussi intense pour le fromage, la charcuterie et le vin français.

    And in fact, when I reflect on my time living here in France I can see some similarities between being a waitress and being a politician – you’re working long hours, serving the people, and also, alas, dealing with complaints – but unfortunately, we politicians can’t blame the kitchen when things go wrong!

    This impressive residence – Hotel Charost – has a rich history. The Duke of Wellington bought it off Napoleon’s sister, but don’t worry; the money and indeed the gold Britain paid for it was used by the French emperor to finance his return from exile!

    And this residence has served for over 200 years as a place where British and French people have come together to discuss the issues of the moment and explore the opportunities ahead.

    That is exactly what I want to do this evening with you.

    Today has been a day full of rich conversations.

    I had the great pleasure of meeting my French counterpart, Minister Annie Genevard, to discuss the future of our farming sectors, international trade and the agreement that we are negotiating between the UK and the EU on sanitary and phytosanitary rules – un accord sur les normes sanitaires et phytosanitaires – which you can see why we shorten to “SPS agreement”.

    I have also had meetings with Ambassador Olivier Poivre D’Arvor to discuss our shared ocean priorities – from marine protected areas to the plastics treaty.

    And Ambassador Barbara Pompili and I covered the biodiversity agenda, including our joint work on biodiversity credits.

    What struck me throughout today’s meetings was a common thread: a shared commitment to high standards, practical cooperation, and the understanding that the challenges we face – from climate to food security to ocean health – do not respect borders. And that we can stand tall in the world, working together in partnership to solve these challenges.

    Why food security matters now

    And that reminded me of something I learnt from my many years working in Brussels.

    That the relationship between the United Kingdom and our European neighbours is not simply a matter of treaties and trade statistics, as important as they are. It is built on something deeper.

    We have shared values, shared culture and a shared history. And most importantly we have a shared future.

    As the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves said yesterday, Britain’s future is inextricably bound with Europe’s future. For economic reasons, for security, for resilience and for defence. Geography matters in our world today. None of the trade agreements the UK has done around the world are as important as our trade arrangements with the EU.

    That is why our Labour government committed to the British people that we would reset and deliver on the partnership with our European friends. And that is exactly what we are doing.

    Because this partnership, based on our shared values, matters even more in this uncertain world.

    War on our continent, with the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Increasing geopolitical tensions.

    New biosecurity threats – plant and animal diseases that do not respect borders.

    All these challenges demand greater cooperation, not isolation.

    And climate change is placing unprecedented pressure on food systems, biodiversity, and the natural resources we all depend upon.

    This is not a distant threat. Droughts, floods, extreme weather events – are already disrupting harvests, straining supply chains, and driving up costs for farmers and consumers alike.

    Food security has direct consequences for the safety and wellbeing of our populations. In this new geopolitical reality, it is inseparable from national security.

    That is why food security has become a strategic priority for governments across Europe – and why the strength of our relationships with our closest partners matters more than ever.

    For our shared security. And our shared prosperity.

    UK-France food systems are deeply connected

    The English Channel, la Manche, is one of Europe’s most important food corridors.

    Every day, high-value, time-sensitive goods cross in both directions, serving consumers and supporting producers on both sides.

    France exports over €7 billion euros in agri-food products to the UK each year.

    In return the UK exports over €3 billion euros of such produce to France.

    French produce on British tables; British products in French markets.

    Indeed, some of the finest French produce can be found in some of the best French restaurants – many of which are of course in London.

    French wine, cheese, chocolate and croissants are fantastically popular back home amongst the French expats but also les roast bifs.

    I must confess a particular weakness for a good Côtes du Rhône or indeed Burgundy.

    I read of President Macron’s visit to the trade show, Wine Paris, just this week, championing French producers and seeking new markets.

    We share that instinct: to support our agricultural sectors, defend quality, and find partners who value what we grow and make.

    And I’m sure that many of you have your own British favourites. I know that British salmon, whisky and lamb are valued in French restaurants and markets. Some of you might even drink a morning cup of tea.

    These flows of agri-food products represent millions of meals, thousands of livelihoods, and generations of trade built on trust. And something more, that the French know better than anyone else, food is culture.

    What crosses the Channel reflects not just commerce, but connection.

    Our supply chains are not national systems operating in parallel. They are integrated networks.

    The UK’s food security benefits when France and the wider EU are thriving. French resilience benefits when UK production and supply are stable.

    SPS agreement benefits

    This brings me to the agreement we are working towards with the EU.

    The SPS agreement is designed to restore the Channel corridor to its full potential.

    Exports of British farm products to the EU have dropped by a fifth in the five years since Brexit. And I heard in a roundtable this afternoon with French producers that they have had similar challenges exporting to the UK.

    That’s not good for farmers and consumers on both sides of the channel.

    This agreement will change that.

    It will make trade faster, easier, and cheaper.

    Businesses large and small will benefit from less time and money spent on complex paperwork at the border.

    Consumers will have greater access to the high-quality products they value.

    The agreement will mean over €300 million euros worth of cheese entering the UK from France would no longer need to be checked at the border and can reach customers more quickly.

    It also means that over €500 million euros worth of UK fish arriving in France each year can be sold faster and more reliably.

    Frictionless trade, efficient borders, open supply chains – these directly support farmer incomes, consumer prices, and shared resilience.

    The mutual benefits are significant.

    They tie the UK and EU together on food security and improve movement and reliability on both sides of the Channel.

    Shared high standards

    There is sometimes a temptation, when discussing trade agreements, to suggest that standards must be traded off against supply.

    My government rejects that view.

    The UK and EU are natural allies in upholding high standards of animal welfare and environmental protection – and in championing these principles internationally, protecting the integrity of our food systems while leading the global transition to sustainable agriculture.

    High standards are not a barrier to trade. They are what makes trade valuable. They are what consumers trust. And they are what will distinguish European agriculture in an increasingly uncertain world.

    Sustainable farming and food security

    The climate crisis means we cannot secure our food systems simply by producing more. We must produce food differently.

    Sustainable farming is not a constraint on food security – it is the foundation of it. Soil health, water management, biodiversity, reduced emissions – these are not luxuries. They are the conditions on which productive agriculture depends.

    Farmers who protect and restore their land are not just producing food. They are safeguarding the capacity to produce food for generations to come.

    As G7 and G20 members, the UK and France have both the platform and the obligation to drive global action on climate – in our food systems but also in energy, trade, and the protection of natural ecosystems worldwide.

    Last week I addressed scientists and policymakers gathered in Manchester for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

    At that gathering, I delivered remarks on behalf of His Majesty the King, who spoke of nature as “the ultimate foundation of our societies and, critically, our economy” – and of the urgent need to reverse biodiversity loss.

    His Majesty is right. Together we will demonstrate that protecting and restoring nature isn’t just an environmental necessity, it is essential for our security, our economy, and our future.

    The King also highlighted the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits, jointly established by the UK and French governments, as a model for how nature finance can channel investment towards nature across the world.

    That partnership – practical, innovative, and rooted in shared values – extends to the work ahead.

    And tomorrow I look forward to meeting Environment Minister Monique Barbut to discuss how we can work together through France’s G7 presidency this year and beyond – and demonstrate what multilateralism can deliver.

    Today has been a reminder of why these partnerships matter – not just in policy documents, but in practice.

    The conversations I’ve had with my French colleagues and counterparts, have reinforced my belief that the UK and France are ready to write the next chapter together.

    Because the challenges we face – climate change, geopolitical instability, pressures on our food systems – are not challenges any country can meet in splendid isolation.

    They demand cooperation between trusted partners who share not just interests, but values.

    That is what the UK and France have built together.

    Not a relationship of convenience, but one grounded in shared history, mutual respect, and a common vision for the future.

    In the months ahead, as we work to finalise the SPS agreement and deepen our cooperation, I am confident we will demonstrate what this partnership can achieve – not just for our two countries, but as a model for how neighbours can work together in an uncertain world.

    And in the spirit of partnership, I should warn you: the sparkling wine you have been drinking is produced by the finest English vineyards! But don’t worry – le vin rouge est francais!

    The entente may be tested, but I trust it will remain cordiale.

    But in all seriousness, I hope you’ll join me in toasting the friendship between our nations – past, present, and future.

    À notre amitié – d’hier, d’aujourd’hui et de demain.

    Merci.

  • Keir Starmer – 2026 Comments on Sir Chris Wormald

    Keir Starmer – 2026 Comments on Sir Chris Wormald

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 12 February 2026.

    I am very grateful to Sir Chris for his long and distinguished career of public service, spanning more than 35 years, and for the support that he has given me over the past year. I have agreed with him that he will step down as Cabinet Secretary today. I wish him the very best for the future.

  • Richard Hermer – 2026 Speech at the Great Synagogue in Sydney

    Richard Hermer – 2026 Speech at the Great Synagogue in Sydney

    The speech made by Richard Hermer, the Attorney General, at the Great Synagogue in Sydney on 6 February 2026.

    Rabbi Elton, Rabbi Feldman, members of the congregation – Shabbat Shalom

    Whenever and wherever I travel, I try to visit two types of venues close to my heart – courts and Shuls.  My children would say this shows I need to get out more.  I disagree, never more so than this evening – what a privilege it is to address you in this magnificent and historical Shul – which has been a centre of Australian Jewish life for almost 150 years. 

    And Australian Jewish life has been important for me and part of my Jewish identity for over 40 years.  I spent my year-off in Israel and on my very first night there met up with a group of Aussies from my same Jewish youth movement.  They became life-long friends bringing me back to these shores many times.  The bonds that we created have continued through to the next generation with both my children attending youth camps here as madrachot (youth leaders). L’dor v’dor (from generation to generation) 

    But the capacity in which I am here tonight is very different to previous years and the reason for my attendance is altogether more important and solemn. 

    I come on behalf of His Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. I come to express our outrage at the terrorist attack at Bondi beach, to offer our condolences to the families of those killed and those injured to express our profound friendship and solidarity with the Jewish community of Australia as you come to terms with the horror of the attack and face the challenge of tackling modern antisemitism.

    Earlier today, not long after I arrived in Australia, I went to Bondi and stood on the green, and reflected on the horror of what had taken place there.

    Although I was appointed Attorney General only 18 months ago, tragically this is not the first time that I have spoken at Friday night services following an antisemitic terrorist attack. 

    As you will know, last Yom Kippur the Heaton Park Shul in Manchester was the subject of a dreadful terrorist attack – two people were murdered and others injured.  On the following Friday night I gave a D’var Torah at my own Shul in North London.  I spoke on behalf of the Prime Minister offering our condolences to the victims and to the British Jewish community and expressing our determination to address the rise of antisemitism.  But I also spoke as a Jew, as a member of the congregation – trying to make sense of the senseless, to articulate what this meant me, my family, my community as Jews in modern Britain – and I spoke as part of a Shabbat community the natural place to come together as one, to work through the pain, bewilderment and anger together, just as communities did across the world after 7 October.

    Hearing the news of the attack on Yom Kippur I imagine that I went through the same range of emotions as many of you felt on 14 December here in Sydney.  The first reaction is almost primal – are our family and friends safe?  Your mind spins through the list of your loved ones.  My eldest child is a student in Manchester and I knew she was planning on going to shul – I was being rushed to a national security meeting whilst trying to track her down.  Many of you no doubt were having the same agonising reactions here as the news of the horror broke.  Then immediate reaction is replaced by the flood of fear, anger and outrage at what has taken place – and the knowledge that for many families there was no reassurance that loved ones were safe, but rather calls that went unanswered and unimaginable loss.

    One sentiment that I also anticipate was shared by our two communities was the sense that although utterly shocking neither events were completely unexpected.  They gave cruel expression to our long-standing fear of the inevitable.  I have grown up in the UK normalising that our Shuls, schools and venues are by necessity protected by security for a good reason. 

    The attacks at Heaton Park and at Bondi beach took place at the other side of the globe within weeks of each other.  This reflects the unacceptable reality that there are very few places on this planet in which Jewish life exists without physical risk – it demonstrates the reach of modern antisemitism that strikes on our ability to live openly as Jews, to worship without fear and to belong wherever in the world we live, in the north, south, east or west.

    But yet – Jewish history, like the Jewish calendar is marked by the juxtaposition of not only sadness but joy, what has been called our dialectical dance – represented in myriad ways for example how we smash the glass under the chupa at weddings.

    As the late Rabbi Sacks wrote, in an essay that typically for him referenced Aristotle, Keirkegard and Robert Louis Stevenson, ‘In Judaism joy is the supreme religious emotion.  Here we are, in a world filled with beauty. Around us is the love that moves the sun and all the stars.  The soul that celebrates, sings.”

    So permit me, if short of expressing joy, in this moment of solemnity at least to seek to offer some optimistic reflections about where we find ourselves.

    The first is to remind our ourselves that even though our communities have been forced to endure these terrorist outrages, seen in our historical context this remains an extraordinary time to be jewish in our societies.  For centuries of Jewish existence, attacks on Jews would have been perpetrated by states, directly, indirectly or at best with atrocities committed whilst states and their institutions turned a blind eye.   The contrast in our era is profound – every arm of the state employed to track down and prosecute those involved in terrorist crime, a determination to root out antisemitism and to protect our communities.  The genuine heart felt expression of solidarity of our fellow citizens. 

    A few hours after the events in Manchester, the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary attend the Neilah service at West London Synagogue to show their solidarity with the jewish community.  Last week, for the first time in British history our Cabinet meeting was addressed by a Holocaust survivor Mala Tribich producing tears around the table. 

    And I also know from conversations with colleagues in both State and Federal Government in Australia of our shared sense of endeavour to tackle antisemitism at home and overseas and ensure that our societies are safe for jews to simply be jews – without having to look over shoulders or feel that we are not free to express our beliefs and practice our religion.  

    Secondly, I think a positive response in both our countries has been a determination that these outrages will not be used to divide communities.  We are blessed in both the UK and Australia to live in proud, tolerant and diverse nations.  The Jewish values we all grew up with recognise, indeed promote this value – that love for our fellow human beings will always outshine hatred and division.  To allow our anger to dictate another path would be to hand a victory to terrorists. What greater reflection of how, united, our communities are always stronger, is the extraordinary bravery of a Muslim father of two, a proud Australian, and a hero –  Ahmed al-Ahmed.

    In that moment, he showed something deeply human.

    A reminder of who we are, when fear doesn’t get the final say.

    That unity that is mirrored in millions of relationships across this country – deep friendships forged without regard to which God we pray to or the colour of our skin. 

    I think we should take joy in a world in which extraordinary people choose humanity over hatred, again and again and again. 

    So as we look towards the rest of 2026, we do so always mindful of the grievous loss sustained by the victims of terror, with a steely determination to root out antisemitism and intolerance in all its manifestations,  but with the Jewish spirit of believing that light will always outshine darkness. 

    Let me end where I began. To express on behalf of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom our condolences to the families of those killed an injured at Bondi Beach and our solidarity with the Australian Jewish community.

    May their memory be a blessing.

    Shabbat Shalom.

  • Kanishka Narayan – 2026 Speech on AI

    Kanishka Narayan – 2026 Speech on AI

    The speech made by Kanishka Narayan, the Minister for AI and Online Safety, at the Founders Forum on 10 February 2026.

    Thank you, Carolyn, the Tech Nation, London AI Founders and Merantix teams. 

    When I said I wanted to share our AI vision and delivery news with our founders… 

    …I knew I wanted to do it at the heart of Britain’s AI community. 

     Within a year, you have created that here, at the London AI Hub. Thank you for doing so and thank you for opening its doors tonight. 

    Historical heritage

    175 years ago, London’s makers similarly opened up their doors. 

    During the Great Exhibition of 1851, the world came to London and saw the first wave of mass-produced consumer goods. 

    Most of it was what textile designer and social activist William Morris called ”shoddy”— cheap, poorly made, and “ugly”.  

    Critics of these goods argued it was designed by machines to mimic hand-made luxury, except without the soul. 

    But Morris didn’t reject the machine. Along with the Arts and Crafts movement, he demanded that the machine be the servant of the craftsman. 

    They built the Kelmscott Press, treating the “technology” of printing as a way to create the most beautiful books in history.  

    They challenged the decline in printing… 

    …ushered in a new aesthetic… 

    …exerted greater agency… 

    …and inspired the Private Press movement. 

    This fork of 1851 is perhaps one of the most significant moments in the history of design. 

    It put to humans a central question:  

    Does the machine exist to serve what is beautiful about the world, or to replace it with dull mimicry detached from our humanity?  

    For Morris, that question of aesthetic was grounded in the question of agency:  

    Is technology wielded by humans, or is the beauty of our life injured by our 

    service to machines? 

    175 years on, I believe we face Morris’ question again.  

    Indeed, I believe it to be the central question today for both our startups and our politics. 

    Faced with Grok stripping human dignity… 

    …do we wield agency, or does technology? 

    With model releases now separated by months, , how do British startups build with agency, to real needs that persist? With model releases now separated by months, how do British startups build with agency, to real needs that persist?  

    In fear of AI’s jobs impact, can we enhance human labour or are we bystanders in its erosion? 

    My primary purpose tonight is to tell you a simple vision:  

    This government will wield agency over technology to serve the power of our labour… 

    …the need of our economy… 

    …the joy of our aesthetic…  

    … and the depth of our British values. 

    The context for founders

    Today, British tech’s challenge is this: before we can steer the wheel, we need to get to the front of the bus. We need greater British technology ownership before we can demand deeper British technology influence. 

    In my maiden speech , I talked about the shock that no working-age person in this country had seen a start-up go to the FTSE top ten. In the US, 8 out of 10 had. 

    The last decade and a half failed to exercise British agency. 

    In the most fruitful period for technology businesses, Britain did not get a seat on the bus. 

    Part of that is because previous governments made us into burdened Britons… 

    …carrying greater risk in our frozen wages…  

    …our flat pensions…  

    …our eroded public services…  

    …not the buccaneering Britons we had been and must be again.  

    Already, we have begun to break glass on our frozen heritage of curious adventure. 

    Our changes to Enterprise Management Incentives now make Britain pretty much the best tax system in the world to chase curiosity as a startup tech employee…. 

    …Our pension reforms, our ramp up in BBB scaleup capital deployment, mean British buccaneering will finally get the rocket booster of British bucks…. 

    …Our changes to research funding – a focus on curiosity-driven research, backed with funding to commercialise – mean returning to our heritage of moonshot invention and industrial application together.  

    And to fire up our imagination for adventure, we have some of our best tech leaders banging the drum for startups… 

    …whether that be Tom Blomfield as our AI Ambassador for British startups and scale ups, talent and investment or Katie Gallagher, our AI Sector Champion for Digital and Tech. 

    Above all, we have put fiscal credibility and financial responsibility back at the heart of government. 

    I came into politics after a career advising FTSE firms and investing in our startups, because I believed in a clear economic mission: Keir Starmer’s commitment to restoring stability and trust in the public finances.  

    Because markets punish uncertainty without hesitation. 

    We saw that in the chaos of the Truss era – capital pulled back, confidence evaporated, a risk premium priced into everything. 

    Many have since forgotten that this is not some abstract Treasury concern: it is the basis of a young families’ mortgage…  

    …of local councils’ finances in managing potholes… 

    …parks, our public spaces… 

    …the basis of dignity for millions of borrowers in this country… 

    …and of growth and prosperity, across this country.  

    It is the stability that marked 2025 as the year financial credibility returned, the year the UK startup economy roared back to life. 

    Investment is flowing again.  

    Founders are building with confidence.  

    The pipeline from idea to scale is wide open once more. 

    Last year, UK startups and scale-ups raised around $24 billion in venture capital, nearly 35 per cent up on the year before, one of the strongest performances on record.  

    UK AI startups alone raised almost $8 billion, roughly a third of all venture capital invested into British tech. 

    And the UK is once again Europe’s startup engine, producing more unicorns than France and Germany combined. 

    Celebrating success

    But let me be candid.  

    Our lost opportunity was not just down to those who didn’t take risk… 

    …it was down to us failing to value those who did.  

    Somewhere in our history, we let ourselves be captured by that most vicious guard of conservative privilege: the tall poppy syndrome. 

    We forgot that the root of the tall poppy tale, thousands of years old, wasn’t some egalitarian impulse; it was, in fact, the most egregiously privileged advice of King Tarquin Superbus to his son: that the path to elite control for kings ran through the total destruction of common merit and talent. 

    We can course correct from that fork of fake British mythology.So when people say to me today: we don’t celebrate those who have taken risk and succeeded. I say back: we have agency on this question, so why don’t we start today? 

    Now is the time to recognise the innovators that are shaping the future, right here in the UK.  

    The entrepreneurial spirit of Arm’s pioneering founders created a world-leading semiconductor firm that is spear-heading the development of transformative new technologies, including AI.  

    This would not have been possible without each of those twelve individuals… 

    …Jamie Urquhart, Mike Muller, Tudor Brown, Lee Smith, John Biggs, Harry Oldham, Dave Howard, Pete Harrod, Harry Meekings, Al Thomas, Andy Merritt, and David Seal.  

    It’s time that we recognise their contribution to innovation, and the contribution of founders across the UK’s technology stack.  

    Cleo’s Barney Hussey-Yeo is driving financial services transformation.  

    Quantinuum’s Ilyas Khan is accelerating quantum computing to unlock the technology’s full potential. 

    ElevenLabs’s Mati Staniszewski and Piotr Dabkowski are stretching the boundaries of voice generation to supercharge translation, transcription and agentic capabilities. 

    The risks that these founders took are driving growth and prosperity in the UK.  

    I want to continue recognising these achievements, and so each year I will showcase the innovative founders who are transforming the UK for the better.  

    And as I do so, I’m committed to ensuring we celebrate the full breadth of that talent.  

    The UK remains the largest hub for female-founded innovation in Europe, as recognised by the 2025 Female Innovation Index… 

    …Yet we know that our technology ecosystem still skews heavily male.  

    The Secretary of State and I are determined to change that… 

    …That is why we launched the Women in Tech Taskforce in December- to address the barriers that prevent women from starting tech businesses, entering the sector, or progressing once they’re in.  If women started and scaled new businesses at the same rate as men, our economy could see a £250 billion boost. 

    So we will champion the game-changing work that is being done by the women who are blazing the way in tech leadership. 

    Women like Starling Bank’s Anne Boden, PensionBee’s Romi Savova, and Resi’s Alex Depledge, who is also serving this country as an Entrepreneurship Advisor to the UK’s first female Chancellor. 

    This is the talent that will cement the UK as a global tech leader. 

    And we should be aiming this high. My ambition, within the next 5 years, is to name a trillion-dollar founder from our shores. 

    Some may say that setting out this target in such terms is its own risk… 

    …to them I say that government is embracing the mentality that has been so successful for our ambitious founders.  

    Opportunity dispersed

    Yet, even when we have fixed our relationship with risk, we have a choice to make. 

    We could have fixed it for elites. 

    We could have spared tall poppies Tarquin’s cull. 

    That was the pattern of the SaaS and smartphone revolutions, the trend of frontier tech in the last 2 decades: let elites build, let the rest benefit.  

    That cannot be the trend of the next 2 decades.  

    AI’s opportunity is too spread to encourage that narrow vision: it’s not just concentrated code, but diffuse physics, that will determine AI’s impact.  

    Crucially, Britain’s strength is a separate trend: British tech has done best when we have spread opportunity. 

    There is a reason that our largest UK-listed tech company started in 1981 when a local printing firm owner asked a university student to automate his quotes and accounting.  

    The automation worked so well, they decided to quit printing and start selling. Plotting their startup at the Rose and Crown pub, they saw a herb poster on the wall: having ditched calling their company Parsley Systems, Rosemary Systems and Basil Systems, they landed on the startup’s name: Sage Systems. 

    Over 4 decades on, that green herb is Britain’s pride, our largest UK-listed tech company, still headquartered in Newcastle.  

    The Sage effect in Newcastle…  

    …the ARM effect in Cambridge…  

    …the Admiral Group effect in South Wales… 

    …the Deepmind effect in King’s Cross… 

    …the Skyscanner effect in Scotland…  

    …the THG effect in Manchester.  

    Each of these is the effect of remarkable founding teams, and each is in turn the cause of huge lifts in opportunity in their places. 

    That is why we have announced not just ~£28 billion in AI Growth Zone infrastructure in my first 4 months in this role, but we have announced it in deep areas of strength: 

    …5,000 jobs in the North East… 

    …over 8,000 jobs in North and South Wales… 

    …over 3,000 jobs in Lanarkshire.  

    In this tech revolution, Britain is proving that opportunity spread is opportunity scaled. 

    It is why we are announcing £27 million for TechLocal, spreading skills training and better job placements in tech right across our country… 

    …It is why I whizzed around every nation, 6 cities in just over 24 hours, to see our Regional Tech Boosters building startup communities like this one in each nation of the United Kingdom… 

    …It is why this government has thrown open the doors of opportunity.  

    Harold Wilson did it with the Open University; with that Wilsonian sense of scale, our programme to support AI skills is now targeting 10 million workers – almost a third of our workforce – skilled in AI by 2030. 

    British agency 

    In all this, we have to remember that the opportunity of tech is not just in who builds, but in what we build. 

    That is especially so because Britain has a history of building things that expand agency, extending what we can each do. 

    When Britain set joint stock ownership, we extended the agency of entrepreneurs scaling risk by widening the scope of who could share in that risk; 

    When a Briton submitted the first proposal for a World Wide Web, we extended the agency of people sharing knowledge on an open internet. 

    When Britain led with open data, and with data platforms such as UK Biobank, we extended the agency of citizen engagement and frontier research alike. 

    When tech was starting to become opaque, the reserve of a few, it was Britain that put capability back into people’s hands.  

    Raspberry Pi, born in Cambridge and manufactured in Wales, was designed to be cheap, hackable and understandable. It restored agency — to students, hobbyists, engineers and schools alike.  

    In doing so it made a fully programmable general-purpose computer that gives a student in Nairobi, São Paulo or Manchester the chance to learn on the same platform, with the same tools.  

    In keeping with that British tradition, of tech that extends human agency, I will reaffirm today what we have felt deeply in government: Britain will be the home of global open source AI talent. 

    We have fellowships, with Alan Turing Institute and Meta, to back open source talent in government. We have tools – including via the UK AI Security Institute (AISI) – that build open source infrastructure. 

     The UK, through AISI , has developed the world’s most widely used government-backed evaluation tools. Inspect, InspectSandbox, InspectCyber, and our latest release, ControlArena, are now being used by governments, companies, and academics around the world.  

    These open tools lower the barrier to high‑quality evaluation and make safety science accessible at scale. 

    AI Infrastructure

    If we do this – restore agency in taking risk, in succeeding, in building across our country– we will have done a huge service. 

    We will have also done it by restoring another sort of agency: the agency of the state, our collective vehicle for progress. 

    Perhaps, to some of you, the words agency and state don’t obviously go together. 

    But the reality is that the history of the British state is not one of passivity – those are just the Conservative aberrations, the Reform allegations – the history of the British state is one of agency. 

    Alongside the agency of our modern health service, the foundation for our life sciences sector, we have a proud history of Harold Wilson’s technological agency. In Callaghan’s government, another undersold story of state agency.  

    For it was “a Labour government that backed the creation of Inmos in 1978 with £50 million to establish a UK semiconductor industry. 

    Housed in Bristol and Newport, Inmos went on to make a moonshot product – the revolutionary Transputer, designed for parallel computing decades before multi-core processors became industry standard. 

    Inmos didn’t ultimately survive, sold too early by Thatcher.  

    But the original Inmos facility in Wales then became the seed for Wales’ world-leading compound semiconductor cluster, offering a lifeline to a community amidst declining steel jobs, now offering us the chance at global leadership in that critical industry. 

    When I visited the cluster, I saw an exceptional set of apprenticeships for young women, breaking every stereotype of what British tech could be.  

    Where the last decade of SaaS meant SWE jobs in SWE cities only, that hardware cluster flipped the conventional chains that tie class to earnings, restoring craft, pride in human labour, good pay for a good factory job in a high-tech sector. 

    Workers at Inmos didn’t just seed Wales’ semis cluster.  

    A handful left to join another fledgling British startup.  

    In 1981, British startup Acorn Computers won the hardware contract for BBC Micro, the BBC’s computer literacy programme.  

    Within years, Acorn joined forces to spin out a small, asset-light chip design startup in a turkey barn in Cambridgeshire.  

    Shortening the Acorn RISC Machine, they called the company ARM.  

    Today, the legacy of Inmos, with the boost of the BBC’s procurement, is the world’s premier chip design IP firm, valued at over $100 billion. 

    We are picking up where Labour’s semiconductor legacy left us, and we are spreading it across each part of our startup economy. 

    I am, therefore, delighted to announce today Fractile, is confirming £100 million of new investment in its UK headquarters over the next 3 years, underlining its commitment to building advanced AI hardware capability in Britain.  

    The investment will expand its London and Bristol sites, create a new UK industrial hardware engineering facility, and grow its UK-based team to develop and optimise next-generation system.  

    A British AI inference chip startup, rooted in Inmos and ARM’s legacy, now relentlessly chasing the future. 

    Conclusion

    When you all similarly chase the future, you will find in Britain a government in the service of startup Britain. 

    I mean that in practice, not just in slogan.  

    And because Andy Grove was right – what matters is high output management, not loud  politics. 

    You will have a government that will measure its output in public, with a new AI Opportunities Action Plan dashboard… 

    …A government acting as an investment amplifier, driving tens of billions of investments in tech ventures. Establishing a standalone Sovereign AI unit that will operate at market pace, equipped with £500 million, investing into high-potential British AI start-ups… 

    …A government acting to secure British national security with our National Security Strategic Investment Fund (NSSIF)… 

     …And a government here to celebrate your remarkable achievements: ~$24 billion raised in venture in 2025, the best tech ecosystem outside of California… 

    …A government making sure you have the compute to turn AI ideas into economic opportunity.  

    In just the time I have been in post, we have secured over £68 billon in AI infrastructure and research investment; underpinned by significant planning and energy reforms. We are putting over £1 billon of public compute, the AI Research Resource (AIRR), in the service of British startups and research… 

    …When you have built with capital and compute, you will have a government willing to be a first-class customer, putting enterprise sales cycles to shame. With novel chips, we will do so with a £100 million Advance Market Commitment… 

    …In our recent planning and education AI procurements, a government willing to accelerate procurement processes… 

    …A government that knows community – the collective force of our talent – is the biggest determinant of our success. With a dedicated AI stream for global talent, reimbursing visa fees and accelerating visa process, alongside a domestic obsession with support for British kids training in AI… 

    …And, finally, a government that knows the central question for us is one of culture: a culture of relentless agency, shared opportunity and extended human ability, so we meet Morris’ challenge and put machines in service, once again, of British agency.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2026 Statement on Sentencing of Jimmy Lai

    Yvette Cooper – 2026 Statement on Sentencing of Jimmy Lai

    The statement made by Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, on 9 February 2026.

    British National Jimmy Lai was today sentenced to 20 years in prison in Hong Kong for exercising his right to freedom of expression, following a politically motivated prosecution. Beijing’s National Security Law was imposed on Hong Kong to silence China’s critics.

    For the 78-year-old, this is tantamount to a life sentence. I remain deeply concerned for Mr Lai’s health, and I again call on the Hong Kong authorities to end his appalling ordeal and release him on humanitarian grounds, so that he may be reunited with his family.

    The Prime Minister raised Mr Lai’s case directly with President Xi during his visit. That has opened up discussion of our most acute concerns directly with the Chinese government, at the highest levels. Following today’s sentencing we will rapidly engage further on Mr Lai’s case.

    We stand with the people of Hong Kong, and will always honour the historical commitments made under the legally binding Sino-British Joint Declaration. China must do the same.

  • Steve Reed – 2026 Statement of Support for Keir Starmer

    Steve Reed – 2026 Statement of Support for Keir Starmer

    The statement made by Steve Reed, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 9 February 2026.

    Keir led our party to victory and won a mandate for change. Waiting lists are falling, wages are rising, new rights for renters and leaseholders. We need to stay the course and deliver the change this country voted for.