UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Rishi Sunak – 2024 Speech on Welfare

    Rishi Sunak – 2024 Speech on Welfare

    The speech made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, at the Centre of Social Justice on 19 April 2024.

    Today I’d like to talk about the growing number of people who have become economically inactive since the pandemic…

    …and the moral mission of reforming welfare to give everyone who can, the best possible chance of returning to work.

    The values of our welfare state are timeless.

    They’re part of our national character – of  who we are as a country.

    We’re proud to ensure a safety net that is generous for those who genuinely need it – and fair to the taxpayers who fund it.

    We know there are some with the most severe conditions who will never be able to work.

    And some who can no longer work because of injury or illness.

    And they and their loved ones must always have the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will always be supported.

    But we also have a long-standing and proudly British view that work is a source of dignity, purpose, of hope.

    The role of the welfare state should never be merely to provide financial support…

    …as important as that will always be…

    …but to help people overcome whatever barriers they might face to living an independent, fulfilling life.

    Everyone with the potential should be supported…

    And not just to earn, but to contribute and belong.

    And we must never tolerate barriers that hold people back from making their contribution…

    …and from sharing in that sense of self-worth that comes from feeling part of being something bigger than ourselves.

    That is why this is a moral mission.

    And why the value of work is so central to my vision for welfare reform.

    And it’s fitting to be setting out that vision here, at the Centre for Social Justice.

    Over your 20-year history, you’ve inspired far-reaching changes to welfare.

    I want pay tribute to you and of course your founder, Iain Duncan-Smith…

    …who began the journey of reform in 2010…

    …a journey carried through so ably today, by Mel Stride.

    Because when we arrived in office in 2010, people coming off benefits and into work could lose £9 for every £10 they earned…

    …by far the highest marginal tax rate.

    That was morally wrong.

    So we created Universal Credit to make sure that work always pays.

    We introduced the National Living Wage – and increased it every year, ending low pay in this country.

    We’re rolling out 30 hours of free childcare for every family over 9 months of age.

    We’ve halved inflation, to make the money you earn worth more.

    And we’ve cut workers’ National Insurance by a third.

    A tax cut worth £900 for someone earning the average wage…

    …because it is profoundly wrong that income from work is taxed twice…

    …when other forms of income are not.

    For me, it is a fundamental duty of government to make sure that hard work is always rewarded.

    I know – and you know – that you don’t get anything in life without hard work.

    It’s the only way to build a better life for ourselves and our family; and the only way to build a more prosperous country.

    But in the period since the pandemic something has gone wrong.

    The proportion of people who are economically inactive in Britain is still lower than our international peers.

    And lower today than in any year under the last Labour government.

    But since the pandemic, 850,000 more people have joined this group due to long-term sickness.

    This has wiped out a decade’s worth of progress in which the rate had fallen every single year.

    Of those who are economically inactive, fully half say they have depression or anxiety.

    And most worrying of all…

    …the biggest proportional increase in economic inactivity due to long-term sickness came …

    …from young people.

    Those in the prime of their life, just starting out on work and family – instead parked on welfare.

    Now, we should see it as a sign of progress that people can talk openly about mental health conditions…

    …in a way that only a few years ago would’ve been unthinkable.

    And I will never dismiss or downplay the illnesses people have.

    Anyone who has suffered mental ill health or had family or friends who have, knows that these conditions are real and they matter.

    But just as it would be wrong to dismiss this growing trend…

    …so it would be wrong merely to sit back and accept it…

    …because it’s too hard; or too controversial; or for fear of causing offence.

    Doing so, would let down many of the people our welfare system was designed to help.

    Because if you believe as I do, that work gives you the chance not just to earn…

    …but to contribute, to belong, to overcome feelings of loneliness and social isolation…

    …and if you believe, as I do, the growing body of evidence that good work can actually improve mental and physical health…

    …then it becomes clear: we need to be more ambitious about helping people back to work.

    And more honest about the risk of over-medicalising the everyday challenges and worries of life.

    Fail to address this, and we risk not only letting those people down.

    But creating a deep sense of unfairness amongst those whose taxes fund our social safety net…

    …in a way that risks undermining trust and consent in that very system.

    We can’t stand for that.

    And of course, the situation as it is, is economically unsustainable.

    We can’t lose so many people from our workforce whose contributions could help to drive growth.

    And there’s no sustainable way to achieve our goal of bringing down migration levels, which are just too high…

    …without giving more of our own people the skills, incentives, and support, to get off welfare and back into work.

    And we can’t afford such a spiralling increase in the welfare bill…

    …and the irresponsible burden that would place on this and future generations of taxpayers.

    We now spend £69bn on benefits for people of working age with a disability or health condition.

    That’s more than our entire schools budget; more than our transport budget; more than our policing.

    And spending on Personal Independence Payments alone is forecast to increase by more than 50 per cent over the next four years.

    Let me just repeat that: if we do not change, it will increase by more than 50% in just four years.

    That’s not right; it’s not sustainable and it’s not fair on the taxpayers who fund it.

    So in the next Parliament, a Conservative government will significantly reform and control welfare.

    This is not about making our safety net less generous.

    Or imposing a blanket freeze on all benefits, as some have suggested.

    I’m not prepared to balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable.

    Instead, the critical questions are about eligibility…

    …about who should be entitled to support…

    …and what kind of support best matches their needs.

    And to answer these questions, I want to set out today five Conservative reforms for a new welfare settlement for Britain.

    First, we must be more ambitious in assessing people’s potential for work.

    Right now, the gateway to ill health benefits is writing too many off…

    …leaving them on the wrong type of support…

    …and with no expectation of trying to find a job, with all the advantages that brings.

    In 2011, twenty percent of those doing a Work Capability Assessment…

    …were deemed unfit to work.

    But the latest figure now stands at 65 per cent.

    That’s wrong.

    People are not three times sicker than they were a decade ago.

    And the world of work has changed dramatically.

    Of course, those with serious debilitating conditions should never be expected to work.

    But if you have a low-level mobility issue, your employer could make reasonable adjustments…

    …perhaps including adaptations to enable you to work from home.

    And if you are feeling anxious or depressed, then of course you should get the support and treatment you need to manage your condition.

    But that doesn’t mean we should assume you can’t engage in work.

    That’s not going to help you. And it’s not fair on everyone else either.

    So we are going to tighten up the Work Capability Assessment…

    …such that hundreds of thousands of benefit recipients with less severe conditions…

    …will now be expected to engage in the world of work – and be supported to do so.

    Second, just as we help people move from welfare into work…

    …we’ve got to do more to stop people going from work to welfare.

    The whole point of replacing the Sick Note with the Fit Note was to stop so many people just being signed off as sick.

    Instead of being told you’re not fit for work…

    …the Fit Note provided the option to say that you may be fit for work…

    …with advice about what you could do; and what adaptions or support would enable you to stay in, or return to work, quickly.

    11 million of these Fit Notes were issued last year alone.

    But what proportion were signed “maybe fit for work”?

    6 per cent.

    That’s right – a staggering 94 per cent of those signed off sick…

    …were simply written off as “not fit for work.”

    Well, this is not right. And it was never the intention.

    We don’t just need to change the sick note – we need to change the sick note culture…

    …so the default becomes what work you can do – not what you can’t.

    Building on the pilots we’ve already started..

    …we’re going to design a new system…

    …where people have easy and rapid access to specialised work and health support…

    …to help them back to work from the very first Fit Note conversation.

    And part of the problem is that it’s not reasonable to ask GPs to assess whether their own patients are fit for work.

    It too often puts them in an impossible situation where they know that refusal to sign someone off…

    …will harm their relationship with that patient.

    So we’re also going to test shifting the responsibility for assessment from GPs…

    …and giving it to specialist work and health professionals…

    …who have the dedicated time to provide an objective assessment of someone’s ability to work…

    …and the tailored support they need to do so.

    Third, for those who could work with the right support…

    …we should have higher expectations of them in return for receiving benefits.

    Because when the taxpayer is supporting you to get back on your feet…

    …you have an obligation to put in the hours.

    And if you do not make that effort, you cannot expect the same level of benefits.

    It used to be that if you worked just nine hours a week, you’d get full benefits without needing to look for additional work.

    That’s not right. Because if you can work more, you should.

    So we’re changing the rules.

    Anyone working less than half a full-time week will now have to try and find extra work in return for claiming benefits.

    And we’ll accelerate moving people from legacy benefits onto Universal Credit, to give them more access to the world of work.

    One of my other big concerns about the system…

    …is that the longer you stay on welfare, the harder it can be to go back to work.

    More than 500,000 people have been unemployed for 6 months…

    …and well over a quarter of a million have been unemployed for 12 months.

    These are people with no medical conditions that prevent them from working…

    …and who will have benefitted from intensive employment support and training programmes.

    There is no reason those people should not be in work, especially when we have almost 1 million job vacancies.

    So we will now look at options to strengthen our regime.

    Anyone who doesn’t comply with the conditions set by their Work Coach…

    …such as accepting an available job…

    …will, after 12 months, have their claim closed and their benefits removed entirely.

    Because unemployment support should be a safety net – never a lifestyle choice.

    Fourth, we need to match the support people need to the actual conditions they have.

    And help people live independently and remove the barriers they face.

    But we need to look again at how we do this through Personal Independence Payments. I worry about it being misused.

    Now its purpose is to contribute to the extra costs people face as they go about their daily lives.

    Take for example, those who need money for aids or assistance…

    …with things like handrails or stairlifts.

    Often they’re already available at low cost, or free from the NHS or Local Authorities.

    And they’re one-off costs…

    …so it probably isn’t right that we’re paying an ongoing amount every year.

    We also need to look specifically at the way Personal Independence Payments support those with mental health conditions.

    Since 2019, the number of people claiming PIP citing anxiety or depression as their main condition, has doubled…

    …with over 5,000 new awards on average every single month.

    But for all the challenges they face…

    …it is not clear they have the same degree of increased living costs as those with physical conditions.

    And the whole system is undermined by the way people are asked to make subjective and unverifiable claims about their capability.

    So in the coming days we will publish a consultation on how we move away from that…

    …to a more objective and rigorous approach that focuses support on those with the greatest needs and extra costs.

    We will do that by being more precise about the type and severity of mental health conditions that should be eligible for PIP.

    We’ll consider linking that assessment more closely to a person’s actual condition…

    …and requiring greater medical evidence to substantiate a claim.

    All of which will make the system fairer and harder to exploit.

    And we’ll also consider whether some people with mental health conditions should get PIP in the same way through cash transfers…

    …or whether they’d be better supported to lead happier, healthier and more independent lives…

    …through access to treatment like talking therapies or respite care.

    I want to be completely clear about what I’m saying here.

    This is not about making the welfare system less generous to people who face very real extra costs from mental health conditions.

    For those with the greatest needs, we want to make it easier to access with fewer requirements.

    And beyond the welfare system, we’re delivering the largest expansion in mental health services in a generation…

    …with almost £5 billion of extra funding over the past 5 years, and a near doubling of mental health training places.

    But our overall approach is about saying that people with less severe mental health conditions…

    …should be expected to engage with the world of work.

    Fifth, we cannot allow fraudsters to exploit the natural compassion and generosity of the British people.

    We’ve already cracked down on thousands of people wrongly claiming Universal Credit…

    …including those not reporting self-employed earnings or hiding capital

    And we’ll save the taxpayer £600 million by legislating to access vital data from third parties like banks.

    Just this month, DWP secured guilty verdicts against a Bulgarian gang caught making around 6,000 fraudulent claims…

    …including by hiding behind a corner shop in North London.

    And we’re going further.

    We’re using all the developments in modern technology, including Artificial Intelligence…

    …to crack down on exploitation in the welfare system that’s taking advantage of the hardworking taxpayers who fund it.

    We’re preparing a new Fraud Bill for the next Parliament which will align DWP with HMRC…

    …so we treat benefit fraud like tax fraud…

    …with new powers to make seizures and arrests.

    And we’ll also enable penalties to be applied to a wider set of fraudsters through a new civil penalty.

    Because when people see others in their community gaming the system that their taxes pay …

    …it erodes support for the very principle of the welfare state.

    Now, in conclusion some people will hear this speech and accuse me of lacking compassion.

    Of not understanding the barriers people face in their everyday lives.

    But the exact opposite is true.

    There is nothing compassionate about leaving a generation of young people to sit alone in the dark before a flickering screen…

    …watching as their dreams slip further from reach every passing day.

    And there is nothing fair about expecting taxpayers to support those who could work but choose not to.

    It doesn’t have to be like this.

    We can change. We must change.

    The opportunities to work are there…

    …thanks to an economic plan that has created almost a million job vacancies.

    The rewards for working are there…

    …thanks to our tax cuts and increases to the National Living Wage.

    And now, if we can deliver the vision for welfare I’ve set out today…

    …then we can finally fulfil our moral mission, to restore hope…

    …and give back to everyone who can, the dignity, purpose and meaning that comes from work.

    Thank you.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2024 Speech on Economic Security

    Oliver Dowden – 2024 Speech on Economic Security

    The speech made by Oliver Dowden, the Deputy Prime Minister, on 18 April 2024.

    We discuss economic security against the backdrop of Iran’s reckless and dangerous attack against Israel…

    … and six months since the terrorist outrage of October 7th with Hamas still holding innocent people hostage.

    It has been over two years since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine…

    …meanwhile, China’s aggression in Xinjiang, the South China Sea, and Hong Kong demonstrates its disregard for the rules based order.

    We have returned to substrata geopolitical competition – and tension – at levels not seen since the Cold War.

    While we are not in open hostilities – we are in cyber and economic contestation with an increasing range of state and non-state actors.

    At a time when the global economy is much more integrated…

    … and our strategic competitors play a far more impactful role…

    … our economic and security interests are intertwined as never before.

    We have demonstrated our strength in the face of these challenges.

    We have restored stability after the twin shocks of Covid, and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine….

    … and continue to create the conditions for business to flourish.

    As the Deputy Prime Minister of a G7 country with the highest inward investment in Europe…

    …the continent’s biggest tech sector…

    …the biggest exporter of services after the US…

    … and the world’s most competitive financial centre…

    …I know we must be doing something right.

    Inflation has been halved…

    … real household disposable income is on the rise…

    … and the pace of growth is increasing.

    That is all testament to the Great British economic model which is the key to our long-term prosperity…

    …a model based on open markets … free trade … and academic liberty…

    …all underpinned by the rule of law.

    But we must also be clear-eyed that one of the great strengths of our system – its openness – also brings vulnerabilities.

    Covid, and Russia’s war in Ukraine both laid bare the interconnectedness of global supply chains…

    …and the extent to which they can be exploited:

    …Russia driving up the price of gas…

    … Chinese acts of economic coercion.

    Indeed, the CCP is seeking to make the world both increasingly dependent on China; whilst making itself less dependent on everyone else..

    Meanwhile, our open economy is being targeted by state-based actors and their proxies.

    Across our inbound and outbound investment flows, our imports and exports, and our academic collaborations…

    … the whole spectrum of our economic security interests is under threat.

    And the nature of these threats is evolving.

    So as our protections increase in one area, new routes of attack emerge.

    And so our response must evolve in kind.

    Our toolkits may be actor agnostic. But, be in no doubt that, we, the leaders who wield these tools, are clear about where the threats are currently coming from.

    In short, while the financial crash and pandemic exposed the economic risks of globalisation…

    …today’s rising geopolitical competition is demonstrating the security risks behind such integration.

    That confronts us with an active choice.

    A careful balancing act between our freedoms, our prosperity, and our security.

    There are those that see this simplistically…

    …who advocate a move to a polarised world…

    …where we detach ourselves from those who do not share our values, or who don’t play by our rules.

    That is not the approach of the UK Government.

    We will not decouple from the global economy. We will continue to default to openness. We must.

    That is what generates growth, guarantees our prosperity, and enables us to invest in our security.

    There is no greater source of resilience than a strong economy.

    So while we won’t decouple; we must de-risk;

    Our rules must constantly adapt.

    And politicians need to be honest about how we are responding:

    We have a plan, and I want to be open about that plan.

    Fundamentally, we need to tighten our controls over the routes by which the UK plugs into the global economy…

    … but in a way that allows investment and trade to flow as freely as possible.

    Those routes are diverse and complex. So our corresponding response needs to be subtle and agile.

    It starts with inbound investment.

    A great source of prosperity and pride for our country.

    I want to be crystal clear with our investment partners – the UK welcomes inbound investment, we are open for business, and my presumption will always be in favour of investment.

    But if we allow money to flow into our country unchecked, we leave ourselves open to abuse.

    This is the area of economic security where we are most developed, thanks to the National Security and Investment Act.

    Since coming into force, it has functioned well.

    The government has reviewed over 1,700 notifications and issued 20 final orders.

    Only 7% of notified transactions were called in for scrutiny, and only 1% were issued a final order.

    So the vast majority of businesses have had zero interaction with the regime, nor do we want them to.

    It typifies what is known as the small garden, high fence approach…

    … safeguarding the UK against the small number of investments that could be harmful to our national security, while leaving the vast majority of deals unaffected.

    That is not to say investment into sensitive areas is off limits…

    …but it must be managed in a way that protects our national security at the same time as driving growth.

    Indeed – to extend the metaphor just a little further – just as important as the garden is the ground that surrounds it.

    Beyond the fence should lie a vast and fertile landscape where trade and investment thrive.

    So to tend to this, we are constantly monitoring the Act’s performance to ensure it stays ahead of threats, while remaining as pro-business as possible.

    So today I have published the Government’s response to my recent Call for Evidence…

    …setting out the important next steps we will take to fine tune the NSI system:

    I will shortly publish an updated statement setting out how I use the powers under the Act…

    …including what we are seeking to protect and how we assess risk.

    And we will publish updated marked guidance, including how the Act can apply to academia.

    We will also update the mandatory area definitions…

    …including new definitions for critical minerals and semiconductors…

    and we will consult in the coming weeks.

    And finally, we will consider targeted legislative exemptions from the Act’s mandatory notification requirements.

    Likewise, when it comes to exports, we must ensure that the goods and technologies we sell overseas…

    …are not being used to harm our own national interest, or in a way that runs counter to our values.

    That is why we have an Export Controls regime, which we have significantly enhanced…

    …responding specifically to risks around new technologies such as quantum.

    Having reviewed the impact of these changes, we are confident we have a strong set of tools to prevent exports of concern.

    But we do recognise that this stronger regime has posed challenges to a small number of UK exporters.

    And really this is an indication of the trade-offs that the Government must navigate.

    And so we will consult on improvements to our controls on emerging technologies.

    We must ensure our system is flexible enough to deal with rapidly emerging threats…

    …that cases are processed more quickly and efficiently…

    … and that we maintain close collaboration with UK researchers and businesses.

    We also connect to the global economy through the import of goods and services.

    Again, we see deliberate attempts at weaponising import and export links through coercion …

    …including trade restrictions by China against Lithuania and by Russia against Ecuador.

    We have also seen examples where public sector procurement poses risks to national security…

    …from surveillance systems…to telecoms infrastructure…each featuring increased capability and connectivity.

    That is why I banned Huawei from our 5G networks, and Chinese surveillance equipment from key Government sites.

    It is not the role of Government to mandate sources of supply across the whole economy.

    We do, though, want business to be aware of the risks of excessive dependence…

    …and where possible to work with us to reduce it.

    And so we will continue to develop the UK’s Anti-Coercion Toolkit…

    … including investing in civil service capability…

    … increasing stress testing and exercising…

    … with more security-cleared officials…

    … and working with the G7 and other partners to tackle future threats.

    But there is one further, more challenging, area of economic security…

    …one that has concerned both us and our allies.

    And that is outward direct investment.

    Now of course the UK is a major source of global investment….

    …one of the few global financial centres.

    UK investors hold 14 trillion pounds of assets overseas…

    … in turn generating hundreds of billions of pounds annually.

    Yet a careful review of the evidence suggests it is possible that a very small proportion of outbound investments could present national security issues.

    Indeed, they might be fuelling technological advances that enhance the military and intelligence capabilities of countries of concern.

    The data is limited, but over the next year we will engage with G7 allies and businesses to better understand this risk…

    …and how our tools can mitigate it.

    In parallel we will evaluate whether further action is warranted.

    We are launching a dedicated analytical team to assess the risk in sensitive sectors…

    …and we will issue public guidance on how the existing NSI powers allow the Government to intervene in certain outbound investment transactions.

    And we are refreshing and enhancing the National Protective Security Authority’s ‘Secure Business’ campaign.

    So this is designed to ensure businesses can make better informed investment decisions.

    This plan of action is based on reassurance, protection, and engagement…

    …giving British business the clarity and coherence they need to plan and to thrive.

    We are not seeking to dampen animal spirits…

    …instead we aim to be precise, proportionate and coordinated.

    It is why I launched the public-private forum on economic security last year…

    …and why we put businesses at the heart of devising the National Cyber Security Centre, the National Protective Security Authority and the Investment Security Unit.

    And we will continue to iterate that support…

    …in particular helping smaller businesses to engage with government.

    I can announce that today the NPSA and NCSC are launching  a new tool…

    … to help small tech businesses and university spinouts assess and improve their security.

    Finally, we are coordinating closely with our universities.

    Our academic base is a jewel in our crown…

    …with four of the world’s top ten institutions.

    Just as openness has been crucial to our economic success…

    …internationalism has been vital to our academic prowess.

    The vast majority of that collaboration is to be welcomed and applauded.

    We should be proud that much of the cutting-edge development in sensitive technologies is happening at our universities.

    But this also has the potential to become a chink in our armoury.

    This is not about erecting fences around entire institutions or areas of research.

    However, it is right that we look at who has access to research frontiers in the most sensitive disciplines.

    Similarly, we must ensure that some universities’ reliance on foreign funding does not become a dependency by which they can be influenced, exploited, or even coerced.

    Or indeed, find themselves vulnerable in the fallout from heightened geopolitical tensions.

    That’s why the government has been conducting a review into academic security…

    … and I will be convening a round-table of university Vice Chancellors in the coming weeks to discuss our findings…

    …and our proposed response.

    In all of this, we do not act alone.

    We are working with our allies around the world…

    …evolving our trading relationships into economic security partnerships, such as  the Atlantic Declaration with the United States…

    …and the G7 Coordination Platform on economic coercion.

    Together, we will succeed in protecting our national security by safeguarding our economic security.

    Because what unites us … unlike our adversaries … is our values.

    Our societies prize innovation, ideas and the successes of individuals.

    We celebrate what we can make – not what we can take.

    We know that a creative, open, outward-facing economy is a strong economy…

    …and that a strong economy makes us all more secure.

    In these uncertain times, that economic model must adapt and respond to new threats…

    …but it must also remain true to the principles which have yielded prosperity, opportunity and security in the past.

    Our prosperity and our security are two sides of the same coin.

    We do not make ourselves more secure by being less open…

    Instead we redouble our efforts to make our open market as secure as possible.

    And in doing so we safeguard the United Kingdom’s position as the best place in the world …

    …to invest …

    …to study …

    …to trade with…

    …to live…

    … and to prosper.

    And long may that continue.

  • Michelle Donelan – 2024 Speech at the Manufacturing Technologies Association Exhibition

    Michelle Donelan – 2024 Speech at the Manufacturing Technologies Association Exhibition

    The speech made by Michelle Donelan, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, on 16 April 2024.

    Good afternoon.

    It’s a pleasure to be here in Birmingham today.

    Thank you so much for inviting me to speak.

    Today, the UK is one of the world’s leading manufacturing nations.

    A century ago, the name of the game was quantity – the world’s leading manufacturing nations were trying to solve questions of size and scale – churning out more and more, faster and faster.

    Today, the game has reversed, and those questions have largely been solved.

    99% of consumer goods can be manufactured cheaply and at scale.

    The real challenge today – and the one that will define the future of manufacturing – is quality. How do we design and produce the most innovative, intricate technologies like semiconductors for example, in a way that is cost effective?

    This is where the UK’s unique manufacturing history and expertise comes into play.

    Because manufacturing is so much more than what happens on the factory floor…

    Invention… innovation… design… execution… scaling…

    These are the ingredients of high-end manufacturing that the UK has in abundance.

    As the former Universities Minister, I know first hand how our world-class higher education system forms the backbone of advanced manufacturing in the UK. Nearly a decade ago, before I was elected to Parliament, I created the Wiltshire Festival of Engineering. Sponsored by some of the world’s leading manufacturers, including Dyson and Airbus, we were able to inspire thousands of Wiltshire school children into careers in STEM.

    The first debate I ever organised as a newly elected MP was about engineering.

    And my priorities haven’t changed.

    If anything, manufacturing matters even more.

    The past four years have brought with them a relentless barrage of stories about supply chain disruption.

    From the coronavirus pandemic to the war in Ukraine and even a ship stuck in the Suez, the links that hold our economy together seem more fragile than ever.

    And if these stories have taught us anything, it is that the ability to make our own things, on our own terms, is fundamental if we want to face our future head on.

    And we must redouble our efforts to ensure that our strategic goods and technologies, like the machine tools on display this week, do not get into the hands of those who wish to do our nation harm.

    So, as Secretary of State, I have put manufacturing front and centre in my mission to make Britain a science and tech superpower.

    For me, science and technology are not just about labs and lecture theatres.

    Innovation matters most when it is out there in the real world.

    It’s only with the the commercialisation of new ideas, products, processes, and services, that we can create economic growth.

    And it’s only through growing our economy, creating jobs, and driving discoveries that we can make tangible differences to people’s lives.

    British manufacturing businesses are doing just that.

    In fact, materials and manufacturing account for 47% of all business investment in R&D.

    In towns and cities right across the country, you can find some of the most technologically advanced manufacturing in the world.

    In South Wales, we have the world’s first dedicated compound semiconductor cluster.

    In Cambridge, we have the world’s most intensive science and tech cluster, home to Europe’s largest collection of biotechnology businesses – and almost 700 high-tech manufacturing firms. It’s the envy of the world, attracting talent and investment from across the globe.

    Here in the West Midlands, we have a global centre for automotive R&D whose 5G coverage – the highest in the UK – is helping it to lead the way in developing the autonomous vehicles that will transform the way we travel.

    Every pound that goes into British manufacturing is an investment in jobs for British people.

    A vote of confidence in their ability to find the solutions to the immense challenges we face.

    Our £1 billion semiconductor strategy is unlocking new investment in semiconductor manufacturing which will be fundamental for the net zero transition.

    We are boosting life sciences manufacturing with over half a billion pounds, growing an industry that adds almost £20 billion to our economy each year and bolstering our ability to make vaccines that have already saved millions of lives in Britain and beyond.

    Our Wireless Infrastructure Strategy sets out a plan to drive up the adoption of standalone 5G to transform manufacturing, unlocking the potential of technologies like robotics that could make our assembly lines infinitely more efficient, boosting productivity by billions.

    These investments are the decisions of a bold and ambitious government that is prepared to bet big on the ability of British business to build tomorrow’s economy.

    A government that, last year, announced a £4.5 billion plan to back advanced manufacturing industries like aerospace and automotive that employ hundreds of thousands of British people.

    A government that is investing in technologies that don’t just change the things we make, but the way we make them.

    And Britain has reaped the rewards as a result. Between 2010 and 2021, the UK saw the fastest manufacturing productivity growth in the G7.

    But if we want that trend to continue, then we cannot afford to slow down. We must stick to the plan, not go back to square one.

    There is one technology, more than any other, that promises to transform manufacturing in the decades to come: AI.

    AI can help us to make enormous efficiencies in machinery and in supply chains, acting early to prevent days of lost time.

    It can reduce accidents that put workers at risk and test the quality of goods far quicker than any human could.

    It can forecast demand for existing products – and even design new ones that appeal to untapped parts of the market.

    All in all, AI promises nothing less than a revolution for manufacturing.

    And there is no reason why that revolution should not start in the UK.

    Today, we have the third largest AI market in the world – a market that is predicted to grow to over one trillion dollars by the end of the decade.

    Much of that success is thanks to that unique culture of innovation I talked about earlier – a culture where entrepreneurs are unafraid to risk failure in pursuit of success.

    But, I believe, it is also testament to a Prime Minister and government that is prepared to take its own risks.

    Rather than sitting on the fence, playing ‘wait and see,’ we decided to step up and support the technology right from the get-go.

    Over the last decade, we have invested more than £3.5 billion in AI.

    And in the last year, when the extraordinary capabilities of large language models have captured the world’s attention, we kick-started the global conversation on AI safety, hosting the first ever global summit on AI safety. Next month I will travel to Korea to co-host the second summit, and we have the France safety summit planned for early next year.

    But I have always been clear that, while we have one eye on safety, the other must always be on opportunity.

    And that opportunity must be open to everyone.

    Whether you are a small tech start-up looking to scale and succeed in the UK, or a family-owned manufacturing firm looking for ways to stay competitive in a new era, I believe that artificial intelligence has something to offer.

    That is why I set out a pro-safety, pro-innovation approach to regulating AI that will drive growth and create jobs across the country.

    That same mission drove me to set up the AI Opportunity Forum, where we’re working with some of the biggest industry players to encourage the adoption of AI across all businesses, including smaller firms looking to harness the power of artificial intelligence to innovate and grow.

    Some of those firms will benefit from BridgeAI, too, which is supporting British businesses in high-growth sectors like construction and logistics to boost their productivity – and compete on the global stage.

    But no matter how big your business – no matter whether you are designing chips, developing life-saving drugs, or building the next generation of green, electric cars – there is one need that never changes: skills.

    Skills have always been close to my heart. Another one of the drums I’ve been banging for 15 years, a skilled workforce is the foundation stone to everything in our economy.

    If we want British businesses to grow – and if we want that growth to deliver benefits to every British person – then we need people with the skills to succeed in industries of tomorrow.

    To ensure that where you are from does not determine where you can get to.

    So last month, I announced over one billion pounds in support for young people studying PhDs across our five critical technologies – our largest ever investment.

    But you shouldn’t need a PhD to benefit from British science and tech.

    I want to bring its benefits to people from all walks of life.

    That is why we are providing new support for small businesses looking to upskill their employees for the age of AI – and launching a pilot scheme to open apprenticeship pathways into our growing quantum industry.

    I know that there are thousands of apprentices here today. Some of you have even trained at the High Value Manufacturing Catapult my department supports, whose excellent work I have seen for myself at the MTC just down the road in Coventry. I look forward to meeting some of you later this afternoon.

    Because it is talented people like you who hold the key to the kind of sustainable economic growth that will see Britain succeed in the century to come.

    Science and tech can sometimes seem far removed from the reality of our daily lives.

    But behind every one of the breakthroughs we have seen is a person with an idea – and the skills to turn it into a reality.

    The same will be true for the breakthroughs still to come.

    And I have no doubt that some of the people who will be behind them are here in Birmingham this week.

    Some of you will take up jobs with the fast-growing firms who are exhibiting here.

    Others, I’m sure, will use that experience to start innovative businesses of your own.

    But, no matter what path you take, this government will do all it can to support you.

    Because, in your hands, Britain’s manufacturing future is bright.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2024 Statement on the Iranian Attack on Israel

    Rishi Sunak – 2024 Statement on the Iranian Attack on Israel

    The statement made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, on 13 April 2024.

    I condemn in the strongest terms the Iranian regime’s reckless attack against Israel. These strikes risk inflaming tensions and destabilising the region. Iran has once again demonstrated that it is intent on sowing chaos in its own backyard.

    The UK will continue to stand up for Israel’s security and that of all our regional partners, including Jordan and Iraq.  Alongside our allies, we are urgently working to stabilise the situation and prevent further escalation. No one wants to see more bloodshed.

  • Graham Stuart – 2024 Resignation Letter to the Prime Minister

    Graham Stuart – 2024 Resignation Letter to the Prime Minister

    The resignation letter sent by Graham Stuart to Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, on 12 April 2024.

    Text of letter (in .pdf format)

  • Nusrat Ghani – 2024 Speech on Ukraine’s Reconstruction

    Nusrat Ghani – 2024 Speech on Ukraine’s Reconstruction

    The speech made by Nusrat Ghani, the Minister for Europe, in Greece on 11 April 2024.

    Good afternoon – and thank you for inviting me to say a few words.

    Over two years ago, when the first tanks thundered towards Kyiv, Putin would have felt invincible.

    But events since have shown how foolish he was.

    Foolish enough to underestimate Ukraine’s bravery.

    Foolish enough to think his military’s incompetence would go unnoticed.

    And foolish enough to doubt the West’s resolve to stand so firmly behind Ukraine.

    The twisted lies Putin spreads to justify the invasion and mask his failures cannot hide a simple truth.

    He believes he can take territories and re-draw borders, when he wants, where he wants…

    …and he believes he can get away with it every single time.

    Well, not this time.

    Ukraine must win. Why? Because our collective security is at stake.

    A defeat will invite more aggression. A victory will deter it.

    The question is not whether we have the ability to achieve this – Ukraine has shown it can defend itself. The question is whether we have the will to see it through.

    By defending Ukraine, we defend the values in the UN charter we all subscribe to. The values which have allowed us to prosper.

    Respect for sovereignty is not just about maintaining lines on a map. It is about having the freedom to choose how we want to live.

    All countries have that right – and Ukraine is fighting to uphold that right for all of us.

    The UK was privileged to play its part in welcoming Ukrainians forced from their homes. But they have a right to return and we collectively have an obligation to enable them to do so.

    Putin wants them out because that is how he can destroy, displace and devalue Ukrainian identity and culture.

    We cannot hand him what he craves.

    We must also honour the legacy of Navalny and his unwavering commitment to Russian democracy. I applaud Yulia’s courage and resilience.

    Her foundation will continue Navalny’s fight, and that remains the best tribute to his enduring vision.

    So, how can we restore freedom, prosperity and democracy in Ukraine?

    I would like to highlight the three key ways in which the UK is helping to rebuild its economy.

    First, by committing financially. Over the last two years, we have provided nearly 6 billion dollars of non-military support.

    We are boosting its fiscal firepower. Last month, we worked with the World Bank to speed up and increase the size of loans.

    As a result, the UK and Japan are providing one and a half billion dollars to help with immediate pressures.

    We and our G7 partners have also been clear – Russia must pay for the damage it has caused. We will pursue all routes through which Russian assets can be used to support Ukraine.

    Second, by harnessing the power of the private sector. The World Bank judges recovery will require almost half a trillion US dollars.

    Daunting as it sounds, it is achievable if we tap into the capital, creativity and expertise of businesses.

    The Ukraine Recovery Conference in London last year mobilised international partners, including the private sector, raising a staggering 60 billion US dollars of support.

    We of course have further to go – but it was a clear indication of what we can achieve together.

    Last year, I also personally oversaw the creation of a war-risk insurance scheme to protect and encourage UK businesses supporting Ukraine.

    Finally, we are helping by stimulating Ukraine’s trading industry. Before the invasion, it was a leading exporter of food, grains, steel and much more.

    There is no reason why that should not be the case once again.

    So, the UK is undertaking a series of trade missions to strengthen long-term cooperation and galvanise investment into Ukraine.

    Make no mistake. This is the defining struggle of our generation. The make-or-break moment is this year.

    The costs of failing to support Ukraine now will be far greater than the costs of repelling Putin.

    That is why we must devote our hard-worked resources and precious time to this collective endeavour.

    There is so much to do and so little time to do it.

    I’ll just finish on what President Zelensky put so well:

    When asked what will bring the end of the war, we used to say “peace”.

    Now, we say “victory”.

    Thank you.

  • David Cameron – 2024 Statement on Vladimir Kara-Murza

    David Cameron – 2024 Statement on Vladimir Kara-Murza

    The statement made by David Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, on 11 April 2024.

    Two years on from Vladimir Kara-Murza’s arrest on fabricated charges, I urge the Russian authorities to release him immediately on humanitarian grounds.

    A committed human rights activist striving for a democratic Russia, and an outspoken critic of the war in Ukraine, Mr Kara-Murza was considered a threat by the Kremlin. Putin locked him up in a bid to silence him.

    We must call out Russia’s callous disregard for his declining health. The victim of two separate poisoning attempts prior to his imprisonment, Mr Kara-Murza is now being subjected to degrading and inhumane conditions in prison, clearly designed to further damage his physical and mental well-being. He has been refused the urgent medical treatment he so desperately needs.

    Through diplomatic interventions at the highest levels, financial sanctions targeted at those behind his poisoning and imprisonment, and by raising his case on the international stage, we are sending a clear message that the UK will not stand for this abhorrent treatment of one of our citizens.

    Russia’s depraved treatment of political prisoners must end.

  • Stuart Andrew – 2024 Speech at SportAccord

    Stuart Andrew – 2024 Speech at SportAccord

    The speech made by Stuart Andrew, the Sports Minister, in Birmingham on 8 April 2024.

    Good afternoon. I would first like to start by thanking the President of SportAccord, Ugur Erdener, for hosting.

    It doesn’t feel like it is already two years since this wonderful city, alongside the wider West Midlands region, hosted the record-breaking Commonwealth Games.

    Hosting Sport Accord today – alongside all the other amazing events that Birmingham has planned – just demonstrates the power of sporting events.

    The power to bring people together, to instil pride in communities and to have an impact long after the final whistle.

    I want to thank you all for the important work that you do with your organisations to promote sport at every level.

    We know that sport contributes to physical and mental wellbeing, reduces loneliness and provides economic benefits.

    The UK has a fantastic reputation as a host of major events, and we must use these to inspire future generations.

    I, like many others, was inspired by the success of the Lionesses at EURO 2022 and the FIFA World Cup 2023.

    And DCMS honoured their success with £25 million of government funding for the Lionesses Futures Fund,designed to increase access for women and girls.

    The UK Government remains committed to building our reputation for hosting major events, and it is important that we continue to host sporting events that inspire the next generation and build lasting memories.

    We have some magnificent sportspeople, and world-leading experts, who organise and deliver these events to be enjoyed across the globe.

    I saw first hand at the Rugby League World Cup the unique impact that sporting events can have on communities – using sport to reach people across the UK.

    This includes not only the mega events we have in the coming years, such as the Rugby World Cup 2025, the men’s and women’s T20 Cricket World Cups in 2026 and 2030, UEFA EURO 2028 across the whole of the UK and Ireland, and of course the European Athletics Championships in Birmingham in 2026 – but also events like the West Midlands Urban Sports event in Wolverhampton later this year.

    Today I am proud to announce the significant economic and social benefits delivered by the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games at ‘one year on’.

    An incredible 6.9 million people engaged with this event in 2022, including spectators, athletes, volunteers and employees. The event delivered approximately £1.2 billion Gross Value Added to the UK economy, with nearly half that in the West Midlands alone, creating thousands of jobs in this region.

    In addition, the Games has contributed nearly £80 million in social value, with well over £150 million more expected to be generated longer term. This is a result of the skills and apprenticeships delivered through Games programmes, alongside community use of Games facilities at the revamped Alexander Stadium and the wonderful Sandwell Aquatics Centre.

    I am also delighted to see the £70 million ‘Commonwealth Games Legacy Enhancement Fund’ continuing to reinvest in projects for communities across the region – including in support of Sport Accord.  This fund provides a welcome boost to ensure the Games legacy continues to be felt in this region and beyond for many years to come.

    It is clear that mega sporting events can have truly transformational impacts on individuals, communities and host nations, and it is vital that we continue to support them in the years ahead.

    As we look to the future, I am extremely excited to build our pipeline into the 2030s and beyond. Our revised UK hosting strategy sets us on that clear path.

    It is so important to make sure that as we look to the future, we are innovative. I am grateful to all the work of those here today in making that happen.

    I wish you all the best for a successful event over the coming days.

  • James Cartlidge – 2024 Speech at the Military Robotics and Autonomous Systems Conference

    James Cartlidge – 2024 Speech at the Military Robotics and Autonomous Systems Conference

    The speech made by James Cartlidge, the Defence Minister, in London on 8 April 2024.

    Good afternoon, everybody. So I’m the Minister for Defence procurement in the UK, I don’t have a speech as such, and what I mean by that is I haven’t got one written by the Civil Service. When I was a Treasury Minister, before I got this job, I went to a conference a bit like this about AI. And there were four Secretary of States speaking at this conference, and what neither of them knew was that they all had the same gag when they started, which is they read their speech, the first paragraph and guess what? As if it had been written by Chat GPT. Once you get to the fourth iteration of that is not as funny as it was the first time. So this hasn’t been written by Chat GPT, this is me because I’m very passionate about this issue because I think autonomy in defence is an amazing opportunity.

    And I’ll explain why but first of all, congratulations to my hosts. Thank you for inviting me because this happens to coincide with a very important day. Today the Ministry of Defence we’ve launched officially our new procurement system, which I’ve put forward. It’s called the Integrated Procurement Model. Now, just to put that in context, when I got this job last April, after Alex Chalk became Lord Chancellor, I replaced him as Minister for Defence Procurement, we were in the middle of a vote in the House of Commons and as I was walking around the lobby voting, my colleagues were coming up to me and they all congratulating me. And each of them in the same phrase would say, but by the way, you’ve got Ajax. So this job is sort of synonymous with one particular project, and I think from day one, I knew we needed to reform procurement. And when I announced the new procurement model on the 28th of February I was very clear that whilst this is about responding to all the concerns that have been brought up over the years, with programmes like Ajax but not just Ajax, Nimrod there is many of them going back over many years’ time.

    The most important reason to reform procurement is much more fundamental than any of those reasons or to do with any of those programmes. And it is simply this that if we as a country, and our allies, as well, are to compete in the future with our adversaries with the way they are investing in defence and technology, we have no choice but to reform procurement. And one of the reasons why I think this new model hopefully will actually take effect not just being launched, but as you will know it has become cultural within MOD, which is something we’ll be working on, it’s fair to say.

    The reason for that is because if we don’t reform procurement, our adversaries will just move too far away from us. And so I wanted to first of all set out what this reform is all about. Because it’s heart is technology, and for me, the most important part of that is around uncrewed systems and also all the technological advances that come with that and the systems that they depend upon. So fundamentally, it’s not about platforms is as you know, it’s about systems, it’s about architectures, about software.

    And so there’s five key features of the new system. And now the first one is fundamental. It’s called an Integrated Procurement Model for a reason.  You’d be aware that in 2021, we announced a new integrated operating concept for the UK Armed Forces, but in announcing that and recognising the reality of modern warfare is an integrated battlespace. We maintain what’s called a delegated procurement model ie. primarily having three frontline services procuring what we describe as bottom up basis whereas to me, if you want an integrated approach, you have to integrated  procurement.

    And so the first point is to have joined up approach to procurement in practice. The bête noire is what we call over programming, this phrase over programming means that essentially, the armed forces are trying to procure more stuff than there is management capacity to buy or frankly, capacity in DE&S and elsewhere to deliver and so the way we have controlled spending in recent years is you move programmes to the right, delay so that literally to control cost. And it’s not unique to MOD, it’s typical of big capital projects. They cost taxpayers a lot of money but it’s a particular issue in defence, because if you delay programmes they become more expensive and question marks that come out about the future those programmes.

    And so one thing I want to see more of is by taking a joined up approach that is pan-defence, you are more likely to make your priorities based on the most important reason which is the threat we face and procuring in a joined up fashion. Okay, so a good example we’re currently working on our munitions plan for the munitions we purchase as a UK MOD over the next 10 years, particularly to replenish our stocks, following the significant gifting to Ukraine. The best way to do that is pan-defence. If we just said to the single services, what do you each need? We end up with an outcome that had a third, a third a third. But to me, that shouldn’t be the priority, the priority is the threats we face as a country and what we need to counter it and I’ll just finish on that point because we’re here to talk about autonomy.

    The best example of that joined up approach is drones actually. So we’ve actually had some fantastic, military entrepreneurs in the MOD we’ve seen within the frontline command some fantastic experimentalism. That has led to some really cutting edge capabilities in the uncrewed space, some of which has been used in Ukraine, as you’ll be aware of.  The problem is, once you take those to the next level, procuring those systems to become part of an integrated force that can be effective in battle, at that point, you do need to have a more integrated approach.

    We cannot just rely on the theory of 1,000 flowers that 1,000 flowers will bloom, as you will know, you have to have common data standards, the ability of your capabilities to talk to each other and to the other services. So that is a really good example of where we need to now move into a more joined up phase which was a key piece of the Uncrewed Strategy that I announced earlier this year.

    The second part is checks and balances. Now, first of all, that’s about oversight. So we will have a new Integrated Design Authority to oversee these changes to make sure they actually happen in reality, if the procurement comes forward, and the requirements don’t enable whatever that system is to talk to the other services, it would be scored negatively, it’d be returned to wherever it came from. I mean, that’s in a nutshell, but I think there’s a really key part checks and balance which is my view as Minister for Defence Procurement, which is that to be as diplomatic as I can, my experience with this past year is that when the requirements come forward to you, the Minister, when the programme comes up to be signed off, shall we say there was something of an expectation that it will be signed off. Whereas I take a slightly different view. And to me, the most important part of this second aspect of checks and balances is what I call the creation of a second opinion.

    Genuinely kicking the tyres on programs at the beginning. So that you ask the right questions and you get the right answer. Because there has been history, which is totally understandable, institutional, as in the UK defence I’m sure it is the same in other countries, in fact I know it is as I have discussed some of my colleagues and my counterparts in other countries, is this sort of what we call the platform presumption. We’ve got the mark five and after ten years we can have the mark six, seven, etc. But what if that’s not the right solution for the threat that we face?

    And so the second opinion… we are very luck in the MOD, we don’t just have the military. We have amazing scientists in the Dstl. We have DE&S with all their interface with industry, which is now being strengthened with something called the DE&S gateway. We basically have this repository of data and information that is extraordinary. And so I want to have a position where when that procurement begins, that big programme, you don’t just have the military assessment of the requirements that you need. You have the challenge of the other experts that we have in our institution, the Dstl and so on telling you how technically viable that is. So for example, that key question, should it actually be an uncrewed system? And this is not a minor subject of conversation.

    We’re talking about fundamentally questioning some assumptions about the capabilities that we presume we’ll probably be procuring in the future and I suspect the military evidence for wargaming from Ukraine, will show that increasingly we are going to be vulnerable, and that we need to do what other countries have started to do, I  have just seen that the the US has just announced they have cancelled a major programme and that would have been crewed and that will now be uncrewed, it was a major reconnaissance programme FARA.

    So the third point is about exportability to checks and balances all joins up with exportability, the FT covered this today, when I was talking to them really saw this as a standout feature, and I think that’s fair, because, again, going back to the first day of the job, you get your first submission, which is what the Civil Service give you as a piece of advice. And first one I had on procurement had about a sentence about exportability in fact, the letter to the Chief Secretary that went with it recommended to procure it. And awaiting my sign-off was that it it didn’t mention prospective benefits of exportability and I think this should be ingrained in acquisition from the beginning.

    And there’s two key reasons for that. The first one is what is the main problem at the moment in defence it’s the resilience of our supply chain, because we had great success with NLAW in Ukraine. We picked up the phone and said give us more of those, okay, if you’re willing to wait years. You’ve got to have that continuous maximum level of aggregate demand, right? Continuous supply chains. That’s why you need to drive exploitability but the other part of it is a bit subtle, but is really key in procurement. I’m always asked the hypothetical question, would your new approach have avoided the Ajax problems. Physically impossible to answer obviously, since we’re not in the period of having a time machine. Which is the if you if you have to consider international requirements, my view it is a good counterbalance to being that terrible phrase overly exquisite, ie having lots of very bespoke requirements. It doesn’t guarantee it  but it’s more likely that. There tends to be a vector between international demand and your ideal domestic UK production. And if you can minimise that, you’ve got a pretty good product because it means you get it into line with the UK and then export it to protect your supply chain.

    So the third point on exportability it is already something I’m pushing. So on the New Medium Helicopter procurement. We’ve got a strong weighting for exportability. The fourth point is about empowering industrial innovation. Now this is really where you guys particularly come in those from industry here something I’m keen to see much more often I hope you’ve been aware of this that we are doing more and more engagement in industry at a classified level.

    So the industry can understand our requirements much earlier in the process. And in turn, we can pick up the feedback from what’s happening in the real world. And I hope that what’s happening with all these people talking is very interesting. So I’ll give you a good example, the most uplifting experience I’ve had as a Minister for Defence Procurement was last October when I went see a UK company developing a drone being used in Ukraine. While I was there, they were receiving feedback from the frontline. And they were then spirally responding to that within days.

    Now when we used to have people coming in and saying Minister this thing is going to be delayed another 27 years or whatever. And you see that sort of spiral development in the flesh. It’s quite something to behold especially because the capability is highly effective and costs a tiny fraction of the thing I was talking about that’s going to be delayed many years, we start to really think about whether you’ve got the right approach for procurement and it is quite revolutionary what is happening.

    So I always have a situation where the UK industry feels close to MOD. It doesn’t mean close as in the bad way of being close it’s a really rich relationship based on this feedback with the data from the frontline  and from Ukraine and so on, and what is becoming possible what is becoming necessary and rapid development of products on the back of it.

    And the fifth and final one is about having spiral development by default. Spiral development wonderful phrase as the FT said to me yesterday, it’s actually really sort of very common place in the corporate world. The phrase is not commonplace in defence and that’s where the change needs to be made.

    What does it really mean? So we say well, if you want to go get 60 to 80% of your requirements instead 100%. Instead, of having IOC and FOC long standing ways of measuring your progress, we just want to add minimum deployable product. Basically, you measure the effectiveness of the product, the point at which it is able to be used, and I think that’s a really good way of measuring.

    So we talked about the military, I have got written answers and I look at them at them if this is crazy. That were my opponents asked me the IOC and FOC all of our programmes, and quite a few of them are in use. They’re being used and we’re saying they’ve only been achieved IOC if they’re being used by military but there’s quite a good example in our missile systems.

    And I think it just shows the point that that’s because we’re focusing on the perfect thing to achieve. Where we want to get into service quickly and spiral upgrade it. It does happen, but it’s not cultural. That’s the key point we want to become the cultural assumption in Defence because there will be programmes like nuclear submarines, which will not conform to this approach. By definition, they’ll still take many years, absolutely necessary. Highly unlikely so there is still going to be a big programme which is an exception sitting outside the norm but the fact is, from today through the new procurement model in defence, we have time limits – three years for software, five years for hardware.

    So I said in my speech to the House, on our Mobile Fires Platform which is our engineering artillery capability. It will be procured within five years, which in many ways didn’t sound that quick but it is as you all know compared to what’s gone on before on our major platforms etc.

    Just to say and so what does this mean for uncrewed and robotic systems and so on. And I think this approach I’m outlining is all about technology. We have this thing called the Equipment Plan. What I mean is we have 10-year programme, right, which everyone is focused on. And yet, we are told that the same time that we could be at war in two or three years, we’re in a pre-war environment. And we’re still focused on this platform iteration model. Well, we’re gonna get more ships. Now those ships will take nine years to build, but you know, we’re just gonna get more ships. That’s what we need to do for the country. Whereas to me, always have to do is why this is so important. And why you’re meeting today, we’ve got to focus increasingly on how you make your existing platforms and people and capabilities more lethal, more survivable.

    And also the platform you’re building out in the water and in the air, in a couple of years. That’s where the focus in my view needs to be. And if you do that, it is conceivable that some of the acquisition you presumed to be doing later in the Equipment Plan you believe to happen.

    Now I can appreciate this is not conventional thinking but that’s actually what’s happening in Ukraine. So it’s telling us we need to start focusing on what sort of weapons we can bring forward rapidly, what sort of weapon systems what sort of IT systems to support them. There will be capabilities we have today, which we will use if we were in conflict imminently where there are it upgrades, software AI, that will make them more lethal and more survivable.

    So I think to me, that’s a big part of the focus. That doesn’t mean you don’t still have the longer programs that take time to do that. It’s just again, where’s your cultural focus? Because I would put it to you now , where do we think the focus still is institutionally in defence? That’s a fair question. And I think that has to shift and it’s starting to shift.

    I will finish on this broader point about where to next move on uncrewed. I actually think this is an amazing opportunity. When people say to James, brilliant, it’s just, it’s never gonna happen in practice. Too good to be true. It is happening in practice. I talked about the drone company. There’s many other examples where we have SMEs who are coming forward with really cutting edge stuff and rapidly, particularly software companies. Obviously, this sort of approach is standard in software. Constant upgrade. We all know that sometimes it’s incredibly irritating, especially with a legacy laptop or IT system.

    But it is standard practice in much of industry and we need to adapt it into the culture and DNA of defence.

    We’re not talking just be clear about Urgent Operational Requirements. This is where you are literally not just on the cusp of more why situation you are preparing to go out to wherever and there are things you need to do to your vehicles to your kit, iterations that means you can withstand whatever that threat is. This is different to that. This is about having taking advantage of the pace of innovation that’s out there. The UK could have much more survivable and meaningful capability within a relatively small amount of time, cost-effectively, which should be stressed.

    So I think it’s incredibly exciting people that are involved in this industry. I think that we are on the cusp of a significant pivot to much greater use of uncrewed systems. I mean, it’s made me think that’s an obvious thing to say. Some debate on if uncrewed overhyped or underhyped. I have the privilege of knowing what’s happening in theatre, but also Just imagine what it could do, in the hands of a top tier military. The point I’m making is really developing cohesively integrated battlespace, it could do incredible things, it can add mass.

    My colleagues, my parliamentary colleagues will stand up in the House and they want us to commit to more ships more personnel, more aircraft etc. But how will the traditional platforms cope going forward?  Whereas we can bring out new drones, new ground effects and in particular in maritime relatively quickly, it’s already happening. We all know what’s happened in the Black Sea. That’s an incredible strategic victory for Ukraine, which is unfortunate, underplayed because of the coverage understandably for what is happening on land, but it is an incredible effect they’ve achieved as a country of UK we are very well placed literally the best placed country other than Ukraine to learn the lessons from what is happening in this very day and has been happening in that battle space in the uncrewed systems and you know, we need the maritime capability coalition with Norway we need the drone coalition with Latvia.

    This is learning lessons in real time. There is no better test lab than that. We as a country have got to take that opportunity to drive proper embracing of uncrewed systems and all standard systems, the stuff that goes with it dealing with electronic warfare, which is all pervading in Ukraine, as you all know, means that our armed forces can fight the fight that is going to happen today. And if we do that, I think we build prosperity for our industry and greater security for our people. Thank you very much for your time.

  • David Cameron – 2024 Speech on the Future Role of the NATO Alliance

    David Cameron – 2024 Speech on the Future Role of the NATO Alliance

    The speech made by David Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, on 3 April 2024.

    Great to be here, in this house that has many memories for me as you can imagine, when I think of all those European Councils, where I spent late nights and early mornings, and it’s very good to be back.

    Seventy five years. NATO is 75 years old. I am 57 years old. But I hope there’s more than just the symmetry of that that I bring to this discussion. I played my part in NATO’s development and am very proud I chaired the Cardiff Summit in 2014, when I think at that stage, just 3 countries met the 2% spending floor, not ceiling, floor, and now we’re in a situation where over 20 countries out of 32 meet that target and NATO is stronger.

    I always feel that NATO wasn’t something I had to learn about or understand: I grew up with it. I was born and brought up between Greenham Common, where the cruise missiles were stationed, and Aldermaston, where our nuclear programme was centred. The first countries I visited as an adult were the Soviet Union and Eastern Union. So I never needed reminding or understanding of the vital importance of NATO in our national life.

    And it’s been extraordinary, having supported it all through its quiet years – years in which some people whether it had a functioning brain – I never lost faith in NATO. I’ve always set the faith in NATO and it’s great to be celebrating its 75th anniversary. And the 75th anniversary when it is so much stronger today than it has been for years.

    And today of course, at the NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting we welcomed Sweden for the first time as a full participant. And to bring 2 countries, Finland and Sweden, into NATO, both so highly capable militarily, so financially strong, so knowledgeable about the region, and their military obligations definitely makes NATO stronger.

    Why is NATO so successful? What is next for NATO? What will truly determine its success or failure in the years ahead?

    Why so successful? You’d have to back to 1948 and something Ernest Bevin said, he said: ‘decisions we take now will be vital to the future peace of the world’. That was absolutely prophetic and right. At the heart of NATO’s success is the incredible simplicity of Article Five: an attack on one is an attack on all is something all participants and all people could understand.

    And of course, it was combined with that sense when it was founded of a clear and growing threat. And Most of NATO’s life has had a clear threat; we certainly have that today. Its success is clearly based on its continued expansion.

    What is next for NATO? While it’s clear NATO is not a participant in the conflict in Ukraine, the outcome of that war what happens in Ukraine is, in my view, absolutely vital to the future of Ukraine, and that is why one of the reasons why Britain so strongly supports Ukraine struggle.

    I was meeting earlier with the Slovak Foreign Minister and I pointed out something that not a lot of people know, that my closest relative who was in politics, Duff Cooper, who resigned in 1938 because of the Munich Conference and the decision to dismember Czechoslovakia. To me what we face today is as simple as that. We have a tyrant in Europe who is trying to redraw borders by force. You can appease that approach or you can confront that approach, which is undoubtedly the right thing to do, to confront.

    And that is what we’re doing by giving Ukraine such strong support. I see with Ukraine 2 futures that are open to NATO, to Europe and countries like Britain: there is a future where we support Ukraine, where Putin does not win in Ukraine, where Ukraine recovers its territory and is capable of having a just peace.

    That future is an incredibly bright one for Britain, for Europe, for NATO – it’s a future where NATO will be strong, everyone will see the strength of its alliance, everyone will recognise Ukraine should be and will be a part of NATO, NATO’s capability will grow and people will see that we in the West are capable of standing up to a threat of this magnitude.

    But there is another future, for NATO, the West, Britain and that is one where we allow Ukraine to fail and Putin to succeed; and the celebrations will be held in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and North Korea. That is a very bleak future: not only because I believe other European countries would be at risk but I think all around the world people will look around and wonder how willing to stand up for our Allies, how reliable we were as an Ally.

    And even, the absolute key to NATO of Article 5, Allies in Europe will start looking at each other and wondering how much they can really trust each other, when they said they were going to stand up for each other and oppose aggression. I think the biggest test for European nations is this issue of Ukraine and that is why it is my number one priority as Foreign Secretary and something that this government is giving so much effort and thought and resources to.

    But of course it’s not the only threat and it’s not the only issue that NATO has to face in terms of what is next. we face an incredibly dangerous and difficult and disputation relational world with so many conflicts. We have the instability in the Middle East instability in Africa, more conflicts in Africa than perhaps we’ve had for the last 40 years.

    And of course, we had a timely reminder last week with the issue of Chinese, the cyber attacks on great hardware blocks, that we face threats, not only in terms of the Russian threat, but also the threat that we face, instability to our South and in the Indo-Pacific reaching into our own region. NATO has a role to play in addressing all of those threats. The UK is determined to support all the NATO strategies in dealing with those threats.

    The final point I wanted to make is, what will determine the success or failure of NATO? There are some simple, Treasury-like technical answers to that: success will depend on more and more countries reaching 2% or more countries seeing 2% as a floor and not a ceiling and we have seen such great progress there.

    A large part of the answer will be how capable NATO is of modernising all our armed forces and making sure their compatibility interoperability. A lot of NATO success will depend on when we make Ukraine a member, with its professional and capable armed forces.

    But I would say the biggest determinant of success or failure goes back to what I said at the start: I grew up believing in NATO because it had a relevance to my life. If you came of age politically in the 1980s, you could see the importance of the solidarity that NATO brought, you could see the importance of the strong defence that kept Europe and Britain safe. But can we actually say that, about future generations, you haven’t grown up with that knowledge but have grown up in a different situation?

    And I think we have to win the argument for NATO all over again with a new generation. A generation that can see yes, the threat from Russia. We need to go back to a foundational argument, which is this, that fundamentally the greatness of NATO is that it allows countries to choose their own future.

    When I looked at my colleagues from Latvia, Lithuania Estonia, when I look at Radek Sikorski from people whose countries who chose to join NATO after the fall of the Iron Curtain, NATO membership is really what gave them the ability to make a choice about the sort of country they would be and the values they would follow.

    That’s an incredibly strong values-based argument that a younger generation can understand and see. I just think the one figure to back it up: when the Iron Curtain fell, Poland recovered its ability to govern itself and its economy was 3 times the size of that of Belarus; today it’s 10 times the size.

    There’s no reason why Ukraine is so many times poorer than Poland, very similar countries, very similar parts of the world. It’s the ability NATO gives to allow countries to choose to be democracies, to choose to have rights and to choose to have the rule of law, to adopt an open-market trading system and form those sorts of relations with other countries.

    That’s the argument I think we need to make today and that is the argument that can help us to win all over again the backing for NATO, that it will need, as we ask our publics to fund and support the defence budgets and NATO budgets, as we ask NATO to do more, not just in supporting what we’re doing in UKR but also supporting what we need to do in a more unstable and more unsafe words.

    So I feel more confident as a 57 year-old supporting a 75 year-old that I’m backing a winner: it’s been a winner for 75 years, it’s been it’s been the most successful defensive alliance in the history of the world and if we back it financially, and back it in its expansion and also back it with values-based arguments, there’s no reason it won’t continue have another 75 years of extraordinary success.