Tech Secretary to cut red tape to make new technology available more quickly
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has said he will cut red tape so that technology like medical delivery drones can be made available more quickly.
He told a tech conference that the Government would prioritise pro-innovation regulation in a dedicated plan for the sector, saying there is 'no route to long-term growth and no solution to our productivity problem, without innovation'.
A trial of medical drones to deliver blood samples in London could be derailed by a single noise complaint, and this is the kind of red tape that will be peeled away so technologies can be brought to market quickly, he said.
It comes as former Conservative minister Lord David Willetts was confirmed as the first head of the new Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO), a role in which he will be tasked with shaping regulatory approaches for new technologies.
The Technology Secretary told the techUK conference: 'Everywhere you see, there is an imbalance of power in this country which has – for too long – made it impossible to imagine a better future for Britain.
'To deliver our Plan for Change we have to shift the balance of power, away from stagnation and old ideas, towards innovation and opportunity, and the bold people building a new future for Britain.
'In doing so, by 2035 we could see a whole new Britain emerge, harnessing the power of technological development, from engineering biology to AI, semiconductors and cyber security, or quantum and future telecoms for a stronger economy and better lives for all in the UK.'
Mr Kyle also announced the 10 winners of Innovate UK's Quantum Missions Pilot, who will receive £12 million between them to help develop quantum computing and networking technologies.
The RIO was launched in October and is intended to reduce the burdens for businesses looking to bring new products and services to the market.
Lord Willetts said he is 'honoured' to take on the role and hailed the 'exciting opportunity to shape regulatory approaches that empower new technologies'.
Among the technologies the body could help make available are delivery drones for medicines and AI training software for surgeons, officials at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said.
Drones could also be looked at in relation to other industries such as faster delivery of packages or groceries.
Lord Willetts served as the MP for Havant from 1992 to 2015, and was paymaster general for a time under Sir John Major, before returning to the government as universities and science minister in Lord David Cameron's administration.
Mr Kyle said Lord Willetts' experience 'will be key to streamlining innovation and unapologetically unleash the innovation that we know can improve lives'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ed Miliband's bet on mini nukes risks backfiring – unless he goes all in
Depending on who you ask, it's the breakthrough technology that will be key to net zero – or a risky, expensive folly. But now, Ed Miliband has placed his bet: Britain is backing mini nuclear power plants. On Tuesday, the Energy Secretary confirmed that the Government will provide billions of pounds towards the development of the country's first small modular reactors (SMRs) as part of a new 'golden age' for atomic energy. They will be designed by Derby-based Rolls-Royce, which emerged victorious from a two-year competition, and come online in the mid-2030s, providing crucial 'baseload' power to the grid. Each reactor will be able to power around 1m homes, one third of the output from a larger, Hinkley Point C-sized reactor. In effect, Mr Miliband is betting that smaller reactors will boost his net zero plans with smaller price tags and faster build times than big nuclear plants - with their size also meaning they can be built in locations much closer to people's homes. Yet with SMRs still to be proven, the key question is: can they actually deliver? Nuclear power has been staging something of a comeback in recent years, as countries including Britain and America endorse it as a way of significantly reducing the costs of the green energy transition. This is because having more 'firm' power on the grid from nuclear reduces the need for extra wind and solar farms, grid infrastructure and backup storage. But nuclear projects in the West have a patchy history, with schemes tending to bust through both their budgets and their construction schedules. Hinkley Point C, in Somerset, for example, was originally meant to cost £20bn – but the final figure may have ballooned to as much as £47bn by the time it is finished, including inflation. It will also have taken much longer to build than anyone had expected, with its original completion date in 2025 likely to be pushed back until the early 2030s. Mini nuclear plants are meant to solve both of these problems by reducing complexity and construction times. They would use the same proven light water reactor technology as large plants. But instead of building them on-site, large sections would be produced in factories and then transported to the site for final assembly – like a high-tech piece of Ikea furniture. Their smaller footprint should in theory bring other potential benefits too, such as more flexibility in where they can be built. In February, Sir Keir Starmer vowed to 'push past the Nimbys' and open up more sites to potential nuclear development, ripping up a previous policy that said only government-chosen sites were suitable. 'Because SMRs are a fraction of the size of a traditional nuclear power station, they can be built in many more locations, providing secure, home-grown energy for our traditional energy-intensive industries to state-of-the-art data centres,' says Sam Richards, of Britain Remade, a pro-growth campaign group. Under Boris Johnson, who was strongly supportive of SMRs, the government previously floated the idea that households could have money deducted from their energy bills if they lived near the football stadium-sized plants, in a bid to quell a backlash. Each Rolls-Royce SMR will generate about 470 megawatts (MW) of power, putting the plants at the larger end of the scale for mini reactors. By comparison, those proposed by rivals such as GE-Hitachi and Holtec International would generate about 300MW. This is far less than the much larger reactors used by under-construction plants such as Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, which will both house two reactors with capacities of 1,600MW each. On a per-megawatt basis, the mini plants will also be more expensive. Because of their smaller size, the economic case for SMRs only stacks up if the Government ensures they are built at scale and the designs remain highly standardised, experts say. According to a 2024 report by the US Department of Energy, this means at least 50pc of the spending for each plant should be on the factory-made modules. 'The value proposition for SMRs centres around maximising design standardisation and factory production,' the report says. 'Without this, an SMR risks being a civil works construction project without the benefit of economies of scale.' Ministers will also have to be prepared to open up far more sites for SMR development. The first SMRs are likely to be built at either Wylfa, Anglesey, or Oldbury-on-Severn, Gloucestershire, both of which were acquired by the Government last year in a £160m deal, although that is yet to be confirmed. Other options that are already licenced include Bradwell in Essex, Moorside in Cumbria; and existing nuclear sites such as Heysham, Hartlepool and Torness. However, one industry insider suggests the Government should also consider former coal power plant sites and industrial estates that host factories. 'You need to have sites that are closer to population centres, places that cannot take larger plants, that is the sweet spot,' the insider adds. 'To get the efficiencies of scale, you also need to build a fleet. For 'Nth of a kind' costs you would eventually be aiming for, we are talking something like a minimum of six to eight reactors. 'If that happens, this could be a real breakthrough for the industry – but it has to happen at scale.' However, nuclear power still faces huge opposition from some quarters, with no guarantee that households across the country will welcome the prospect of a mini plant nearby. And many critics argue that there is no reason that SMRs should prove any different to larger plants. A project being developed by NuScale in the US, for example, saw multiple budget increases before it was eventually cancelled, while GE-Hitachi's proposed reactor in Ontario, Canada, was recently given an updated price tag of C$21bn. Rolls-Royce has previously said it expected its SMRs to cost between £2bn and £3bn each, but the first one is likely to be significantly more expensive. The Government has already budgeted £2.5bn of spending for the UK programme, up to 2029, before construction is expected to begin. 'Nuclear power is a white elephant and a terrible legacy to leave behind – for countless generations to clean up,' says Dale Vince, the tycoon behind Ecotricity and a Labour donor. 'With nuclear, it's always the same story; decades late, massively over budget and never meets the hype. 'We need more affordable energy – the wind and the sun are our fastest, cheapest, cleanest sources. We don't need new nuclear power stations. It makes no sense to spend vast sums of time and money on them.' Rolls-Royce argues that SMRs can provide 'a British solution to a global energy crisis'. The company is hoping to grab a slice of an expected £500bn market for mini reactors for Britain, generating thousands of skilled jobs and a stable source of work for domestic suppliers. The company has already secured a deal to build SMRs for the Czech government and is vying for business elsewhere in Europe, with the British Government's endorsement of the technology likely to be viewed as an important vote of confidence. At home, however, the biggest obstacle to the rollout of SMRs may ultimately be political, depending on how willing ministers are to reform the planning system and overhaul the approach to building nuclear plants. Currently, nuclear meets around 14pc of the UK's electricity needs. Under the Government's plans, this could rise – although the scale of the SMR programme has already been trimmed back from an expected two to three developers to just one. 'Now that Rolls-Royce has been selected, we need to rekindle the nuclear ambition of the 1950s and 60s, when Britain led the world in nuclear innovation,' says Richards, at Britain Remade. 'That means moving at pace and identifying sites immediately, cutting red tape, and ensuring SMRs don't face the same planning delays that have held back their gigawatt-scale cousins. 'If we get this right, SMRs can help power a new era of energy security, reindustrialisation, and net zero – delivered faster, cheaper and more widely than ever before.' It is a bet that Mr Miliband might just win – but only if he and his Cabinet colleagues are willing to go all in. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Winter fuel payment changes to unleash ‘chaos' on HMRC
Rachel Reeves's winter fuel payment about-turn could unleash 'chaos' on pensioners and the tax office, experts have warned. Under the new rules, the majority of pensioners will receive the winter fuel allowance but those earning more than £35,000 will have their payment clawed back through the tax system. Experts have said the policy, which will save an estimated £450m a year and cost around £1.25bn, could have unintended consequences such as: The £450m in savings could be wiped out due to the costs of administering the complex system. HMRC could claw back 'the wrong amounts' from pensioners due to out-of-date records. Customer service could suffer and tax dodgers could get off scot-free as HMRC's staff are moved away from regular work. Rachel Vahey, of stockbroker AJ Bell, said claiming back the payment from 25pc of pensioners was 'the most convoluted and difficult' route the Government could have chosen. She added: 'Given the chaos it could cause and the relatively tiny taxpayer savings on offer, it may have made sense for the Government to take the political embarrassment of a U-turn on the chin and make the payment to all pensioners.' Around two million pensioners earn more than £35,000 and will have the winter fuel payment claimed back through the tax system. For pensioners who file a tax return, this will be done via self-assessment. However, most pensioners are taxed through PAYE, which means the payment will be recovered through their tax code. Robert Salter, of accountancy firm Blick Rothenberg, said this could result in pensioners losing the winter fuel payment unfairly due to HMRC's 'out-of-date' records. 'Given that many people subject to the winter fuel payment won't be doing tax returns, there is a real risk that HMRC might be claiming back the wrong amounts – at least in some cases – as they have used the wrong underlying data,' he said. Former pensions minister Ros Altmann said she was also concerned about pensioners getting hit with incorrect bills relating to the winter fuel allowance. 'HMRC often makes mistakes and they warn that everyone needs to check the figures carefully to ensure the tax codes are correct. 'For many of the oldest pensioners, this is likely to be a massive challenge and, especially for those who are not digitally enabled, it could cause significant worry.' The Government's previous experience with means-testing does not bode well for the success of the winter fuel allowance system. Under the high-income child benefit system, which is also means-tested, the benefit is partially withdrawn once a parent earns more than £60,000. This means the parent must either opt out of receiving child benefit or file a tax return and pay it back. Over the years, many parents have been hit with unexpected tax bills because they do not know the rules or do not realise they have earned over the threshold. This has led to HMRC spending valuable time and resources policing the complicated system in order to claw back a relatively small amount of tax. Jon Greer, of wealth manager Quilter, said: 'The Government should learn lessons from the child benefit system and ensure it doesn't bake in unfairness from the outset. Getting that balance right is critical to avoiding the kind of unintended consequences that have plagued other means-tested benefits.' The Department for Work and Pensions has said it will set up a simple system so pensioners over the threshold can opt out of winter fuel payments. But even once this is up and running, there will be some pensioners who do not opt out because they do not realise they have earned more than £35,000 in one year. HMRC said taxpayers could check taxable income quickly and easily in the app or online via their personal tax account. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the decision to reinstate winter fuel payments meant 'no pensioner on a lower income will miss out'. The about-turn comes as Sir Keir Starmer tries to shore up support from MPs and the public following losses to Reform at the local elections last month. A spokesman for HMRC said: 'No one will need to file a tax return just to pay back a winter fuel payment, and the vast majority will have the charge collected automatically through their tax code. 'HMRC has previous experience of introducing new processes at pace and doing so very successfully.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Britain's pensions mess won't be resolved by the latest stab at reform
It's the absence of ambition that really gets me. Labour may be trailing badly in the polls, yet there are still four years to go before the Prime Minister has to call another election, and for the time being he commands the sort of majority that would normally allow him to do truly radical things. But he doesn't. Instead, ministers sit on their hands, seemingly frightened of their own shadows, and allow Reform UK, with just a handful of MPs, to make all the running. Nigel Farage is probably right to claim that without Reform snapping at its heels, the Government would not have about-turned on the winter fuel allowance. Yet it is not just on entitlement spending that the Government appears incapable of doing anything of significance. On wider pension reform too, there's little sign of the resolve needed for meaningful change. The Government's Pension Schemes Bill – published last week – is more notable for what it doesn't do than the changes it seeks to bring about. This may seem a little unfair. There are few areas of public policy where the old joke that 'you wouldn't start from here' more aptly applies than pensions. Decades of meddling has left the UK with a hopelessly confused array of different pension arrangements that collectively fail to serve the country as they should. It is also fair to say that there is no silver bullet likely to deliver optimum outcomes. Let's take gold-plated, final-salary public sector pensions, widely thought to be unfair on the great hinterland of taxpayers who don't enjoy such perks but are required to underwrite them. These are left completely unaffected by the new pensions legislation. Richard Tice, Reform's deputy leader, said last week that the party would consider moving all public sector employees out of their 'Rolls-Royce' defined benefit pension plans and into the defined contribution schemes common to much of the private sector. Sadly, this is much easier said than done, which is why successive governments have – beyond trimming benefits a little – steered clear of significant reform. Putting public sector workers on the same basis as those in the private sector might sound fair enough in principle, but it would be hugely challenging in practice, and not just because unions would throw their toys out of the pram at the mere whiff of it. Public sector pensions have been compared to a Ponzi scheme, in that retirees are paid from the contributions of those still in employment. But actually the two things are quite different. In a Ponzi scheme, the existing investor doesn't know that their promised return is being paid not from investment gains but from funds collected from new investors. The arrangement is therefore fraudulent. But with public sector pensions the process is completely transparent. What's more, these pay-as-you-go arrangements conform much more exactly with the founding principle of occupational pensions than the defined contribution model – namely that the employee pays for the retirement income of his predecessor rather than saving for his own pension. Go back to the origins of the modern-day pension, and in some professions the individual job would be sold by the incumbent to the new entrant as a way of funding retirement. Alternatively, the newcomer would agree to pay his predecessor a proportion of his income for a set number of years. If you were lucky, the old codger would quickly pop his clogs. These days, workers can expect to live 20 years or more in retirement, making the arithmetic of pay-as-you-go pension arrangements much more challenging. The last set of 'Whole of Government Accounts' showed the total present value of public sector pension liabilities at a jaw-dropping £1.415 trillion. This was down from £2.639 trillion the year before, a fall accounted for largely by the fact that owing to higher interest rates many local authority pension schemes have swung into surplus. For unfunded public sector pensions, however, there is still a massive and rising liability. If this had to be paid all in one go, it would pretty much bankrupt the country. Yet in practice, it is spread out over decades, and ought therefore to be manageable assuming contributions are raised in line with outgoings. The more important number is perhaps therefore the difference between what employees and employers are paying into their schemes and what is being paid out in retirement benefits. This has been in negative territory for some years now – more money going out than in – making public sector pensions a net cost to the taxpayer. The shortfall is expected to be around £1.6bn for last financial year. But the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts a swing back into surplus from here on in, reaching a net positive of £3.6bn by 2030. Where it heads after that is anyone's guess. If the Government succeeds in cutting the public sector headcount, it may well turn significantly negative again. But the point is that this is hardly an emergency for the public finances. If on the other hand all public sector workers were put, as Tice suggests, on defined contribution arrangements – where contributions are invested into a personal pension pot – it would quickly become one, as there would be no money coming in to fund those already in retirement. Taxes would have to rise significantly in the short to medium term to fund the gap. Furthermore, to properly compensate public sector employees for giving up their present, very favourable pension arrangements, you would need significantly to increase their pay, further adding to the travails of the public finances. As on much else, Reform doesn't seem to have thought things through. Best, perhaps, not to poke that particular hornets' nest. Of course, the Government's Pensions Schemes Bill doesn't touch on these concerns. Rather it is about private sector pensions, and in particular it is about attempting to get them to invest more in productive UK assets, forcibly if necessary. Personally, I see nothing particularly wrong with this objective provided it is not pushed to extremes. The UK is almost unique in how little its pension funds invest in home-grown equities and infrastructure, and indeed in the lack of coercion currently applied. Given the tax breaks this form of saving enjoys, it's reasonable to expect investors to give something back. But there is also a good reason why trustees are as reluctant as they are; it is because relative to the alternatives, the returns on British assets are low. It's chicken and egg, and perfectly explains why the London Stock Market is dying on its feet. It's not lack of a big stick; it's lack of opportunity. Breaking this vicious circle of decline requires not Labour's go-to solution for all challenges of this sort – strong-arming investors into doing what they don't want to do – but making the UK an attractive place to invest. Much work to be done on that front, I fear. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
