No 10 says it did not sign AI declaration as it did not reflect UK policy on ‘opportunity and security’ – politics live | Politics

The Office for National Statistics has published its latest dashboard showing what is happening across 59 measures used to assess national wellbeing. For each measures, the ONS says whether change is positive or negative, or whether there is no change, or no change that can be assessed.

In theory, this data should be able to prove whether life in Britain is getting better or worse. But, inevitably, the overall picture is determined by what the ONS decides to measure.

And some of these might be contested too. The ONS looks at protected areas, and says the more the better. There has not been a short-term increase in the extent of land protected. If there was, the ONS would mark that as a positive change. But not the Treasury, which wants to reduce green belt protections so it can build more houses.

Here are the measures where things are getting better.

1) Physical health

In England, the Health Index score for people reporting having cancer, cardiovascular conditions, dementia, diabetes, kidney and liver disease, chronic musculoskeletal or respiratory conditions was 101.2 in 2021. This shows a short-term positive change (Health Index score was 100.0 in 2020).

2) Digital exclusion

Of UK adults, 5.1% said they do not have access to the internet at home, when asked in 2024. This shows both a short-term positive change (7.1% in 2023) and a long-term positive change (12.6% in 2019).

3) A levels or equivalent qualifications

Of UK adults aged 16 to 64 years, 67.7% were estimated to have A-level or equivalent qualifications or higher in 2023. This shows a short-term positive change (66.7% in 2022).

4) Trust in UK government

Of adults in Great Britain, 27.9% said that they tend to trust the UK government, when asked in December 2024 to January 2025. This shows a short-term positive change (19.5% in November 2023).

5) Greenhouse gas emissions

In the UK, 384.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) greenhouse gases were emitted in 2023 (provisional estimates on a territorial basis). This shows both a short-term positive change (406.2 MtCO2e in 2022) and long-term positive change (462.3 MtCO2e in 2018).

6) Renewable energy use

In the UK, 15.5% of all gross final energy consumed came from renewable sources in 2023. This shows both a short-term positive change (14.3% in 2022) and long-term positive change (10.3% in 2018).

7) Protected areas at sea

In the UK, 6.8 million hectares (MHa) of land and 33.8 MHa of sea were designated as protected areas in 2024. This shows no short-term change for land (6.8 MHa in 2019) but a short-term positive change for sea (21.8 MHa in 2019). For both land and sea, there have been long-term positive changes (0.0 MHa and 0.0 MHa in 1950, respectively).

8) Rural air pollution

In the UK in 2023, the average number of days where air pollution was moderate or higher was 8.7 at urban sites and 18.9 at rural sites. This shows no short term change for urban sites (8.9 days in Jan to Dec 2018) and a return to pre-pandemic levels following the record low seen in 2021 (4.4 days). Rural sites showed a short term positive change (25.8 days in Jan to Dec 2018).

And here are the measures where they are getting worse.

1) Fair treatment

Of adults in Great Britain, 19.2% said they feel very or somewhat unfairly treated by society, when asked in December 2024 to January 2025. This shows short-term negative change (12.6% in December 2023 to January 2024).

2) Unhappy partner relationships

Of UK adults, 5.6% reported they were fairly or extremely unhappy in their relationships in 2021 to 2022. This shows both a short-term negative change (4.4% in 2019 to 2020) and a long-term negative change (4.0% in 2017 to 2018).

3) Voter turnout

At the 2024 UK general election, voter turnout was 59.7%. This shows a negative change in both the short term (67.3% in 2019) and the long term (68.8% in 2017).

The UK did not sign a leaders’ declaration at the climax of the AI action summit in Paris because it does not reflect the government’s policy position on “opportunity and security”, Downing Street has said.

UPDATE: See 4.20pm for a fuller account of what No 10 said.

Douglas Alexander, the trade minister, sidestepped a question in the Commons about whether the UK could avoid US steel tariffs by scrapping the Chagos Islands deal.

During the urgent question earlier, the Conservative MP Julian Lewis asked Alexander:

If President Trump offered to cancel the tariff on steel imports in return for the UK throwing in the dustbin the appalling Chagos giveaway deal, would the Government agree?

And Alexander replied:

Tempting though it is to indulge in the hypothetical negotiating strategy as ventriloquised through [Lewis], I think consistent with the approach that we need to take a considered view of what is emerging and still emerging in relation to aluminium, I think the responsible case is to say we should leave those in the good offices of the UK ambassador to the United States [Lord Mandelson] and the foreign secretary [David Lammy].

In response to another question, Alexander said “generating uncertainty” was a Donald Trump tactic. He said:

[The decison to impose tariffs] has not come as a surprise, but it’s also fair to recognise that the new president has a speciality in generating uncertainty. It’s part of his style of negotiations to create uncertainty as to what will happen next.

Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, said the main problem facing the UK steel industry was not the threat of US tariffs, but the high cost of energy.

Alexander replied:

There are other factors that need to be recognised and addressed in the steel strategy, for example, again the indisputable fact that we inherited blast furnaces that were increasingly out of date relative to technologies being used elsewhere.

It is also the case that there had been years of neglect in a number of these plants, where there is significant need for both public and private investment, so I respectfully hear the point [Tice] makes in relation to electricity prices and general power generation prices in the United Kingdom.

Science minister Patrick Vallance warns MPs of dangers of overregulating AI

Rachel Hall

Science minister Patrick Vallance warned MPs this morning that “if you overregulate in fast-moving technologies you kill them”, citing the main challenge as striking a balance between over- and under-regulation, which also carries risk.

Speaking to the Commons science and technology committee, he said:

This technology is moving extremely fast, and there are many people predicting when we will get to artificial general intelligence, which some people think is a decade or more away, others think is a year or two away, and lots of people think somewhere between those two.

That’s why the AI Safety Institute has been set up to try and get ahead of these things and to work with the developers to test models as they’re evolving.

He added that the AI Safety Institute was set up to be “expert and engaged”, and noted that several comparable institutions have since been set up around the globe, resulting in a joint meeting held in California in November last year.

There’s an attempt to get to what is happening, what that really means in terms of where this will go, and how we can work with developers at the beginning to look at problems that are going to arise.

He added that it’s important to regulate use rather than the technology itself, and that there will be a “legislative approach to the most cutting edge frontier models”, in particular those that move towards artificial general intelligence, for which the government is planning to consult on regulation. “The AI Safety Institute will be put on a statutory footing as part of that process,” he added.

He said that although the government has diverged with the EU on regulation due to the bloc’s blanket approach, it is still working closely with EU partners and the US to coordinate regulation internationally because it’s “pointless ending up with bespoke regulation in one country, because this is a global area”.

He noted that it’s important to “be careful around how we use words” as the overuse of the term AI, for example when applied to large language models such as ChatGPT, also leads to a “generic AI anxiety, which is not true when you’re thinking about narrow AI models”.

For obvious reasons, Pope Francis is not normally considered a centrist dad. But, indirectly, he has now intervened in last month’s dispute between JD Vance, the US vice president, and Rory Stewart, the former Tory cabinet minister who now probably has more influence over British political thinking as co-host of the Rest is Politics podcast (compulsory listening for centrist dads) than he ever did when he was in government.

To recap: Vance said in an interview:

There’s this old school – and I think it’s a very Christian concept by the way – that you love your family and then you love your neighbour, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that, you can focus and prioritise the rest of the world. A lot of the far left has completely inverted that.

Stewart, who says he had a slight acquaintance with Vance before he became vice president, responded with a message on social media saying:

A bizarre take on John 15:12-13 – less Christian and more pagan tribal. We should start worrying when politicians become theologians, assume to speak for Jesus, and tell us in which order to love.

At that point the dispute, which started as a theological argument related to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration, descended into insults, as Vance condemned Stewart’s “false arrogance” and questioned his IQ in one of his replies

Now Pope Francis has sided with Stewart. In a letter to US bishops, prompted by the “mass deportations” taking place there, he says:

Christians know very well that it is only by affirming the infinite dignity of all that our own identity as persons and as communities reaches its maturity. Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups. In other words: the human person is not a mere individual, relatively expansive, with some philanthropic feelings! The human person is a subject with dignity who, through the constitutive relationship with all, especially with the poorest, can gradually mature in his identity and vocation. The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.

The letter does not mention Vance, Stewart or their spat. But the mention of ordo amoris does seem to be a reference to another of Vance’s replies to Stewart, in which Vance said:

Just google “ordo amoris.” Aside from that, the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away? Does anyone?

Former SAS soldiers who killed four IRA terrorists in 1992 after they had attacked a police station risk prosecution because of the government’s decision to repeal the Conservative’s Legacy Act, MPs were told.

David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, made the claim during an urgent question on the findings of an inquest which said the SAS soldiers acted unlawfully when they killed the IRA men at Clonoe in County Tyrone.

Davis, a former SAS reservist, said:

Last week’s frankly speculative judgment by the Northern Ireland coroner into the Clonoe shootings now exposes a number of soldiers to potential prosecution. These are men who served their country with honour, heroism and skill, and sometimes in the face of the most incredible danger. They are now mostly in their 60s and 70s, no doubt hoping for a well-earned, peaceful retirement.

Precisely what is the government going to do to stop the vengeful pursuit of decent, patriotic people? If the government leaves them open to persecution, it will be frankly shameful and only to serve to further the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland.

Alex Burghart, the shadow Northern Ireland secretary, backed Davis’s argument. He said the four IRA men killed in the Clonoe ambush “sought to kill, and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law, and yet we are being asked to believe that the use of lethal force was not justified upon them”. He went on:

I am not a lawyer, but if this is the state of the law, then the law is an ass, and it is up to parliament to change it.

The last government passed a Legacy Act – the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, to give it its full title – which would have stopped army veterans being prosecuted for killings during the Troubles. But it was opposed by all political parties in Northern Ireland, partly because it would also in effect have given terrorists an amnesty from prosecution over Troubles-era crimes, and Labour is repealing it.

Responding to Davis, Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, said:

[The act] was a fatally flawed piece of legislation that has been found in a number of respects to be incompatible with our obligations under the European convention on human rights (ECHR) … This government believes in upholding our commitment to the ECHR even if other members do not share that view.

Responding to another question, Benn said the IRA terrorists who attacked the police station near Clonoe, if they had survived the SAS ambush, would also have had immunity from prosecution.

Harriett Baldwin, a shadow business minister, tabled the urgent question on steel tariffs. Responding to Douglas Alexander, she suggested Labour was partly to blame for the tariff decision because its relations with the Trump administration. She said:

This is a moment of great peril for the UK steel industry because the government has failed to engage with gusto with the new US administration.

The prime minister, despite his many air miles, has not got on a flight to the States at the first possible opportunity, and years of student politics-style insults hurled at the president by the front benchers opposite have put our relationship in jeopardy.

And that’s before the embarrassment the Chagos islands shows we have terrible negotiators running the country.

She asked Alexander to say what the government was doing to avoid tariffs, and what its assessment was of any impact tariffs might have on jobs and the wider economy.

And she asked what plans the government had for a “big, beautiful free trade agreement” with the US.

In response, Alexander said the last Conservative government “abjectly failed” to obtain this free trade deal, and many others.

He accused the Tories of neglecting the steel industry.

On talks with the US, he said the Trump administration does not yet have a trade representative because Jamieson Greer has not been confirmed in that role. And he said Howard Lutnick has not yet been confirmed as commerce secretary either.

On the impact of tariffs, he said sharing the internal government assessment of their impact would not be a “wise negotiating strategy”.

Douglas Alexander, the trade minister, is responding to an urgent question in the Commons about the US steel tariffs.

He says the US government has published details of its plans for steel tariffs, but not its plans for aluminium tariffs.

He goes on:

What British industry needs and deserves is not a knee-jerk reaction, but a cool and clear-headed sense of the UK’s national interest based on a full assessment of all the implications of the US actions.

He says a business minister is meeting representatives of the steel industry, and trade unions, this afternoon. And Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, is due to meet British Steel within the next 24 hours. He goes on:

Historically, we have benefited from a strong and balanced trade relationship with the United States worth around £300bn pounds and supporting millions of jobs. So in trade policy, we stand ready to work with President Trump to find solutions that work for both the United Kingdom and the United States.

As Dan Milmo reports, the US and the UK have refused to sign the Paris AI summit’s declaration on “inclusive and sustainable” artificial intelligence, in a blow to hopes for a concerted approach to developing and regulating the technology.

As Dan reports, the US and the UK did not immediately explain at the summit why they were not signing, but the decision came after the US vice president, JD Vance, gave a speech attacking Europe’s “excessive regulation” of technology.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson did not give a clear explanation for the decision not to sign the communique. But he said the government would always “put the national interest first in these areas”.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson said the government would take a “considered approach” to President Trump’s decision to include the UK in the 25% tariffs he is imposing on steel and aluminium imports.

As PA Media reports, the president’s executive order removes exemptions for the UK and other countries, meaning steel and aluminium exports to the US will be hit by tariffs from 12 March.

Asked how the government would respond, the spokesperson said:

It’s important that we take a considered approach to this and ensure we work through the detail. This government is clear that we will always work in our national interests. This issue is no different. And, as you know, we’re resolute enough support for the British Steel Industry.

The spokesperson sought to play down the significance of the dispute. Asked if Trump was “wrong” to include the UK in tariffs, the spokesperson did not say yes, and he claimed this issue similar to other issues where the government had to act in the national interest.

Asked if retaliatory tariffs were a possibility, the spokesperson said he would not “get ahead of those conversations” but that the government would always act in the national interest.

The spokesperson said the UK was “engaging” with the Trump administration on the detail. That was happening at “all levels”, he said.

Last night, in an inteview with Matt Forde for his Political Party podcast, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, said she thought there was “a deal to be done” with the US that could lead to the UK avoiding tariffs. Asked if the PM agreed, the spokesperson said he did not want to “get ahead” of the talks with the US.

Asked if Downing Street agreed with Trump when he said the US had a “huge deficit” with the UK in trade (see 10.31am), the PM’s spokesperson pointed out that Reeves said last night that the UK did not have a trade surplus with America. He went on:

We have a balanced trading relationship with the United States. We’ve got a very deep trading relationship with the United States. We want to work more closely … The last time President Trump was in power, trade between UK and US increased, and there’s no reason we can’t be deliver that again.

Asked if the government would give subsisidies to British Steel to help it with the impact of the tariffs, the spokesperson said that the government had already provided “significant support to the UK steel industry”, including a £2.5bn investment.

Apprentices over the age of 19 will no longer be required to undertake English and maths functional skills qualifications in order to complete their course, PA Media reports. PA says:

Up to 10,000 more apprentices would be able to qualify a year as a result of the changes, according to the Department for Education.

Employers will be given the flexibility to decide whether adult apprentices will need to complete a level 2 English and maths qualification – equivalent to GCSE – in order to pass their course, the DfE has announced.

The rules for apprentices over the age of 19 have been relaxed so more learners can qualify in sectors like healthcare, social care and construction.

The minimum duration of an apprenticeship will also be reduced to eight months, down from 12 months, to allow workers in shortage occupations – like green energy, healthcare, and film/TV production – to become trained sooner.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said:

Businesses have been calling out for change to the apprenticeship system and these reforms show that we are listening. Our new offer of shorter apprenticeships and less red tape strikes the right balance between speed and quality, helping achieve our number one mission to grow the economy.