Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

1. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of AI on trends in the level of employment.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)]

Very briefly, Mr Speaker, if I may, I am aware of a serious incident having taken place in my city of Leicester, at De Montfort University. I know that people will be deeply worried and concerned. I will just say that I hope people use trusted sources of information, including online. Do not speculate; more information will be forthcoming. My thoughts are, as always, with my constituents and people in my city.

Artificial intelligence is creating jobs, such as the 15,000 new jobs in our five AI growth zones. AI is changing jobs, freeing up nurses’ and teachers’ time so they can focus on their professions. But AI will also displace jobs, as is the case with all technological change. Unlike the Conservatives in the ’80s and ’90s, we will never leave people to cope on their own and we will help them through the jobs transition. Our new future of work unit will bring together action from across Government, and we will upskill 10 million workers by 2030, with free AI skills for all, in the biggest single plan to upskill our nation since Harold Wilson’s Open University.

[Lorraine Beavers]

History shows that workers’ voices must be heard to ensure that advances in technology provide better living and working conditions. Will the Secretary of State tell me what conversations she has had with the trade unions about ensuring that working-class people gain from the innovation in artificial intelligence?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend, as always, is spot on. We are determined to ensure that the benefits of AI are felt by working people right across the country. That is why our new AI growth zones in north Wales, south Wales, Lanarkshire and the north-east are built on places that were the beating heart of our industrial success and which will now drive our technological success. Trade unions and workers will be at the heart of that. I am delighted that we are working with the TUC on this, and I have spoken to the general secretary. I am also pleased that Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect union is on our new expert panel for the future of work unit to make sure that trade union and workers’ views are at the heart of this vital jobs transition.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

The Government’s failure to resolve the uncertainty around AI data mining and copyright is undermining the UK’s economic competitiveness. Will the Secretary of State accept that that failure is driving jobs in both AI and the creative industries abroad?

[Liz Kendall]

We are creating new jobs, with 15,000 from our AI growth zones alone. Culture Secretary and I deeply understand the need to resolve the issues around AI and copyright. That is why we have been meeting the creative sector and those from the AI industry so that we find a way forward that works for both our world-leading creatives and our world-leading AI entrepreneurs.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

2. What discussions she has had with stakeholders on teenagers’ use of social media.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)]

I have spoken to a range of individuals and organisations about teenagers’ use of social media. Last month, I met families who have suffered unimaginable tragedy as a result of their children’s experiences online. In April, my Department will co-host an event with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children on AI’s impact on children. I have spoken to parents, teachers and young people, including in my constituency, and there will be much more to come through our consultation. There are different opinions about how best to keep children safe online, but we will take further action, and swiftly.

[Christine Jardine]

In Australia, the Government are playing a game of whack-a-mole as they struggle to keep up with young people switching between social media sites and new apps that have just been brought on board. I have spoken to people in the industry here and to parents who say that a blanket ban is not working. Will the Government consider a more varied approach, along the lines that the Liberal Democrats have suggested, with a licensing scheme based on certification for cinema screens?

[Liz Kendall]

I would say that it is early days in Australia, and we also know the action that France and Spain will be taking. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present during my statement last week, when I set out that we will consult on a range of different options, including a ban on social media for the under-16s, raising the digital age of consent, overnight curfews and stronger age verification measures. We want to get this right and to work with parents, teenagers, and industry, but we will take further action to give children the childhood that they deserve and prepare them for the future.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

One year ago, Meta, TikTok, X, and Google all confirmed to my Committee that they hold themselves accountable to the British people through Parliament, and before Easter we will revisit the findings of our social media and algorithms inquiry in an evidence session with them. I mention that because it is clear that Governments across the world are urgently seeking ways to make tech platforms more accountable. As the Secretary of State consults on children and social media, will she confirm that any eventual ban should be in addition to and not instead of more effective regulation of those powerful platforms?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work she is leading on this crucial issue, and I know how passionately she and the Committee, and many other Members of the House, feel about the role of algorithms, misinformation, disinformation and the impact on our democracy and the political process. We have launched a specific consultation on children’s online lives, and how to give them the best life online, just as we want for them in the real world. My hon. Friend will also know that I constantly keep these issues under review, because we want to ensure that AI and tech is used for good, and not to cause further problems in our society.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

The public support a ban on social media for the under-16s, Conservative Members support a ban on social media for the under-16s, and Labour Members support a ban on social media for the under-16s. The Secretary of State has said many fine words about her concerns for children’s safety online, but what we now need is action. Will she take the opportunity to make clear her position: does she, or does she not, support a ban on social media for the under-16s?

[Liz Kendall]

I am very aware of the strong views on this issue. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation, the NSPCC, and others, think that there are problems with a social media ban for young people, and I want to listen closely to those views. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it was Labour Members who stood up to X and Grok, when the Conservative spokesperson said it was a “legal grey area”, when it was not, and accused us of being like the mullahs of Iran. I am proud of the action we have taken to keep kids safe online; let us see what the hon. Gentleman has done.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

We have already heard from thousands of stakeholders, including concerned parents, teachers and young people, who are all crying out for help against fast-evolving online harm. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a world-leading approach to ban harmful social media, based on a future-proof, harms-based approach that is backed by 42 children’s charities and online experts. As the world wakes up to this seatbelt moment for online safety, now is the time for action. A consultation is not good enough, so will the Secretary of State please assure us that it will at least look at how we ban harmful social media for under-16s, rather than if we do it?

[Liz Kendall]

We are banning harmful content for children, and this Government have taken decisive action to protect children and young people from intimate image abuse, self-harm, cyber-flashing, and strangulation in pornography. Hon. Members across the House will continually ask me this question today, but I believe that a consultation—swift, with proposals before the summer—is the right and responsible way forward to hear different views, to try to build consensus where we can, and then to act decisively. I hope that the hon. Lady, who I know cares deeply about these issues, will work with us, including with her constituents, to ensure that we build the strongest possible framework for the future.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

3. Whether her Department's consultation on children’s use of social media will include the implementation of a potential social media ban.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)]

The Government’s consultation on children’s use of social media and how we build a great life online for our young people will include the option of banning social media for under-16s. We will also look at other measures, such as raising the digital age of consent, breaks to stop excessive use or doomscrolling, overnight curfews, the enforcement of existing age verification laws—there is more to be done there—and addressing concerns about the use of virtual private networks. I have also said that I will take further action on AI chatbots when that is necessary. There are strong and differing views about this issue, which is why we believe that a swift consultation rooted in the evidence is the right and responsible way forward.

[Fred Thomas]

Every day that children are exposed to harmful and addictive content is another day of preventable harm. Yesterday, the Spanish PM, Pedro Sánchez, announced that Spain will ban social media for under-16s, pledging to protect children there from the digital wild west. Expectations are that the Government in Spain will begin passing legislation next week. Meanwhile, we know about France and Australia. There is accelerating momentum from our allies to move quickly and decisively on this issue. Can the Secretary of State confirm, as was indicated by a Minister in the other place a couple of weeks ago, that the Government are taking steps so that a ban could be introduced here at pace through secondary legislation, subject to the results of the consultation?

[Liz Kendall]

I am not one for hanging about. I want to act swiftly, and we will do whatever is possible on the basis of the consultation and the decisions we take to act as swiftly as possible.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I recently met a headteacher in my constituency who told me that social media use during school hours has reached the stage where some schools are weighing up budgeting for and investment in schemes to reduce phone distraction against investing into additional teaching staff. Her school is trialling the use of a new app that minimises distractions by controlling access to non-essential apps during the school day. Other schools have a system of secure phone-locking bags, but they are expensive. Before the results of the Department’s consultation are published, what interim measures is the Secretary of State considering to help schools to manage pupils’ access to social media on mobile phones?

[Liz Kendall]

My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has made it clear, with new guidance and a requirement on Ofsted to inspect, that phones should not be used in schools. That is the action we are taking, because we think that is the right way forward. That is what teachers want. I know that some schools have found it difficult handling these issues with young people and parents, but the position of this Government—that we should not have phones being used in schools—is absolutely crystal clear.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking to ensure the Project Gigabit roll-out prioritises rural areas with poor levels of broadband connectivity.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Josh Simons)]

I am answering today on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital Government, who is away on other duties. As of September 2025, more than 1.3 million premises in rural and hard-to-reach communities across the UK have already been upgraded to gigabit-capable broadband through Government-funded programmes. More than 1 million premises are included in the £2.4 billion-worth of signed Project Gigabit contracts. That includes a £175 million contract with Openreach to deliver gigabit-capable broadband across Scotland, including approximately 8,300 premises in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Torcuil Crichton]

The figures are impressive, but 10% of constituents in the Western Isles cannot get more than 10 megabits a second. While I welcome Project Gigabit, the islanders tell me that the areas first being considered for connection already have good fibre connection. They are getting a fibre upgrade, while people perhaps just a few hundred yards off the main fibre cable running the length of the island are left hanging on a copper line. Will the Minister press Openreach to ensure that it makes these hard-to-reach connections and does not just rely on easy connections and big figures to convince Ministers that it is doing its job?

[Josh Simons]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to press this issue. Project Gigabit delivers gigabit-capable broadband to parts of the UK that are unlikely to be reached by the commercial market alone. However, as Project Gigabit extends its coverage, it will increasingly also cover properties that already have superfast availability. For premises located in very hard-to-reach areas, we are continuing to explore how Government can further enable alternatives to fibre connections, such as through satellites and fixed wireless access. I urge my hon. Friend to remind his constituents that, through the broadband universal service obligation, consumers always have a right to a decent broadband connection of at least 10 megabits per second of download speed.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The new Project Gigabit contract for Cheshire, expected to be in place by the spring, will cover only around a third of the premises in Chester South and Eddisbury that currently lack adequate broadband. I have raised this issue repeatedly, but I am still without a clear answer. Can the Minister now set out what specific plans exist for the remaining 10,000 homes and businesses, mostly in rural areas, that are not included in this new contract? When can those premises realistically expect to be connected?

[Josh Simons]

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), we are currently looking at how we can further enable alternatives to fibre access, such as satellites and fixed wireless access. I am sure that the Minister for Digital Government will be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the specific issues in her constituency, as he would be for my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

5. What steps she is taking to help reduce social media harms for children under 16.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to help protect young people online.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

12. What steps her Department is taking to help protect young people online.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

With the groundbreaking steps in the Online Safety Act 2023, we are protecting children from illegal and harmful content online. The Secretary of State’s first step was to ensure that self-harm and suicide content were made priority offences. We have legislated to criminalise both the depiction of strangulation in pornography and the creation of non-consensual intimate images, making them priority offences. We have now launched a short, sharp consultation to protect children’s experiences online. Under this Government, children’s wellbeing is put right at the heart of our decisions.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The Online Safety Act was intended to protect children and teenagers from harmful social media content. The Molly Rose Foundation’s study found that, before the Act’s implementation, over a third of 13 to 17-year-olds had seen harmful content online, including self-harm, depression or eating disorder content. Young people in my constituency tell me that they still see this content, so will the Minister commit to publish a report examining whether the Online Safety Act is meeting its stated aim of keeping children safe online, while we wait for the Government’s response to their own consultation?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. I have engaged deeply and frequently with the Molly Rose Foundation on this issue and wider concerns. We continue to ensure that the monitoring and evaluation of the Online Safety Act’s implementation is in progress—I am engaging regularly on that, and I am happy to continue the conversation.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I have heard from many parents in Derby who want to know that their children are properly protected when they go online, not left exposed to harmful content or addictive design features. I have also spoken to many young people who are also concerned about what they face online. Can the Minister set out how, in addition to listening to the voices of organisations representing children and bereaved families, which is vital, we put children and young people at the heart of this national conversation and ensure that their voices are heard too?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the depth and breadth of her advocacy for the people of Derby. I can confirm that I would be delighted to ensure that we continue the conversation with young people. I was at a school last week, and I will be in a school this week. I commit to the House that the Secretary of State and I will continue to put young people at the heart of all our decisions.

[Danny Beales]

I have been contacted by over 400 of my constituents who are calling for greater regulation of social media and young people’s use of it. There is disagreement about whether there should be a full or partial ban, and the exact age at which it should be introduced. Regardless of where the Government’s consultation leads, there will be a cliff edge, and young people will, at some point, start to engage with the digital world. With that in mind, what engagement is the Department having with the Department for Education’s curriculum review to give young people the skills, information and support they need to identify online harms and misinformation?

[Kanishka Narayan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: regulation is one part of this issue, but we are also focused on the fundamental aspects of media literacy and education. We are engaging very closely with the Department for Education on a media literacy aspect of the national curriculum to ensure that our young people can spot misinformation and disinformation, and that they are prepared to make the most of online experiences.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Further to the question put to the Secretary of State by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), my teenage informant tells me that if you ask them the right question, most US-based search engines will tell you how to access the dark web. That is clearly undesirable, so what are we doing to stop it?

[Kanishka Narayan]

We are looking very closely at that. Of course, under the Online Safety Act, platforms already have a responsibility to make sure that young people are not able to access harmful content. In relation to wider access methods—whether virtual private networks or others—we are looking very closely at patterns of behaviour. So far, we have been pretty successful; after an initial spike in the use of some of those platforms, we have seen a levelling-off, which I very much hope continues. We will continue to monitor the situation.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)]

We are in a race for the future, and this Government are determined to seize the opportunities of AI to win for Britain and the British people. Last week, I announced our Lanarkshire AI growth zone, creating 3,400 jobs. On Monday, I announced that Barnsley will be the UK’s first tech town, and we have announced free AI skills for all, because if we want AI to work for Britain, we need Britons who can work with AI.

[Matt Turmaine]

This Labour Government are making great strides in deploying digital technologies to provide access to public services and bring them bang up to date. Will my right hon. Friend please outline how this will benefit the residents of my constituency of Watford, while also offering some reassurance to those who are not digital natives that they will still be able to access the public services they need?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend has always been a powerful champion for the good people of Watford. This Government are determined to make sure that national and local public services are more easily accessible online, through things such as the NHS app, and that people can get driving licences and information about benefits online. However, we are really concerned about those without digital skills. That is why we launched the first digital inclusion plan in a decade, including free digital skills training, which my hon. Friend’s constituents can take advantage of.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Amid the utter muck-storm of this week, it is World Cancer Day, when we should be thanking our incredible scientists whose breakthroughs give hope to patients at their lowest ebb. Does the Secretary of State think that her Government should charge VAT on medicines being supplied to those patients for free?

[Liz Kendall]

I am very proud that this Government have today announced their proposals to improve cancer care for people right across the country. It is essential that we get more people access to faster, better services, and I have always believed that we need to do that in the way that is fairest for people and that backs our great scientists to make even more improvements. That is why I am so proud of our life sciences sector plan, alongside the 10-year NHS plan.

[Julia Lopez]

I did not uncover any answer there. Charities and life sciences firms are telling me that this Government have begun to issue tax bills on free drugs, such that one company is stopping a compassionate access scheme and withdrawing two critical cancer drugs, and more could follow suit. This is a disaster for patients, a disaster for securing clinical trials, and a disaster for this Government’s cancer strategy. Will the Secretary of State and the Chancellor commit to stopping those bills as a matter of urgency, for the sake of patients and of our vital life sciences industry?

[Liz Kendall]

This Government are transforming life sciences through the biggest ever investment in research and development, and a 10-year NHS plan that will radically reduce the time for drugs to get to clinical trial. We are also ensuring that our pharmaceuticals sector has a proper deal, including with the NHS. That is how we get better services for patients, and I am proud of this Government’s record.

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

T2.   The London Design and Engineering university technical college in the Royal Docks has just received an “outstanding” Ofsted report, including a commendation for the way it prepares students for the next stage of employment. Does the Secretary of State agree that an industry-level offer of resources and training at that stage in education is vital if we are to have thriving science, technology, engineering and mathematics sectors?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, I do. That is why this Government are expanding high-quality apprenticeships and technical pathways, such as the ones on offer in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are investing £725 million to deliver more apprenticeships for young people and rolling out new apprenticeship units in priority areas such as engineering, alongside a £150 million partnership with mayors to connect young people to local opportunities. We are giving young people the skills, hope and opportunities they need to build a better life. That is what this Labour Government are all about.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

T4. Despite all that President Trump is doing to wreck global stability, our Government still spend billions a year on digital technology contracts, including with US tech giants. Will the Secretary of State immediately put together a UK digital sovereignty strategy to build our resilience and security, as France and Germany are doing?

[Liz Kendall]

We are already investing £500 million in our sovereign AI unit to back our brilliant AI entrepreneurs and start-ups, because we believe more competition in this area is good for Britain and good for the world.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 February.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

On World Cancer Day, we are publishing our national cancer plan to transform care for patients. It means investment in cutting-edge technology, so that our exceptional frontline staff can give world-class care. It funds more tests and scans, meaning faster diagnosis and treatment, and tailored treatment in specialist centres. We will cover the costs of every family whose child needs to travel for cancer care, because their focus should only be on recovery, not worrying about money.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Johanna Baxter]

Up and down the country, this Government are restoring pride in place by investing in our high streets—the beating heart of our communities—yet in Paisley and Renfrewshire South, the SNP-led Renfrewshire council has done the opposite. It has sat on its hands while the owners of the Paisley Centre, who received planning permission to develop the centre some years ago, have sought support to transform our town centre. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is only the SNP’s lack of ambition and failure of leadership that is letting Paisley down, and will he work with me to restore pride in Paisley town centre?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a superb champion for Paisley. Her constituents deserve a Scottish Government who match her dedication. For our part, we have delivered a record funding settlement. We are investing £280 million in Pride in Place across 14 Scottish communities. We have secured shipbuilding on the Clyde for over a decade and have just announced an AI growth zone in Lanarkshire. The choice is clear: a third decade of failure under the SNP, or real change for Scotland under Anas Sarwar.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

The whole House will be disgusted by the latest revelations about Jeffrey Epstein. All of us want to see his victims get justice, but the political decision to appoint Epstein’s close associate, Peter Mandelson, as Britain’s ambassador to Washington goes to the very heart of this Prime Minister’s judgment. When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship even after Epstein’s conviction for child prostitution?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me start where I must: with the victims of Epstein. All our thoughts are with them. Our thoughts are also with all those who lost jobs, savings and livelihoods in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash. To learn that there was a Cabinet Minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating, and I am as angry as the public and any Member of this House.

Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party. He lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein, before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government. That is why yesterday the Cabinet Secretary, with my support, took the decision to refer material to the police, and there is now a criminal investigation. I have instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title, and wider legislation to remove disgraced peers. This morning I have agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors on the grounds that he has brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I asked the Prime Minister a very specific question. Did he know that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction? He says, “If I knew then what I know now”—but he did know. In January 2024, a journalist from the Financial Times informed the Prime Minister that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house even after that conviction for child prostitution. Did the Prime Minister conveniently forget this fact, or did he decide that it was a risk worth taking?

[The Prime Minister]

As the House would expect, we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years. New information was published in September, showing that the relationship was materially different from what we had been led to believe. When the new information came to light, I sacked him, but we did go through a due diligence exercise. The points that are being put to me were dealt with within that exercise.

In response to the Humble Address this afternoon, I intend to make sure that all the material is published. The only exemptions are anything that would prejudice national security—my first duty is obviously to keep this country safe, and when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security—or that would prejudice international relations. You and the House will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that in the course of discussions country to country there are very sensitive issues of security, intelligence and trade that cannot be disclosed without compromising the relationship between the two countries, or a third country.

So that I can be totally open with the House, I should also disclose that the Metropolitan police have been in touch with my office this morning to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations. We are in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House, but I do think I should make that clear to the House at this point, because those discussions are ongoing.

[Mr Speaker]

Does that clear it up?

[Mrs Badenoch]

I will come to the Humble Address in a moment, but the Prime Minister cannot blame the process. He did know. It was on Google. If the Conservative research department could find this information out, why couldn’t No. 10?

On 10 September, when we knew this, I asked the Prime Minister about it at the Dispatch Box, and he gave Mandelson his full confidence—not once but twice. He only sacked him after pressure from us. I am asking the Prime Minister something very specific, not about the generalities of the full extent. Can the Prime Minister tell us: did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, it did. As a result, various questions were put to him. I intend to disclose to the House—the national security and prejudice to international relations on one side; I want to make sure that the House sees the full documentation so it will see for itself the extent to which, time and time again, Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process, including in response to the due diligence.

[Mrs Badenoch]

What the Prime Minister has just said is shocking. How can he stand up there saying that he knew, but that he just asked Peter Mandelson if the security vetting was true or false? This was a man who had been sacked from Cabinet twice already for unethical behaviour. That is absolutely shocking.

That is why, later today, my party will call on the Government to release all documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment, not just the ones the Prime Minister wants us to see; this Government are trying to sabotage that release with an amendment to let him choose what we see—the man who appointed Mandelson in the first place. Labour MPs now have to decide if they want to be accessories to his cover-up. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not remove the Whip if they refuse to vote for his whitewash amendment?

[The Prime Minister]

The first exemption is in relation to anything that could compromise national security. That is not a small matter, and many Members on the Opposition Benches will know precisely why that needs to be an exemption. When we were drafting Humble Addresses in opposition, we always made sure that that exemption was included because we knew how important it was to the then Government. I do not think I have seen a Humble Address without that exemption. Just to be clear, to vote to release something that would prejudice national security is wrong in principle.

The second exemption is in relation to things that would prejudice international relations. There will be discussions about security, intelligence and trade that are highly sensitive to the two countries involved, and to third countries. [Interruption.] Well, the Opposition have to ask themselves whether they want to vote to prejudice our national security. In fairness, I do not think that they do.

Let me reassure the House that the process for deciding what falls into those categories will not be a political process; it will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by Government legal teams. They will be looking at the question of prejudice and they will be making that decision.

The only additional thing I want to put before the House, because there was a discussion this morning with the Metropolitan police, is that we are in discussions with them about any material that they are concerned will prejudice their investigation. We are at an early stage of that discussion, but I did not want the House not to know that that discussion is going on.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is talking about national security. The national security issue was appointing Mandelson in the first place. What he has said about the Humble Address is a red herring. Let me tell those Labour MPs who were not here in the last Parliament: Humble Addresses already exempt genuine national security issues. This is not about national security; this is about the Prime Minister’s job security. His amendment lets him withhold anything to do with international relations, but this whole appointment is to do with international relations, so if Government Members are voting for it, they are voting for the cover-up. If the Prime Minister is serious about national security concerns, he should ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide which documents should be released. Will he commit to doing so here and now?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out the process. It will not be a political process. It will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by the Government legal teams. I am pleased that the right hon. Lady, I think, now accepts that at least the first exemption that we have written into the amendment—in relation to prejudicing national security—is the right one.

Given the breadth of what has been asked for, we are doing everything we can to make sure that this information is fully transparent and disclosed, but the right hon. Lady and Opposition Members behind her will understand from their own experience in government the sensitivity of information about security, intelligence and trade relations that is inevitably caught in exchanges of this nature, and it is right that anything that prejudices—not touches on, but prejudices—international relations is protected within the disclosure.

[Mrs Badenoch]

If that was really the case, the Prime Minister would not mind if the ISC had a look. Let us be clear: he says the involvement of the Cabinet Secretary makes the process non-political, but that does not make it independent. What we want is an independent look. The ISC is independent, whereas the Cabinet Secretary works for him. We know that there will be a cover-up, because this matter implicates the Prime Minister and his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, a protégé of Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister chose to inject Mandelson’s poison into the heart of his Government on the advice of Morgan McSweeney. His catastrophic lack of judgment—he is telling us now that he did know—has harmed the special relationship. It has endangered national security—it is not the Humble Address; it is him—compromised our diplomacy, and embarrassed our nation. After all this, does he have the same full confidence in Morgan McSweeney that he had in Peter Mandelson?

[The Prime Minister]

Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him.

Whatever is slung across this Dispatch Box, I do not think it is right for the Cabinet Secretary to be denigrated in that way, or to suggest that he would be involved in a cover-up. There is the politics that comes over the Dispatch Boxes, but I honestly do not think it is right to impugn the Cabinet Secretary in that way. I suspect that, in their heart of hearts, many on the Conservative Benches would agree.

I am as angry as anyone about what Mandelson has been up to. The disclosures that have been made this week of him passing on sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 financial crash are utterly shocking and appalling. He has betrayed our country. He has lied repeatedly; he is responsible for a litany of deceit, but this moment demands not just anger but action, and that is why we have moved quickly by referring material to the police, publishing legislation so that we can remove titles from disgraced politicians, and stripping Mandelson of his Privy Counsellorship. That is what the public expect, and that is what we will do.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Q2.   Every month, people across our constituencies are injured by illegal e-bikes being ridden at 30, 40 and 50 mph through our town centres and parks, but for every illegal e-bike that the police seize and crush, another 10 hit our streets, because they are too freely available to buy. That is why Cumbria’s police, fire and crime commissioner and 28 other police commissioners across the UK are now backing my Bill, which would ban the sale of illegal e-bikes. Will the Prime Minister set out what action the Government will take to protect the public and ban the sale of these monster bikes?

[The Prime Minister]

May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend? She campaigns tirelessly to stop these antisocial, dangerous bikes terrorising communities. Our Crime and Policing Bill will mean that police can seize bikes without issuing a warning, and can destroy them. Product safety law means that authorities have the powers to intervene to stop the sale of unsafe e-bikes, but I share her determination to get these bikes off our streets.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister for your responses to my tribute to Jim Wallace on Monday, and may I urge the whole House to read the wonderful tributes paid to Jim in the other place yesterday?

I have been thinking about how victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and the victims’ families, must feel. We are hearing more and more stories of rich, powerful men currying favour with a paedophile sex trafficker; for example, we hear of Peter Mandelson sending Government secrets to help Epstein enrich himself further. Mandelson was made ambassador to the United States, even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by both the Financial Times and “Channel 4 News”. Given that the Prime Minister now admits that he knew about those links before he gave such an important job to one of Epstein’s closest friends, can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?

[The Prime Minister]

We looked at the material. There was a process, and the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there was then a security vetting exercise as well. That is why I started by saying that all our thoughts are with the victims of Epstein. The right hon. Gentleman is right to express anger at the material that has recently come out in relation to sensitive information in the aftermath of the ’08 crash. Yesterday, working with the Cabinet Secretary, we referred the material to the police, which has led to the criminal investigation that will follow.

[Ed Davey]

I think the victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve far better than that; they deserve Peter Mandelson not being appointed in the first place. We do not even know the full extent of the British establishment’s involvement in Epstein’s appalling crimes, or how many British girls and young women were trafficked by him, so we need a full public inquiry, both to get justice for the victims and to protect our national security. The Polish Government think Epstein may have been spying for Vladimir Putin. Is the Prime Minister concerned that Peter Mandelson may have been leaking state secrets not just to a paedophile American financier, but also a Russian agent?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks of a public inquiry. Obviously, the focus now has to be on the criminal investigation, which has started. As he knows, that investigation will go wherever the evidence leads it. I have made it absolutely clear that the Government will co-operate, as he would expect, with that criminal investigation, wherever it goes.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Q3.  I welcome the news that Bristol East will be getting another three breakfast clubs. As I have seen, these clubs are not just about making sure that no child starts the school day hungry, but about giving staff extra time with children to spot whether there might be trouble at home. On that note, may I urge the Prime Minister to work with schools on our manifesto commitment to identify children with parents in prison, to make sure that those children get all the support that they need?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, and confirm that we are looking at how we can strengthen the support in place for these children, so that no child falls between the cracks. Free breakfast clubs mean that every child is fed and ready to learn. I am delighted to see that there are three more in her constituency, as she says. I also want to mention Rushbrook primary academy, Oasis Academy Aspinal, Longsight community primary and St Bernard’s Roman Catholic primary school, Manchester. All will soon be operating free breakfast clubs in Gorton and Denton.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The victims and survivors of Epstein and his circle of the over-privileged elite are at the forefront of my mind here and now. Mandelson, we now know, described Epstein’s release from prison after he was sentenced for child sex offences as “Liberation day”. This man’s association with Epstein was known when the Prime Minister personally appointed him as the UK’s ambassador to the USA. How can we trust the Prime Minister’s judgment, and if we question that, how can we trust him enough for him to remain Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I join in the right hon. Lady’s disgust at the comments she just read out? To be absolutely clear, the scale and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein was not disclosed—on the contrary. It was not just not disclosed; Mandelson lied throughout the process and beyond the process. He lied, he lied, and he lied again to my team.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

Q5. An EU agrifood deal would boost exports and cut supermarket prices. The CBI backs it, and according to Best for Britain’s polling, 62% of the public do, but—surprise, surprise!—Reform opposes it. I thought the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) wanted 30p food. Does the Prime Minister agree that while some on the Opposition Benches prefer to have temper tantrums at Brussels, this Labour Government must build closer ties with Europe to cut the price of the weekly shop?

[The Prime Minister]

The deal we have struck with the EU means lower prices at the check-out, more choice on the shelf, and more money in people’s pockets. It is good for British fishers and farmers, who face less red tape selling our world-class produce into a crucial market. It comes alongside the opportunity for young people to work and travel across Europe, the work that we are doing to cut energy bills, and closer work on defence. All of that is opposed by Reform and the Tories, who sold the myth, botched Brexit, and left families and businesses paying the price.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Q4.   I will give the Prime Minister some brief respite from Peter Mandelson. However, he will also be familiar with the name Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was struck off and convicted for repeatedly inventing vexatious cases against British troops in Iraq. It is something of a surprise that the Prime Minister authored a chapter in Mr Shiner’s book about pursuing our veterans via the European Court of Human Rights. Can I ask him specifically: was he ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers, to act in any legal case?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

Q6. This year in Aldershot and Farnborough, we are looking forward to hosting the national celebrations for Armed Forces Day in the home of the British Army. Businesses in my community welcome this Government’s record investment in defence in the years ahead, but our banks still struggle to lend to defence companies because of international regulations. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the UK works with Canada and our other allies to found the multilateral defence security and resilience bank, so that we can get money moving to our defence industries, get our armed forces what they need, and stand firm against our adversaries?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted that Aldershot will be hosting Armed Forces Day; it has a hard-working Labour MP and Labour council. Our historic defence spending uplift must be an engine for growth and jobs in the United Kingdom, which is why we have committed to spending an extra £2.5 billion with small and medium-sized enterprises. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that we work in lockstep with our allies, particularly in Europe, to enhance and align our defence capabilities, and we are therefore working at pace to identify the most effective mechanisms for greater multilateral co-operation.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Q8. For months, our communities in Epping have been deeply distressed by the Bell hotel reopening as an asylum hotel. My thoughts remain with the victims of the sexual assaults, including the 14-year-old Epping schoolgirl whose trauma was compounded by the mistaken release of the offender from prison. Weekly protests continue, some of which have become violent, with injuries to 10 brave police officers. I am grateful to the Minister for Border Security and Asylum for meeting me recently about this untenable situation, but will the Prime Minister listen and act now, close the Bell hotel once and for all, and help restore our town of Epping?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to ending the use of all asylum hotels; there are now just under 200, compared with the 400 under the previous Government. Where military sites are used, the safety and security of local communities is our priority.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q7. Hartlepool now has the third highest number of children in care in England—a number fuelled by southern councils shipping families to my town. This is blowing a £6 million hole in our budget, a deficit that my brilliant Labour council has halved, but there is now nothing left to cut. Percentage increases in funding mean less in Hartlepool than almost anywhere else in the country, but a child in care costs exactly the same in Hartlepool as elsewhere. The fair funding settlement announced in December does not go far enough. I am fighting non-stop for a better deal for my town, because I will not accept one of the poorest communities in the country being condemned to higher taxes or devastating austerity. We need support. Will the PM commit his Ministers to working across Government to fix this for Hartlepool?

[The Prime Minister]

It is because of strong local Labour MPs like my hon. Friend that towns like Hartlepool, treated as an afterthought by the Conservatives, are having their future restored. We are making billions more available so that councils can properly fund social care, and we are driving down the cost of living for parents and their children, including with three free breakfast clubs in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and more than 3,000 children there no longer incapacitated by the two-child limit. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Q11. My residents are sick of being let down by Thames Water. Robert and Patricia were sent a £39,000 bill that they did not actually owe; Len and Jenny were forced to use a Portaloo for months as sewage filled their home; and parents still think twice about sending their children to swim in the river. We understand that a £16 billion rescue deal is soon to cross the Prime Minister’s desk. Will he admit today what everyone already knows: that Thames Water is dead in the water; that any delay is pointless; and that it should be put out of its misery and rebuilt as a company for public benefit?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that matter; I know how important it is for her constituents. We have taken measures in relation to strengthening oversight and the control we have, and we will not hesitate to go further. I will make sure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

Q9.   It was a privilege to join fellow north-east MPs at the weekend on the destroyer HMS Duncan, to meet the crew and to be briefed on the exciting plans for the innovative future of the Royal Navy—a future that should be bright, given the £10 billion frigate deal with Norway, and a future that we absolutely want our region to be part of. Does the Prime Minister agree that, given the north-east’s strengths in AI, satellite technology and advanced manufacturing, north-east workers and businesses should be at the heart of the future hybrid Navy? Will Ministers meet us and industry leaders to put the north-east at the heart of our future defence?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the commanding officer and crew of HMS Duncan for their service, and I also thank my hon. Friend. I remember meeting the brilliant workforce in his region, and I know that the Defence Ministers will be delighted to do the same. Our record defence spending is supporting jobs and growth across the north-east. We invested £200 million in Octric Semiconductors in his constituency last year. As we increase defence spending, the north-east will play a major role, securing good, skilled jobs for generations to come.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Q13. I associate myself with the comments of my party leader about Lord Wallace, a man whom I was privileged to know. Conversations are taking place in the Chamber today and up and down the country about Peter Mandelson and his involvement with the paedophile who trafficked women. Given that millions of women, particularly in this country, will be triggered by that and given the establishment’s proximity to what happened, will the Prime Minister assure us that helplines will be set up and that we will support the direct victims as well as those women who indirectly will be triggered?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member is right to raise that. Obviously, we will support the police with their investigation, but we will also press on with our work to halve violence against women and girls, which is very much about putting in place the support that is needed for all victims of violence. That is a crucial part of our work and I hope that we can work across the House in support of that.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Q10. I am proud that Labour MPs voted yesterday to remove the two-child limit and lift 400,000 children out of poverty, but child poverty cannot be eradicated while children are living in overcrowded temporary accommodation without their own bed or anywhere to do their homework. Will the Prime Minister commit to urgent and persistent action to drive down the use of temporary accommodation, ensuring that our councils, including my councils of Lambeth and Southwark, have the funding they need in the final local government finance settlement next week?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend in her pride in the vote to lift half a million children out of poverty, after hundreds of thousands were plunged into poverty by the Conservative party when they were in government. On her point about temporary accommodation, she is right that every child deserves a safe, warm and secure home. We are investing a record £3.5 billion in homelessness services and £950 million in local authority housing funds to deliver better quality temporary accommodation.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

Q14.   How we answer the call for justice of SEND families will be a measure of who we are. Christopher Laskaris, who was autistic, was murdered aged 24. His mother, Fiona, who is in Public Gallery, spent eight years begging authorities to protect him, but they refused because they presumed that he had mental capacity. Will the Prime Minister support Christopher’s law, which creates a duty to assess mental capacity where it is in doubt, to save the lives of others?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for his question and for his tireless campaigning on behalf of Christopher and also Fiona, who, as he points out, is with us today. Christopher’s death was a tragedy, and I agree that we owe it to Fiona—I am glad that she is here to hear this—and to other families to get this right. I can reassure him that work is under way to examine what action is necessary to prevent further such tragedies. That comes alongside our intention to consult on the liberty protection safeguards this year. I will make sure that the hon. Member is fully updated on the work as it progresses across government. I will ask that he makes sure that Fiona and others are updated as well.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Q12. From heat-tolerant rice trials to world-leading science at the Earlham Institute and the John Innes Centre at Norwich Research Park, South Norwich is helping to feed the world. Will the Prime Minister secure a clear carve-out for precision breeding in any future sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU so that Britain can continue to lead in this field?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. As negotiations are ongoing, we remain committed to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 and supporting new innovative technologies, as he will be pleased to know. The EU accepts that there will need to be areas where we retain our own rules, and we will always prioritise British interests as we negotiate our SPS agreement.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I have been campaigning for a Lincoln dental school for some years. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, thanks to the hard work of, among others, Professor Juster, Professor Read and Susie MacPherson, Lincoln medical school is now in a position to take on its first cohort from 2027. Will the Prime Minister provide the necessary funding for this cohort of students to start to help improve the oral health of people right across Lincolnshire?

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased to hear the news about the dental school in the hon. Member’s constituency. We have put in further funding for dentistry. We were left with dental deserts across many parts of the country, but we are fixing that problem.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

As the Prime Minister has pointed out, today is World Cancer Day. As outlined in our cancer plan, early detection and diagnosis is vital. Will the Prime Minister agree to consider the campaign by my constituent Gemma Reeves, who is a nurse at the Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother hospital, to ensure that breast cancer screening is available for all women over the age of 40, and will he meet her to discuss how such a change would save lives?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely support that, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss it. Early diagnosis is so important for all cancers, and we must do everything we can to ensure that early diagnosis is the norm by default.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

I recently met one of the bravest women I know. Elizabeth was 14 when she was raped in Rotherham. She is one of the survivors of the rape gangs—one of the biggest national scandals in our history. While her first rapist, Asghar Bostan, was convicted and sentenced, she was, shockingly, subsequently allegedly abused by police officers serving in South Yorkshire police. One of those officers remains on active service today. Elizabeth made complaints through Operation Linden, but none of them was followed up. She rightly feels betrayed and failed by the very institution designed to protect her. Will the Prime Minister meet Elizabeth, rape gang survivors and me to commit that those who committed and covered up these abhorrent offences are put behind bars, where they belong?

[The Prime Minister]

I am deeply concerned about the facts that the right hon. Lady has outlined. If she could give us all the details, I will make sure that there is a follow-up meeting in relation to her concerns.