Commons Chamber

Wednesday 4th February 2026

(began 1 hour, 41 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:34
11:34
None Portrait Oral questions: Science, Innovation and Technology
-

Question number one, Mr. Speaker.
11:34
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
None Portrait Q2. What discussions she has had with stakeholders on teenagers' use of social media. (907712)
-

Christine Jardine. are seeing the government play a game of whack a mole. Question two I beg your pardon, Secretary.
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
None Portrait Q3. Whether her Department's consultation on children's use of social media will include the implementation of a potential social media ban. (907713)
-

>> Question number three, please, Mr. Speaker. >> Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State. The government's consultation on children's use of social media and
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:05
12:05
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Prime Minister? >> Prime Minister? >> Mr. speaker, as the House would expect, we went through a process expect, we went through a process that was there was a there was a due diligence exercise, and then due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the depth, the sheer depth and extent of the relationship. He lied about that to everyone for years. A new information was published in September showing the relationship was materially different to what we'd 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, 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 of the material is published. Mr. Mr. speaker. Mr. speaker, the only exemptions are national security for prejudice. National security by my first duty is obviously to keep this country safe. And when we drafted humble addresses, we always put an exemption for national security, but also anything would prejudice international relations.

Mr. speaker, you and the House will appreciate that in the course of discussions, country to country, there are very sensitive issues of security, intelligence and trade, which cannot be disclosed without compromising the relationship between the two countries or a third country. Mr. speaker, so that can be totally open with the House. I, 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're 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.
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:10
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Prime Minister? >> Prime Minister? >> Mr. speaker, the first exemption is in relation to anything that could compromise national security. That is, that is not a that is not That is, that is not a that is not a small matter. And many members on the benches opposite will know precisely why that needs to be an exemption. When we were drafting humble addresses, when we were sitting over there, we always made sure that exemption was in because we knew how important it was to the then government.

I don't think I've seen a humble address without that in because it. And 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 to things that would prejudice international relations. There will be discussions about security and intelligence and trade, which are highly sensitive to the two countries involved and to third country. But they have to ask themselves whether they want to vote to prejudice our national security.

I don't think they I, I, I don't think, in fairness that they do. But can I reassure the House? Mr. speaker, 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. So they will be looking at the question of prejudice. They will be making that decision. The only additional thing I just 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're concerned will prejudice their investigation.

Quite an early stage. We're at an early stage of that discussion, but I didn't want to have the House not know that that discussion is going on.
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:40
12:41
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Portrait Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (Clapham and Brixton Hill, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move that leave be given to bring a move that leave be given to bring a bill to prohibit giving or receiving a reward for the supply of or for offering to supply human remains or any object partially consisting of human remains, to prohibit advertising the sale, exchange or offer consisting of human remains. To make provision for specified exemptions for those prohibitions and for connected purposes. In short, the buying and selling of human remains.

To most people, Mr. Speaker, the thought of buying a bag full of human bones, a shrunken skull, or a piece of human leather would be unthinkable. In fact, most people would never have thought that this was something they could purchase. But it is. And there is a growing trade in human remains that takes place through social media, on e-commerce sites, at in-person auctions, in curiosity shops, and at oddities markets. Human bones, hair, teeth, skin and other organs are frequently sold by private traders to other private individuals entirely without regulation.

I want to put on record my thanks to the members of the Trading and Sale of Human Remains Task Force of the British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology, who brought the scale of the abhorrent trade to my attention. They worked tirelessly to confront, expose and ultimately bring an end to the private sale of human remains. I also want to thank a Ford, who with the all party parliamentary group on reparations, produced the Laying Our Ancestors to Rest report, which addresses the ethical, cultural and historical concerns surrounding African ancestral remains, many of which were taken during colonial rule and continue to be displayed and sold at auction today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I must send apologies to members and give warning to anyone with a weak stomach because some of what I am about to describe is truly stomach churning. Members of the task force have documented and shared examples of sales that they have tracked over the years. These include human skulls and skeletal bones, partial or whole shrunken skulls, elongated skulls, a Papa Golf trophy skull, a child shrunken head, and skulls that still have hair and soft tissue attached. They have encountered shops selling lucky dip bags of bones from small boxes for £50, to larger boxes for £90.

They have also come across the sale of wet sample human organs preserved in specimen jars, including foetal hearts and lungs, and even slices of human brain. And for members wondering what on earth someone would want with these remains, there is a substantial market for decorative objects made from human remains. One could purchase a wind chime made from a human skull cap with ribs and clavicles, a candlestick made from stacked human vertebrae, a human finger crucifix pendant, a skull fitted with brass nails for teeth and turned into a lamp, necklaces made of teeth or even wallets fashioned from human leather.

And all of this is entirely legal. I should stress that this is by no means the full extent of the sales that take place. While the Human Remains Task Force does an excellent job tracking what it can. They are undoubtedly hundreds more sales that go unnoticed. And they are, to my knowledge, the only body who actively attempt to police this trade. In 2026, one can sell a piece of human remains or an object partially consisting of human remains, with no checks on how those remains were acquired.

No verification of how old these remains were, who they belonged to, whether consent was given, or what the buyer intends to do with them. The biggest obstacle sellers face is not the law, but the use of rules of social media platforms and e-commerce sites such as Instagram, Facebook, eBay, Gumtree and Etsy. Even then, sellers routinely circumvent those rules through misspelling words, mislabelling real names as replicas or advertising collections without explicitly stating an intent to sell before completing transactions through private messages or in person.

The most serious repercussion they are likely to face is an account suspension, and we all know how easy it is to simply set up a new one. Ultimately, the only hurdle sellers face is platform moderation. They face no legal barrier at all. In-person sellers face even fewer obstacles, with no oversight of the human remains sold in curiosity shops,
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page