1. If she will take urgent steps to protect children online. (900050)

10. If she will take urgent steps to protect children online. (900061)

Ensuring that children have healthy and safe lives online is one of my top priorities. From making cyber-flashing and self-harm and suicide content the subject of priority offences under the Online Safety Act 2023 to banning nudification apps and standing up to Grok and X, I will leave no stone unturned to ensure that children are protected. Our consultation on growing up online closes next Tuesday, so there is still time to respond. I will bring forward proposals before the summer, and I intend to pass any legislation required by the end of the year.

Many of my constituents are rightly worried about the harms that children face online, including exposure to self-harm content, online bullying and addictive platform design. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that the Government’s consultation on banning social media for under-16s will result in decisive action, and ensure that any measures that are introduced are effective, proportionate and capable of keeping pace with rapidly changing technology?

Yes, that is absolutely my objective. I remind the House that our consultation is looking at not just whether there should be a ban on social media for under-16s but a whole range of other issues, including whether platforms should be required to switch off addictive features, whether there should be mandatory overnight curfews, whether there should be age or other restrictions on artificial intelligence chatbots, how age verification should be strengthened, and how to help children and parents navigate the online world and thrive. We are determined to act, and we will be prepared to act on all of those issues.

Too often, children are exposed to harmful content online, with material promoting pornography and self-harm pushed towards them. Childhood should not be handed over to algorithms. As a mum, I know that parents are terrified that social media companies are putting profit before protection. Does the Secretary of State agree that not only should social media companies step up, but it is time to legislate to ensure that they take active steps to protect our children online?

Yes, I do agree. We have legislated, and we are prepared to go further. I have already made strangulation and suffocation in porn a priority offence under the Online Safety Act. We are determined to ensure that rules about what happens in online pornography are the same as the rules for what happens offline, and we are coming forward with proposals on that. This is something that deeply worries parents across the country. The question is not whether we act but how, and I am determined to use all possible levers to protect children online.

Big tech is a force for good, but so often it is used for bad. Is there not a fundamental conflict of interest for this Government, and even the previous Government, in that big tech companies are so embedded in Government Departments and agencies that the Government are not prepared to take the tough action necessary to protect children and the most vulnerable? Is it not the case that big tech companies are not paying taxes to this country and are avoiding substantive regulation, and that the Government now believe that big tech is too big to fail?

Not for the first time, and not for the last time, the right hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important issue. He may not be aware that we have made the decisive move to back more British tech companies, because we believe that as artificial intelligence and tech become the engine of economic and hard power, we need more sovereign control.

There are many wonderful examples of technology provided by big tech companies. I have seen that in my own constituency, with AI tutors to help poor kids catch up. We want to make sure that the benefits of technology are felt by everybody in this country, not just a powerful few, and that we shape this powerful technology, so that it works for all. I say to the right hon. Gentleman: watch this space, because there will be more to come.

New polling commissioned by the Online Safety Act Network shows that almost 80% of the public want comprehensive laws regulating social media platforms, because otherwise those platforms will continue to prioritise their business interests over users’ safety. The Government have been weak on that and had no new online safety legislation in the King’s Speech. Will the Secretary of State at least move quickly to adopt the network’s safety by design code, in order to deliver the comprehensive reforms that the public want?

I remind the hon. Lady that I have already made it a requirement in law that chatbots must protect users from illegal content. I banned nudification apps, through a new criminal offence. We are requiring platforms to take down non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours, and we are requiring platforms to act faster on all those things. It is not true to say that we have not legislated to go further to protect children online. Is she right that there is more to do? Absolutely, and we will act.

I call the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee.

The original sin underpinning many of today’s digital harms is engagement-driven digital advertising. That is what incentivised the platforms to hook young people on infinite scrolling, as members of FlippGen explained to me when I met them on Monday. It is also what drives the “London is broken” misinformation that Sadiq Khan highlighted, and what rewards the fabricated clickbait AI Auschwitz images called out by the Auschwitz Museum. Will the Secretary of State take steps to regulate digital advertising, as the Committee called for in its report published almost a year ago?

My hon. Friend is right: follow the money. I am highly aware of that, and we are determined to act. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital Government and Data is chairing the digital advertising taskforce, which is a joint effort between this Department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to look at precisely these issues, because we want to ensure that illegal and harmful content is not rewarded.

When a child views an inappropriate image online, they cannot unsee it. I have been horrified recently by the number of parents coming to me about inappropriate ads popping up on kids’ digital games. Some of the images are horrendous, and children are viewing them at a very early age. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss this ongoing issue?

I or one of my Ministers will meet the hon. Member. She is right to say that once you have seen something, you cannot unsee it. That is especially true for young minds. We all know that young children will wake up in the night and talk to us about things that they remember seeing, but do not understand because they are too young. Either one of my Ministers or I will be more than happy to meet her, see those images for ourselves, and speak to Ofcom and others about what we can do to try to stop that.

I call the shadow Minister.

Does the Secretary of State regret having been forced into a ban on social media for under-16s during proceedings on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, rather than having committed to a ban the first place, or introducing a Bill in the King’s Speech?

No.

2. What discussions she has had with the science and technology sector on closer regulatory alignment with the EU. (900051)

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llywydd. Ministers from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology regularly meet representatives from science and technology communities. The UK has seized the moment on AI, quantum and semiconductors. We will keep building British sovereign strength, and alongside that, we will work with allies across the European Union.

European tech leaders in some member states are concerned that the EU’s approach to digital regulation is strangling their ability to compete. Will the Minister rule out binding the UK tech industry to a legal framework that could stifle growth in this vital area of the economy?

The feedback from UK tech businesses has been clear: Britain’s share of European venture capital investment is at its highest for 16 years. IT and technology are driving productivity upwards, alongside capital from the British Business Bank and Sovereign AI. Of course, we will work on redoing what was done through the botched Brexit deal, but alongside that we will maintain British sovereign strength in technology and AI.

3. What steps she is taking to support grassroot organisations working to improve digital inclusion. (900053)

The Labour Government are the first in a decade to publish a digital inclusion action plan, to ensure that everybody benefits from our digital society. Seventy-three per cent of the £11.9 million digital inclusion innovation fund supported charities, many of them grassroots organisations. Through the digital ID work that I lead, we are supporting digital inclusion, and we are engaging expert grassroots organisations directly to ensure that we get this right, and that they are included.

NHS Sussex found that Eastbourne, despite being the sunniest town in the UK, is one of the most digitally excluded patches of Sussex. Great organisations, such as TechResort, run by Liz Crew and Will Callaghan, help bridge the digital divide. However, they will be scuppered by the closing of the digital inclusion innovation fund; its last grant expired last month. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the reopening of that fund, and set out a timeline for that, so that TechResort can benefit?

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point; I know that he has an excellent record in this area. The digital inclusion fund was designed as a one-year programme to allow us to understand what works in digital inclusion. I share his concerns. We remain committed to building a digitally inclusive society, and that includes our public services, which we are making more personalised, joined up and digital, so that everybody is included and benefits from them. We all expect our public services to be adequate, and as inclusive as they can be.

4. What steps her Department has taken to help ensure that parents and children are able to engage with the consultation entitled “Growing up in the online world: a national consultation.” (900054)

Making it as simple as possible for parents and children to get involved in our consultation is really important to me personally, because I know that this is an issue that so many families grapple with every single day. We have dedicated surveys for parents and young people. Almost 38,000 parents and 12,700 young people have completed the survey so far, and there are also other events that my Ministers and I have taken part in. However, there is a still a week to go, so I say to anybody who is watching questions to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology: please, get involved and answer. We want to know what you think. We want your views, because we have to get this right.

I speak to parents in Plymouth on this topic regularly. Ninety-two per cent of parents are concerned about the impact of social media, but many just do not have time to take part in a lengthy consultation. I also note concerns raised about the framing of some of the questions in the consultation, including prompts to consider the benefits of social media. There is also an absence of any clear mechanism for considering evidence from medical experts and frontline professionals separately from submissions from tech companies, which obviously have a commercial interest in opposing any restrictions. There are also concerns about the use of AI to analyse responses. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those concerns will be taken into account when assessing the consultation results, and will she reiterate her commitment to taking bold and decisive action this summer?

Let me just reassure my hon. Friend on some of those points. We have had 38,000 parents respond to the surveys, which I think is good, but there is more to be done there. In terms of medical professionals, we have had a response from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, multiple individual medical doctors, Health Professionals for Safer Screens and local providers such as Cardiff children’s services. We also have an expert panel that is chaired by the eminent paediatrician Professor Russell Viner, and there are many psychologists and psychiatrists on that. We are actively seeking the views of medical professionals and parents. There is still a week to go. Many hon. Members have fed in views from their constituencies. I encourage everybody to do that in the remaining six days.

A considerable number of parents in my constituency have written to me concerned about their children’s safety and online dangers. They welcome the Government’s consultation but are concerned about the timing, and they would like reassurances about how quickly the matter will be dealt with. In the meantime, does the Secretary of State have any advice on how they can help their children deal with the threat?

We will come forward with proposals before the summer. We have already taken powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 to implement the results of that consultation, which I intend to do by the end of the year. In the meantime, we are not waiting. I have taken a number of steps to amend various Acts to give greater protection, and we also produced really brilliant advice for parents—“You Won’t Know until You Ask”—about how to talk to kids of different ages about social media. It is available for free online, and I have personally found it very helpful.

5. What steps she is taking to help ensure artificial intelligence is developed responsibly. (900055)

There are three particular things that this Government are doing to make sure that artificial intelligence is developed responsibly, and developed here: first, we are building deep capability in Government, with the AI Security Institute; secondly, we are developing a wider AI assurance sector, so that Britain is at the frontier in this context; and thirdly, we are ensuring robust regulation at the point of use.

Given the growing warnings from leading scientists, industry figures and Nobel laureates that advanced AI systems could pose existential risks on a par with nuclear or biological threats, does the Minister agree that the current reliance on voluntary commitments through the AI Security Institute is insufficient, and will he outline the concrete steps that the Government will now take to move beyond non-binding agreements, and to introduce enforceable, internationally agreed standards?

First, I would point out to the hon. Member that there is a series of regulations that apply to AI algorithms and systems at the point of use. Secondly, we have taken powers in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 that allow us to bring unregulated chatbots into the scope of that Act and its requirements on illegal content. Thirdly, through the AI Security Institute, Britain has been at the frontier internationally of thinking about policies and the best ways of developing our capability. This is across the mandatory regulatory contexts that I have just mentioned—and of course there are some voluntary requirements on top of that.

The AI Security Institute’s pre-release analysis of AI models did not prevent Grok’s production of over 3 million sexualised images. Even Steve Bannon, of all people, is now calling for mandatory pre-release vetting of AI models, so has the time come for the UK to review our voluntary approach?

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this topic, and for her deep expertise. On Grok, she will be aware that the regulatory and legal context made a number of those instances illegal. We will continue to enforce the law very robustly, and of course we have ongoing conversations on further policy.

Given the recent rapid advances of frontier AI models in areas such as identifying software vulnerabilities, and in rapid testing for those vulnerabilities in a very sophisticated way, what engagement do the Government have with those frontier companies, and particularly Anthropic? Are the Government considering making changes to the carried-over Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to address these very real vulnerabilities?

On the question of engagement, I must first pay tribute to the AI Security Institute, which is one of the only labs in the world that engaged with all the frontier companies prior to the deployment of models, and in this case with Anthropic’s Mythos model as well. On the broader question of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, a major reason why we brought data centres into scope was that we appreciate the cyber risks that apply to them. We will continue to keep that under review.

One of the best ways to make sure that any AI developed contributes to innovation and growth is to set very high standards. We are lucky to have the British Standards Institute—the oldest standards institute in the world—and I am very lucky that it is based in Milton Keynes. Will the Minister join me in wishing it a huge happy birthday in this momentous year for it? What kind of engagement has he had with it on its work to set reassuringly high standards for AI’s development?

My hon. Friend has been a remarkable champion for the BSI, on this and on wider issues as well. I will not sing “Happy Birthday”, but I will certainly wish it a very happy birthday, and I look forward to continuing my conversations with it.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Having worked across Departments and with my technology counterpart in the Lords, we have published a comprehensive paper on how Britain can thrive in the age of AI. It calls for a digital sovereign strategy and an integrated approach to AI that is bold, responsible, pro-innovation, pro-trust and built alongside industry and civic expertise. I would be happy to discuss this. We see Britain having a leading place in AI services, but we have squandered leads before, and the Government have not offered a coherent, joined-up strategy on how to do this differently, in a way that is centred on trust and standards. Where is the Government’s AI Bill? Can we have guarantees that Labour’s latest internal drama will not cost Britain its most important economic opportunity in a generation?

Can I gently point out to the hon. Lady that there is a very clear strategy? We set out the AI opportunities action plan early on, and we then built in a public dashboard, so that people right across the country can follow progress on the plan: 75% of it has been delivered, and just this week, we found out that IT and AI have driven productivity revivals for this country. We are firing on all cylinders when it comes to UK AI.

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities. (900090)

This Government believe that Britain’s national interests are strengthened, not diminished, when we work with like-minded countries. That is why next week I will be joining other G7 nations coming together as democracies to discuss how we shape tech and AI to work for all, and why I will be proud to showcase the best of Britain’s AI strengths on the world stage at London Tech Week in June.

Life science companies such as Becton Dickinson in my constituency play a key role in advancing the research and innovation that will help deliver the national cancer plan and transform cancer care. What is the Minister doing to increase funding on research and development for life science companies such as those in my constituency?

I know the hon. Gentleman is a powerful advocate of life sciences nationally and in his constituency. We see them as one of our greatest national assets, not only helping to save lives but drive jobs, growth and innovation. I am proud that this Government have made the largest ever investment in research and development, including in life sciences, and that we are investing £730,000 to support seven projects in Wokingham, because we know that is good for his constituents and the country.

T3. I do not know if I have ever told you, Mr Speaker, but Harlow is the birthplace of the fibre optic cable. I want children in Harlow to feel confident that they can get the brilliant jobs of the future that tech can provide for them. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that that happens? (900092)

We want to ensure that people from all walks of life and in every part of the country can seize the opportunities that tech and AI bring. That is why we are upskilling 10 million workers—a third of the workforce—in AI skills, why we are investing £170 million in the TechFirst programme to help young people get skills and training, and why we have launched the first ever level 4 apprenticeship in AI, so that young people in Harlow can fulfil their ambitions and we build a better country for all.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I was born in Harlow, would you believe it, Mr Speaker?

Can the Secretary of State guarantee that under Labour’s EU reset, Britain will not align with any EU tech rules, including the AI Act?

This Government want to ensure that we have a closer relationship with Europe, because we see every day the terrible impacts that the Conservatives’ Brexit deal brings. But I am also clear that we will continue our pragmatic, not dogmatic, approach to regulation, because Britain is the second country in the western world in AI, and we want to retain those benefits to grow the economy and create good jobs throughout the country.

There was no clear answer from the Secretary of State. It sounds like Labour is about to trade away our Brexit freedoms on tech regulation, yet tech Ministers have been briefing behind the scenes that we must not lose Britain’s Brexit freedoms on tech when it comes to AI, data and agritech. Will she now publicly admit what her Ministers have been briefing behind closed doors: Brexit was not some exercise in nostalgia pushed on us by uninformed thickos? It has given Britain a competitive advantage in the industries of the future.

Perhaps unusually, I do not listen to and never get involved in briefings, but I am very clear about the huge advantages this country has: world-leading talent and some of the most innovative tech start-ups. In the last year alone, we got more venture capital funding for tech and AI in this country than France and Germany combined. We are going to back Britain because we believe in Britain—£500 million in a sovereign AI fund and four AI growth zones in parts of the country that have been levelled up more under this Government than in 14 years under the Conservatives. We will seize this powerful technology to build a future that works for all, and I am proud of our work.

T6.   My constituent Debbie Duncan set up a petition calling on the Government to tackle tragedy trolling, which has attracted over 18,000 signatures. Does the Minister agree that it is time for action, and will she support a debate to help take this forward? (900096)

We are absolutely focused on precisely those features that so many parents are worried about, including children doomscrolling and being on their phones overnight and the impact that that can have on their anxiety, mental health and sleep. The question is not whether we will act—we will. We will put forward our proposals by the summer and I intend to legislate, if required, by the end of the year.

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 May. (900035)

May I extend my deepest condolences, and I am sure the condolences of the House, to the family and colleagues of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, who lost her life in a tragic incident on Friday? She was an exceptional soldier and will be deeply missed.

It would be remiss of me not to comment on one of Manchester’s great heroes moving on after almost a decade, so let me congratulate Pep Guardiola on all his success at Manchester City. If I could declare an interest, Mr Speaker, I would also like to say congratulations to Arsenal football club on becoming the premier league champions.

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.

May I share the condolences expressed by the Prime Minister?

As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the Iran war, people have struggled with the cost of living. In my constituency in the heart of Scotland, road travel and logistics are key to everyday life and local industry, and the Road Haulage Association is headquartered in Bathgate. What reassurance can the Prime Minister offer my constituents that this Government will tackle household bills and business cost pressures?

Families across the United Kingdom are facing the impacts of a war that we did not choose, so it is welcome news today that inflation is falling. There is more that we can do, and I can announce today that we are giving our hauliers a 12-month road tax holiday, helping to keep prices down, and we are backing drivers by extending the freeze in fuel duty for the rest of the year. This is possible because of the decisions taken by the Chancellor, making us the fastest growing economy in the G7, and she will set out further action tomorrow. This is not our war, and although Opposition parties wanted to jump into it, Labour will always protect working people.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

I would like to associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister regarding the tragic death of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan. We send our condolences to her family on this terrible loss.

I welcome some of what the Prime Minister has said about fuel duty. Yes, there is still a freeze, but we asked him about this on 11 March and 25 March and he said he was not going to do it, so I thank him for the U-turn—[Interruption.] Labour Members are shaking their heads—it would make more sense if they just did what we are doing, because they get there in the end anyway.

Yesterday, Labour MPs voted to ban new British oil and gas licences. Why?

In relation to fuel duty, under the plans that we inherited, fuel duty was due to go up by 5% in April. We stopped that and the Conservatives voted against it. We are now extending the freeze because of events in the middle east. I know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to claim responsibility for things that have got literally nothing to do with her—in her mind, she won Eurovision on Saturday and scored the winning goal in the FA cup final—but she never takes any responsibility for what the Conservatives did for 14 long years.

Oil and gas is coming out of the North sea 24/7. It will play an important role for many years to come. We are supporting existing oil and gas fields throughout their lifespans and we made changes in November to allow neighbouring fields to be exploited, but families across the UK are fed up with their bills going up and down because of global conflicts. The only way to take control is through renewables. We have now consented to renewables to power 23 million households. The Leader of the Opposition wants to stick with the old Tory energy policy, which is leaving households exposed to higher bills year after year.

What is causing problems for British consumers is the high energy prices, which were caused by the Prime Minister’s policies. I asked him why Labour Members voted for this, and he had no answer, so let me make clear what is going on: we are losing 1,000 jobs a month in oil and gas. I asked him about new licences, not existing drilling. Then, late last night, the Government snuck out an announcement that they were removing sanctions on Russian oil. Can the Prime Minister explain why oil from Russia is acceptable, but oil from Aberdeen is not?

Let me address the sanctions head-on, because we have been united across this House on these issues since the beginning of the conflict. What we announced yesterday was a strong new package of new sanctions, going well beyond existing sanctions. It is a new package. That includes new bans on maritime services on liquefied natural gas and new bans on refined oil products from Russia.

We also issued two targeted short-term licences to phase the new sanctions in and to protect UK consumers. That is standard practice. This Government have phased in sanctions in that way before, and the last Government used exactly the same technique when they introduced sanctions. When they did so, we supported them, because we could see that the sanctions were the right thing to do to bear down on Russia. These are new sanctions being phased in. This is not a question of lifting existing sanctions in any way whatsoever, and we will continue to work with our allies on further sanction packages.

Hear, hear.

That was a very weak set of cheers from the MPs who are trying to get rid of the Prime Minister. He does not know what he is talking about. This level of processology is not going to get him out of these difficult answers. Let me tell him what is going on: Labour is giving money to Russia, and Reform is taking money from Russia. There is only one party that is standing up to Russia, and that is the Conservative party. I cannot believe he is actually saying that he is doing something good on the war in Ukraine. What is he talking about? This morning, Ukraine’s sanctions chief disagreed with the Prime Minister’s approach. That is what Ukraine is saying.

In March, when the United States eased sanctions on Russia, the Prime Minister said:

“All partners should maintain pressure on Russia and its war chest”.

The Prime Minister also said:

“Our sanctions remain, and there is no question about that.”

What has changed?

I really think that on an issue of this importance, which is about further sanctions on Russia in relation to Ukraine, it is really important that the position is not misrepresented. This is a new package of sanctions. None of the existing sanctions are being lifted in any way, so this is not less pressure on Russia; it is more pressure on Russia. It is more pressure than there was the day before yesterday and more pressure than there was under the last Government.

What is happening is that those sanctions are being phased in, in a way that was used by the last Government when they introduced new sanctions. We bothered to do the processology and work out what we were doing, and we supported them, because we could see that they put more pressure on Russia. Similar methods are used by other countries. They are done because of the impact on the market and to protect UK consumers. These are new sanctions putting more pressure on Russia. If the right hon. Lady had done her homework, she would actually support us on this.

Being patronising is not a substitute for understanding policy—[Interruption.] I have heard this tone before; this is the same tone that the Prime Minister used during the Mandelson scandal. Labour Members were all cheering, but then it turned out that he was wrong, wrong, wrong. He says that other countries are doing this; the EU is not doing this. Let me make it clear—I know it hurts him to hear it: he is now choosing to buy dirty Russian oil. That money will be used to fund the killing of Ukrainian soldiers. Isn’t he ashamed?

I really think that to misunderstand and misrepresent what is happening—this is a very serious issue. We are working—[Interruption.] These are new bans—they are new sanctions. They are new maritime services bans on LNG, as of yesterday. They are new bans on refined oil products from Russia, as of yesterday. They are being phased in, in the same way that previous sanctions regimes have been phased in, exactly as the last Government did and we have done. Other countries do exactly the same. The EU has its own way of doing it. Australia and Canada have their own way of doing it. To play party politics on Ukraine, where we have stood firm! The only person who benefits when we play party politics on Russia and Ukraine is Putin.

That pompous tone does not cover for the fact that the Prime Minister has got his policy all wrong. I have asked him about oil and gas again and again and again. The last time, he told me that it was the Energy Secretary’s job and it had nothing to do with him. That is what is destroying this country. It is not playing politics; it is speaking up for the people who are out there. The fact is that more people are buying Russian oil because British oil is not being drilled. He is sanctioning British oil but not Russian oil, and he should be ashamed. I cannot believe that this Prime Minister, even when he has nothing to lose, continues to defend banning new British oil and gas licences.

In April, Britain saw the single biggest drop in employment ever since the pandemic—and that is under Labour. Some 210,000 people have lost their jobs in the last year. What the Prime Minister is doing is going to cost thousands more people their jobs, especially in cities such as Aberdeen that rely on oil and gas, so can he tell us why he is doing everything to save his job and doing nothing to save other people’s jobs?

There is drilling in the North sea. [Interruption.] She said that there is no drilling in the North sea—she is going to have to refer herself to the Privileges Committee. There is drilling, it is 24/7, and oil and gas are coming out. That will be important for many, many years to come. We are supporting those existing oil and gas fields throughout their lifespan, and we made changes in November to allow neighbouring fields to be exploited, but it is because we are on the international market that our prices for businesses and households go up every time there is an international conflict. We saw it with Ukraine and we saw it with Iran, and people were fed up with the last Government not taking control of their bills. We are taking control of their bills; the way to do that is through renewables, and that is what we are doing.

It gets worse and worse—the Prime Minister does not understand the policy. I am asking him about new oil and gas licences, which Labour Members voted against yesterday. If they had approved those licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank like we did, we would have that oil in this country now.

Just listening to the Prime Minister, I wonder if he is okay. He is so deep in the bunker. He is importing sanctioned Russian oil, nationalising steel and imposing price controls in the supermarket—it is like the Soviets won. This country needs a Government who have got their act together. Instead, what we have is a Prime Minister hanging by a thread with fake support from his Back Benchers, too scared to take difficult decisions, and losing his moral compass by backsliding on Ukraine. [Interruption.] Yes, he is. The shaking of Labour Members’ heads is so feeble—it is absolutely laughable. Yesterday, we saw them huddled in the corridors, talking about Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting. The fact is that the Prime Minister has a Cabinet fighting to replace him, and the worst part is that they are not getting rid of him over his terrible agenda—no, they actually like it. They just want a better salesman. Is it not the case that it does not matter who replaces him; the real problem is the Labour party? [Hon. Members: “More!”]

I think not.

A lot has been happening in recent days, so the Leader of the Opposition may have overlooked the fact that last week, the Office for National Statistics announced that we have the fastest growing economy in the G7. Last week, we had the biggest fall in NHS waiting lists for 17 years. Today, inflation has come down more than expected. Mr Speaker, if you had offered me that and Arsenal becoming premier league champions, I would take it every day of the week.

Q2. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Royal Regiment of Scotland—20 years of duty, courage and, for 23 of its soldiers, the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. Across Scotland, more than 20 councils have recognised the regiment’s service by granting it the freedom of their area, reflecting Scotland’s long and proud tradition of respecting our armed forces. Earlier this month, however, SNP and Green councillors in Glasgow rejected Labour’s motion to grant the Royal Regiment of Scotland freedom of the city. It is a shameful snub to our servicemen and women, and a decision that has left many Glaswegians feeling ashamed and embarrassed. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is an insult to those who serve, and will he join me in urging Glasgow city council to reconsider? (900037)

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the bravery and sacrifice of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. I have had the privilege of meeting Scots serving in our armed forces across the world. They deserve our deepest gratitude. I cannot understand how the SNP and Greens have arrived at this decision, particularly when Glaswegians have contributed so much to the Royal Regiment. It is not too late to do the right thing, and I urge them to reconsider.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I join the Prime Minister in sending our condolences to the family of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, who died in a tragic accident, and to all her colleagues. I hope the Prime Minister will also join me in sending condolences to the family of Scott Hastings, the former Scottish and Lions rugby player who sadly passed away at the weekend.

In 2025, Donald Trump and Elon Musk abolished America’s international aid programme. At the same time, the Government made huge cuts to the UK’s aid programme. We now see a dangerous outbreak of Ebola in central Africa, which many people fear is going to spread and get much worse, yet there are rumours across Whitehall that the Prime Minister is planning further cuts to Britain’s international aid programme this year. Will he rule that out entirely today?

The right hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of Ebola and Africa, and obviously we are working on it at pace and with others. We took a decision on aid in order to fund defence spending, because we needed to increase defence spending, but we are committed to our overseas aid, and we mitigated that decision with some of the measures put in place.

I am not sure if the Prime Minister completely ruled out further cuts to the international aid programme. With defence chiefs this week writing to The Times to say that cutting aid for defence is a mistake, I hope that the Prime Minister and his Ministers will rule that out today. If he does not, I hope that Labour party members will ask all the Labour leadership candidates their position on the future of Britain’s aid programme.

In the past few days, two of those Labour leadership candidates—the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and the Mayor of Greater Manchester—have ruled out any support for Britain joining the EU customs union, despite the fact that it would boost growth and help cut the cost of living. Is the Prime Minister relieved that he finally has something that he can agree with his colleagues on?

In the last two years, I have been negotiating serious trade deals that are vital for the most important sectors of our economy. These are trade deals with the EU, but also with India, North Korea and the United States. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the value of those deals. Before the deal with the United States, I went to Jaguar Land Rover in Solihull and talked to the workforce. They were worried sick about their jobs and communities. When we agreed terms, I went back to JLR—because of the deal we got with the EU, thousands of their jobs were safeguarded. The right hon. Gentleman’s approach would throw all that away. He would have to go and see those workforces and tell them that their jobs are gone. I am not going to do that.

Q3. I welcome the steps taken to clean up British politics via the landmark elections Bill—the Representation of the People Bill—but we must go further. If I had received a £5 million gift from a billionaire living halfway across the world and had not come clean about what that money was for, my constituents would be furious. If the same billionaire had then bankrolled my party to the tune of £12 million, my constituents would be knocking on my door and calling for me to resign. Does the Prime Minister agree that the elections Bill must ensure that no British politician is ever for sale to the highest bidder? (900038)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. We have already committed to a moratorium on crypto donations to political parties, and the King’s Speech introduces tougher rules to protect our democracy. However, the £5 million question is: why did the Reform leader keep this donation secret? I see that he is not here to answer. What did the billionaire lining his pockets ask for in return? Those questions need to be answered—and that is why he is not here.

I call Dave Doogan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me for my first Prime Minister’s question since becoming SNP Westminster leader, following the SNP’s stunning victory in Scotland. I am enjoying the sense of challenge and opportunity a new job can provide—a sense of renewal I am certain the Prime Minister will be enjoying in the weeks ahead.

This week, we saw the latest chapter of Labour infighting, in which Andy “Brexit” Burnham wants the UK to stay out of the EU, but Peter Mandelson’s pal, the former Health Secretary, wants us to go back in. Can the Prime Minister advise us which of his potential successors he agrees with?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new post and thank him for the calm, reasonable approach I have come to expect. My position is very clear: we have already negotiated a closer relationship with the EU, which we did last year. We will have another negotiation and agreement this year at a summit, where we will get even closer and take a big step forward in our relationship with the EU, which is in our national interest.

I call Chris Vince from Harlow.

Q4. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister will be pleased to know that I am going to ask him a question about his favourite topic: football. There are people in this House who seek to blame the Prime Minister for everything, but I thought it was a bit rich when one national newspaper blamed him for Harlow Town going into administration because he once went to visit them. I know that Harlow Town is very much the Prime Minister’s second team, so he will be pleased to know that they are now out of administration and looking forward to a strong future. What will his Government do to support important community assets like our football teams, such as Harlow Town and Roydon, who also won their league this season? (900039)

I have very fond memories of visiting Harlow Town with my hon. Friend. The point he makes is an important one: football clubs bring our communities together. They are part of our social fabric and, in some places, they are one of the last places left where members of the community can come together. That is why my Government fought so hard to create the Independent Football Regulator to protect our national game. We should remind everyone—every football fan across the country, from Harlow Town to Wigan Athletic—that it was Labour that was on the side of football fans, while the Tories and Reform opposed us every step of the way.

Q5. This month’s local elections saw the biggest ever gap between votes and seats in England, with five parties estimated to have won more than 15% of the vote. It is increasingly clear that the public have had enough of Westminster business as usual. Does the Prime Minister still have full confidence in the first-past-the-post system to deliver strong and stable government? (900040)

Yes, I do.

Q6. Trump’s war in Iran means that the world will have to contend with a spike in inflation throughout this year. Many of my constituents struggle to afford their weekly shop, while our farmers struggle to make a living by producing what goes on the shelves. Labour Governments should always be on the side of working people, whether they are in the supermarket or on the farm; if we are not, we will not be forgiven. Will the Prime Minister follow the example of our European neighbours, including Ireland, by bringing in a package of support to help our farmers stay afloat and protect our constituents from the worst of Trumpflation? (900041)

Before I answer that question, I have just been handed a note saying that I inadvertently said that we did a trade deal with North Korea, rather than South Korea. That would be breaking news and not very good. Before I am referred to the Privileges Committee, can I correct the record in that regard? It was a slip of the tongue, but a pretty unfortunate one.

In relation to my hon. Friend’s question, families and farmers are rightly frustrated about being impacted by a war that the UK did not start. Protecting working people is our priority. Today, we are cutting red diesel costs for farmers by a third, delivering the lowest rate for 20 years. That is alongside a record £11.8 billion for the farming budget and a new national programme to redistribute surplus food. We will make sure that no one in this country goes hungry. I can confirm that the Chancellor will make further announcements tomorrow.

Q7. In Gorton and Denton, we have to pay full price for a pint, but here, for some reason, it is cheaper. Some MPs drink before voting, and that really shocked me when I came to Parliament, because this is our workplace. Does the Prime Minister agree with his own MPs who have defended their right to drink cheap alcohol at work, or does he agree with me that MPs should not be drinking on the job, given that we vote on huge things like the climate crisis, disabled people’s rights, housing and child poverty? (900042)

First, can I welcome the hon. Lady to her place, because I think this is her first question in PMQs? There will be different views on whether people should be able to enjoy a drink here or not, but I think we can agree that the majority of people in this country want an economy that works for them, public services that are there when they need them, and every child going as far as their talent or ability will take them. The only way to deliver that is through a Labour Government, as we are doing. The Greens think that their leader walks on water. It turns out that he just lives on water and does not pay his council tax!

Q10. On a more serious note, sometimes we all have those meetings with constituents that really stick with us. For me, it was the lady who came to my surgery and told me about the character.ai chatbot that had groomed her 12-year-old son. The chatbot turned him against his school and his parents, made sexual advances, and even suggested that the bot and the boy might meet in the afterlife. Since this happened last year, I have been on the case with the Government, and I am pleased that we have taken new powers to regulate AI services, but more young people are still being harmed in this way every day, and they will not be safe until the tech companies can no longer access them. Can the Prime Minister tell me how and when he will act to finally make the online world a safe place for our children? (900046)

The story of my hon. Friend’s constituent is deeply concerning, and I thank her for raising it. It underlines why we must and will act. We have already acted by shutting legal loopholes so that AI chatbots must abide by the Online Safety Act 2023, but we obviously have to look at what further measures we can take, including age-related bans, restricting children’s use of chatbots and stronger parental controls. I am meeting parents, teenagers and civil society representatives later this afternoon to discuss further, stronger protections for children. We will make sure that my hon. Friend is updated on those steps.

Q8.   At 19, I was in a coma after contracting bacterial meningitis. I lost 70% of my hearing and needed open-heart surgery. The menB vaccine has saved lives since its introduction in 2015 for infants, but there remains a gap for the high-risk adolescents who were not vaccinated under the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation guidance. Following the devastating outbreaks within this cohort in Reading, Canterbury and Weymouth, the JCVI is finally reviewing the evidence base. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government’s next steps will be and when they will happen? Will he make tackling meningitis a priority for his new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and arrange a meeting with Meningitis Now and me? (900043)

Yes, I will do both those things, and I thank the hon. Lady for raising her own experience here to highlight the issue. The thoughts of the whole House will be with the family and friends of the young person who died. I thank all the public health specialists working in Reading to ensure that those affected are receiving appropriate treatment. The hon. Lady’s question reminds us that vaccines do save lives, and we must do everything we can in relation to that.

Q12.  Littering and fly-tipping are a blight on our communities. This is not just an issue for Lewisham, but an issue for towns and cities across our country and, indeed, in rural areas. No one wants to see a dirty mattress, or cans or bottles, left beside roads or against gates. It is awful. I welcome the Government’s strategy and the plans to give councils more powers to manage fly-tipping, but I strongly believe that more needs to be done. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time for a national conversation about how we manage and deal with littering? (900048)

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, because the Government are cracking down on disgraceful waste criminals through, for instance, tougher penalties for fly-tippers—including service in clean-up squads, and the potential loss of their driving licences—more powers and funding for the Environment Agency, and stronger checks across the industry to tackle fly-tipping at its source.

Q9. Gallos brook in my constituency has the highest concentration of forever chemicals in the country. The BBC has reported today that the concentrations are 47,000 times higher than the environmental quality standard. However, the Environment Agency has no plan for regular monitoring. A stream flows through the garden of my constituent Leigh. She has suffered from ill health for eight years. She took in chickens; they have died. She had a dog; it developed a tumour and died. She is concerned that she may be poisoning her neighbours when she gives them vegetables. Will the Prime Minister agree to ask the Environment and Health Secretaries to meet my constituents and me to explore what more can be done? (900044)

Yes, I will, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. I will ensure that the detail is looked at, and that appropriate steps are taken. May I also take this opportunity, through the hon. Gentleman, to mark the tragic anniversary of the devastating fire in his constituency? I know that the thoughts of the whole House remain with the families and colleagues of Martyn, Jennie and Dave, and I know that he has done a lot to support them.

A stroke happens every five minutes: that is six lives changed in the time that we have been sitting in this Chamber. Two years ago, while I was sitting in the Chamber, my husband suffered a stroke. We know that when it comes to the right care and treatment every single second counts, and we know at first hand why the work of the Stroke Association is so important, ensuring that everyone knows the signs and symptoms, because when a stroke strikes, acting fast matters. Will the Prime Minister join me in marking Stroke Awareness Month, and will he update the House on what he is doing to ensure that every stroke survivor receives the care that he or she needs to recover and to thrive?

My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. The Government are investing in our NHS to make sure that every second counts. I know my hon. Friend’s husband, and I know the impact that this had on him and on her, and on their wider family. I thank her for raising such a personal issue in the Chamber to highlight this point.

Because of the choices that we have made, ambulance response times are at their fastest for five years. We are investing £10 billion to innovate technology and transformation, and the NHS is already using artificial intelligence to cut treatment time for stroke patients by an hour and tripling full recovery rates.

Q11. For the purpose of clarity, does the Prime Minister agree with Andy Burnham when he says we should rejoin the European Union, or does he agree with Andy Burnham when he says we should not rejoin the European Union? (900047)

I agree with what we said in our manifesto, which we are implementing. We are closer to the EU as a result of the agreement we reached last year, and we will be closer again as a result of the agreement we reach this year. We are building on the botched Brexit deal that the Conservatives did, which did such damage to our country.

My community has been left in deep shock and concern following allegations of serious sexual offences, forced marriage and modern slavery against members of the Ahmadi religion of peace and light. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Cheshire constabulary, Cheshire East Council and wider agencies for their response to these concerning events? Will he also commit himself to ensuring that we receive the necessary resources to deliver justice when crimes have been committed and to reassure the wider community that this Government are on their side?

I thank my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to all the agencies involved in the enforcement action, including Cheshire police. It is vital that local public services get the funding that they need, and that is why we have increased Cheshire’s police budget by over £15 million. We have also recruited 3,000 more neighbourhood police officers while bringing forward wide-ranging reforms to ensure that everyone has access to swift and equal justice.

Q13. I am sure the Prime Minister will join me in congratulating the 54 Liberal Democrats who won all 54 seats on Richmond upon Thames council at the recent local elections, but does he agree that the first-past-the-post system that produced this result does not give our communities the representation that they voted for, and that this failure to respond to voters’ preferences is fuelling disengagement with our democracy? Will the Prime Minister declare his support for changing electoral systems in the UK to ensure that every vote matters? (900049)

I am really sorry: the answer is no, and I cannot bring myself to congratulate the councillors. I apologise.

From 1997, the Prime Minister campaigned to scrap single-judge trials in Northern Ireland, yet when I opposed his Government’s plan to bring in single-judge trials in England and Wales, I received hostile briefings and smears about my mental health from the lads in No. 10 Downing Street. The Chief Whip is shaking his head, but he knows about it. The Prime Minister knows that my nephew Matty took his own life as a result of work-related stress as a young criminal lawyer. During Mental Health Awareness Week, when Ministers spoke with compassion about health and wellbeing, did the Prime Minister reflect on those hostile, discriminatory briefings, which he knew about and allowed to happen?

The hon. Gentleman has previously told me about Matty and the impact that that had on him. I totally understand that, and I want to be absolutely clear that nobody should be smeared in relation to mental health—nobody—on any issue, whatever they may argue on any other issue. I will do everything I can to make sure that that is the position.

In five weeks’ time, the Government will be introducing penal tariffs on steel imports into the UK and, at the same time, massively reducing tariff-free quotas. This will cause enormous damage to the UK’s manufacturing base in the absence of adequate steelmaking capacity in the UK. Furthermore, the way the tariffs are drawn means that Stannah Lifts, a world-beating company based in Andover in my constituency, will face tariffs when importing steel into the UK to manufacture its products, but a competitor’s imported finished product, made from the same steel, will not attract tariffs. This situation cannot be allowed to persist. Will the Prime Minister please arrange for his Secretary of State to focus on this issue and get it sorted out?

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important issue? I give him an assurance that it is not just the Secretary of State; I am also absolutely focused on this, because we are all very well aware of the consequences that would otherwise follow. I am personally invested in this, as is the entire Cabinet, because it is a very important issue, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out.