Sacking Rachel Reeves now would be ‘disastrous’ for the government, according to Ken Clarke, the former Tory chancellor.

In an interview with Radio 4’s PM programme, Clarke said that he was disappointed by Reeves’ first budget because she raised taxes so much for business. But he also said being chancellor involved taking unpopular decisions. He told the programme:

Everybody knows what we’re trying to do, which is to make this country an attractive place for business investment again …

I think if Keir Starmer were to sack Rachel Reeves in the present time, it would demonstrate Keir Starmer has even less political nous and skill than I have.

For him to sack his chancellor within six months because she’s actually taken controversial steps with his approval would, I think, be disastrous for the government.

An energy minister has accused Tory MPs of “extremist scaremongering” as he denied the UK was close to experiencing blackouts during the cold snap, PA reports. PA says:

Michael Shanks said “at no point” was the prospect of blackouts a concern for the government, despite warnings from energy giant Centrica that UK gas supplies fell to “concerningly low” levels with less than a week’s worth of demand for gas in store.

Shanks also took aim at the Conservative benches after they claimed the UK was “closer than at any point in the last 15 years” to an energy shortage and suggested he should resign if the lights go out.

Gas inventory levels have come under pressure from the cold weather conditions and the end of Russian gas pipeline supplies through Ukraine at the end of last month.

Shanks, responding to an urgent question, told the House of Commons: “Energy security is a key priority for this government, and at no time was there any concern about Britain’s energy system being able to meet demand. Our systems worked entirely as intended.”

He added: “We have sufficient gas supply and electricity capacity to meet demand this winter, due to our diverse and resilient system. While storage is an important flexibility tool in the gas system, our varied sources of gas supply mean the UK is less reliant than some other European countries with more limited supply options.”

Elon Musk has made himself even more unpopular with Britons by attacking Keir Starmer and the government over grooming gangs than he was already, YouGov polling suggests.

As Matthew Smith says in his write-up of the poll, it also shows that three-quarters of people want a national inquiry into sexual abuse by gangs. But more than half of voters think implementing the recommendations of the last inquiry, by Alexis Jay, should come before a new inquiry, the poll says. This Keir Starmer’s position.

Smith says:

A YouGov survey commissioned by the Women’s Policy Centre found that fully 76% of Britons support a national independent inquiry into the sexual abuse and rape of children by grooming gangs.

However, when asked which they think is the bigger priority, half of Britons (51%) say they think implementing the Jay recommendations should be the top focus, compared to 31% who say a new national inquiry is more important. Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem voters say implementing the Jay Review suggestions is the priority, while most Reform UK voters would rather a new inquiry were held.

Which?, the consumer organisation, has said it is concerned that the government’s AI opportunities action plan will not do enough to protect consumers. Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which?, said:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds immense potential for transforming businesses and benefiting consumers by enhancing their experiences and choices. However, the government’s blueprint does not mention consumers and many remain sceptical about using AI technologies. Which? research has also uncovered examples of AI chatbots putting consumers at risk, for example by recommending unsafe products to shoppers and enabling more sophisticated scams.

The government must put robust regulatory mechanisms in place to monitor, evaluate and control AI systems, alongside best practice guidelines and access to clear and accessible redress schemes, as these will be essential for protecting consumers and empowering them to use these technologies with confidence.

Downing Street has beefed up its support for Rachel Reeves. The Telegraph was running a headline for much of the afternoon after Keir Starmer’s Q&A saying he refused to promise she would be chancellor by the time of the next election, and other news websites were doing the same. And so at the afternoon lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson said she was expected to stay in post for the whole of this parliament.

Asked why Starmer was refusing to say Reeves would be in her job for the whole parliament when he had said that about David Lammy (sort of – see 12.26pm), the spokesperson replied:

You heard from the prime minister this morning. He was very explicit. He has full confidence in the chancellor. He’ll be working with her in the role of chancellor for the whole of this parliament to grow the economy and deliver for working people.

The spokesperson was then asked why Starmer did not say that this morning. He did not have an answer, and he just repeated the point about what Starmer said about her this morning.

As night follows day, the spokesperson was then asked if he was able to say that all cabinet ministers would be in post for the whole parliament. The spokesperson would not say that, and instead gave a rather waffly answer about how the PM thought he had appointed the right team when he took office.

A reporter asked, ‘What about Tulip Siddiq?’ Was the PM looking forward to working with her in her current role (a Treasury minister, responsible for dealing with corruption – despite being under investigation for her own links with corruption allegations in Bangladesh) for the whole of this parliament? The spokesperson said that Starmer has said that he has confidence in Siddiq, that she has referred herself to the PM’s adviser on ministers’ interests and that that investigation is ongoing.

Another reporter asked if Yvette Cooper had a five-year job guarantee, like Lammy and Reeves. The spokesperson ducked this question too, saying he was not going to run through all cabinet ministers. All ministers were appointed because they were seen as the best person available, he said.

As a result of all of this, No 10 has knocked down the headlines implying Reeves was on the ropes.

But, in practice, the shift in language does not mean much. In reality there has been little, or no, change to the chances (small, but greater than zero) of Reeves being forced out if the economic crisis gets worse this year. That is because, if a PM decides a minister needs to go, being accused of breaking a promise to keep that person in post is normally the last of their worries. Also, in these circumstances, ministers tend to “resign” anyway, instead of insisting on being sacked.

Labour’s first artificial intelligence growth zone will be sited next to the UK’s first new reservoir in 30 years, sparking fears that the AI push will add to the “severe pressure” on water supplies in the area, Helena Horton reports.

Another big union, Unite, has also called for workers to be fully consulted out the rollout of AI in the workplace. But Unite sounds even more sceptical than Unison (see 3.44pm), saying AI could embed discrimination. In a statement Sharon Graham, the Unite general secretary, said:

The UK needs to embrace new technologies, but we also need proper protections from AI’s pitfalls and workers must have a say in how that happens.

Our members are already reporting major changes to working conditions due to the introduction of AI, which creates new risks and all too often results in workers feeling alienated and demotivated. We also have serious concerns about matters such as AI-powered surveillance and discrimination by algorithm, particularly with ‘high-risk’ decisions like recruitment, performance assessments and discipline.

After years of fighting against discrimination, there is now the genuine threat of it being further embedded through AI, against women, Black and Asian ethnic minority, disabled and LGBTQ+ workers.

The Green party has also said it is concerned the government’s AI strategy does not make enough allowance for the concerns of members of the public. Adrian Ramsay, the Green co-leader, said:

The potential for AI is huge and Greens welcome the potential it holds, especially in research and innovation.

However, this plan comes almost exclusively from engagement with industry and investors and does not account for the views of the public, or the people working in our public services, about where AI should or should not be used.

If AI is to serve our public services, its uses must instead be driven by the voices of those most affected by this technology development and deployment.

Ramsay also said he was worried about the environmental impact of AI.

One estimate said AI-related infrastructure may soon consume six times more water than Denmark, a country of 6 million people. And a request made through ChatGPT consumes 10 times the electricity of a Google Search.

Yet the action plan does not address these crucial questions of environmental sustainability, let alone the debate about the relative gains from AI versus these obvious harms.

Unison, the largest union representing public sector workers in the UK, says that if AI is being rolled out for the delivery of public services, staff must be fully consulted. In a comment on the PM’s speech today, Kate Jones, Unison’s policy officer, said:

Artificial intelligence has the power to revolutionise the world of work.

But if AI is to play a positive role in public services, it must be managed carefully and responsibly. That means proper input from workers and all parts of society to ensure it’s not only the voice of big tech being heard.

UK workers have vast expertise and insight that can help shape AI development in ways to benefit everyone. The technology must be used to enhance jobs and services, not cut corners, costs and human input.

History shows that when workers have a real say in how new technologies are developed and used, society is all the better for it.

Economists believe that, with government borrowing costs rising and the Treasury opposed to any futher tax rises, Rachel Reeves will have to announce further cuts later this year to ensure she continues to meet her fiscal rules.

During his Q&A this morning Keir Starmer was asked four times if the economic situation meant further cuts might be needed. Generally he refused to engage directly with the suggestion. But he never denied that further cuts were a possibility. He said the government would “absolutely” be sticking to its fiscal rules. (See 12.05pm.) And he said the Treasury was right to be “ruthless” as it approached the spending review.

In terms of the ruthless approach when it comes to finances and spending, yes, we will be ruthless, as we have been ruthless in the decisions that we’ve taken so far. We’ve got clear fiscal rules, and we’re going to keep to those fiscal rules.

This particular question was prompted by today’s Telegraph splash, which says Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury, wrote to cabinet ministers last month saying the spending review would require “ruthless” prioritisation. In the letter Jones said:

Growth is the only way that we can deliver better outcomes in public services, without raising taxes on working people and is our primary mission for this parliament.

Spending Review 2025 cannot be a business-as-usual spending review. Building on our missions, the Plan for Change set out ambitious milestones that must be delivered within the challenging fiscal context we inherited. Success will require ruthless prioritisation.

During his Q&A today Keir Starmer also implied that he was not concerned about Meta’s decision to stop using factcheckers for Facebook content in the US. Asked for his response, Starmer said:

On the decision by Meta, the way I look at this is through the lens of the Online Safety Act in terms of the provisions that we’ve got in place. And I think they’re right.

Asked if he was worried about the emergence of a “new generation of unaccountable tech barons”, Starmer replied:

I think in the end, when it comes to AI, posture really matters. And there are a number of postures, but the two obvious ones are those that are defensive and inhibited and cautious about AI and think that it should be regulated, regulated, regulated, and that’s the only thing the governmnt needs to do.

The other posture is seeing it’s a huge and fantastic opportunity that is going to transform lives. And the role of government is, yes, to get the framework right, but also to work with the sector to ensure that we’re winning the race when it comes to AI.

And I’m in the second group. I think it’s a fantastic opportunity. I think it’s going to be a gamechanger, a revolution that is going to be quicker than some of the revolutions we’ve seen in the past.

After doing his best to ignore Elon Musk over Christmas, Keir Starmer used his Q&A after a speech a week ago today to condemn the tech billionaire for the inflammatory falsehoods he has been posting about child abuse gangs in the UK.

But today Starmer was much more conciliatory on the topic of Musk.

Asked if he was worried about Musk telling people not to invest in Britain, Starmer said key figures in the AI industry have backed the government’s approach. And they are investing in the UK, he said. He went on:

We will work with anybody in this sector, by the way, whether it is Elon Musk or anybody else. We are a government that is focused on being number one when it comes to AI.

Q: Won’t AI always try to increase its power. If it is running the MoD, couldn’t it declare war?

Starmer ignores the alarmist element of this question, and just defaults to a general answer about how AI is operating here already. He wants Britain to be a leader in this field, he says.

Q: We have had an email from a translator who has said his work has now completely dried up. Will some sorts of jobs disappear? A voice artist doing voice overs has said the same thing. Will you compensate people affected?

Starmer says:

All technology, all work changes …

I think about what I did before politics, which was being a lawyer. The way that was done 20, 30, years ago is very different to the way it’s done now. So jobs always change on this. I would push back.

I do understand people’s concerns. I think they’re completely understandable. But just think of the incredible advantage.

As an example, he says AI can be used to reduce waiting lists in the NHS, because it can predict who is likely to miss an appointment, and then intervene to prevent that.

Keir Starmer is being interviewed by Jeremy Vine on Radio 2.

Vine starts by asking about the risk of hacking. If the country is run by AI, won’t that put the country at risk of being hacked?

Starmer starts by repeating the anecdote he told at the start of his speech. (See 11.44am.)

Q: AI could put radiologists out of work. But isn’t it comforting for patients to see a doctor?

Starmer accepts that. He says AI can do “the notes bit” for doctors. That will give them more time to spend on face-to-face contact with patients. He repeats the line about how this will allow more time for the human bit. (See 9.19am.)

Max Kendix from the Times has another try at the Rachel Reeves question. (See 12.11am.) Will Reeves still be chancellor at the end of this parliament?

Starmer replies:

Rachel Reeves is doing a fantastic job. She has my full confidence. She has the full confidence of the entire party.

He says Reeves had “an incredibly challenging” task in the budget. There was a £20bn black hole in the accounts, he says.

She’s right to take the tough decisions because, as anybody who’s turned around a business or organization will know, if you’re going to turn something around, you’ve got to take the tough decisions.

Starmer does not commit to keeping Reeves as chancellor until the end of this parliament. But it would probably be a mistake to read much into that, because the end of this parliament could be more than four years away and prime ministers almost never commit to keeping people in post that far ahead, for fairly obvious reasons.

(At a post-PMQs lobby briefing in November, after Kemi Badenoch attacked David Lammy, the PM’s spokesperson implied Lammy would stay in post for the rest of this parliament in response to a question about this. The briefing was written up in some quarters as Starmer promising to keep Lammy at the Foreign Office for up to five years. But the spokesperson just said “Yes, he’s the foreign secretary”, and it is more likely he just meant that Starmer would not be getting rid of him because of the anti-Trump remarks raised by Badenoch.)

Q: [From ITV’s Robert Peston] All industrial revolutions involve shocks to the labour market. What will you do to protect people, even if AI leads to growth, which might not help individuals? And government interest rates are rising. The government has run out of money. What will you do to fill that hole?

Starmer repeats the point about how he thinks the nature of work will change.

And AI is bringing in new jobs, he says. He points out that Kyndryl – an IT infrastructure services provider – has announced plans today to create up to 1,000 AI-related jobs in Liverpool over the next three years.

On the economy, Starmer says stability is vital. And he says that is why the government will be sticking to its fiscal rules.

All of these measures are there to ensure we’ve got the economic growth that we need, but the stability, the rock, the foundation, is those fiscal rules, which we will absolutely be keeping to.

Starmer says he wants the UK to be a country that sells AI technology, not just buying it from elsewhere.

This is the global race of our lives. Now, some countries are going to make AI breakthroughs and export them. Others will end up buying those breakthroughs and importing them.

The question is, which of those will Britain be – AI maker or AI taker?

Starmer says, with its record on science, the UK can “one of the great AI superpowers”.

Now that’s not some sort of boosterism or wishful thinking. This can be done and it will be done.

He says the UK is already the leader in Europe for AI investment. But the govenrment needs to do more, he says.

I’m determined the UK becomes the best place to start and scale an AI business that will be the centerpiece of our industrial strategy. There’s never been a better moment for entrepreneurs with big ideas to grow a small company fast.

So we’re going to create AI growth zones, breathing new life into sites like Culham in Oxford. We’re going to remove the blockages that hold you back. This is a government that backs the builders.

So if you’re looking at where to build your data centers, we’ll speed up planning permission. If you need better access to power – and we all know how big a challenge that is – we’ll get you those grid connections at speed.

You’ve asked for a gold standard data access regime. So we’ll develop a national data library, a clear and trusted copyright regime and safe access to the unique resource of our NHS for research.

And then, of course, the engine of AI progress, what’s called compute – we will increase our public sector compute not by a factor of two or three or even 10, but by 20. Now, that’s like upgrading from my dad’s old Ford portina to a Formula One McLaren in one go.

Keir Starmer starts his speech with a story about a prison officer who collapses one morning when she had a stroke. She was rushed to hospital where AI identified exactly where the blood clot was.

[The doctors] successfully removed it. Now, as you know, with strokes, it’s always a race against the clock – too slow, but the patient may die. Every second of delay, it increases the risk of paralysis. But in Deb’s case, with AI, the whole procedure took less than three minutes. It saved her life.

He says this makes the point that AI is with us already. And it can have a positive impact on everyone’s lives, he argues.

AI isn’t something locked away behind the walls of blue chip companies. It’s a force for change that will transform the lives of working people for the better.

So if you’re sitting around the kitchen table tonight worried about the opportunities at your children’s school, AI can help teachers plan lessons tailored to your children’s specific needs.

If you’re worried about waiting times – aren’t we all? – AI could save hundreds of thousands of hours lost to missed appointments, because it can identify those on the list most likely not to turn up and helps get them the support that they need, maybe change for a more convenient appointment.

It can spot potholes quicker, speed up planning applications [and job centre form filling], help in the fight against tax avoidance and almost halve the time that social workers spend on paperwork.

Matt Clifford, chair of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria) and author of the AI opportunities action plan, speaks briefly at the launch. He introduced Peter Kyle, the science secretary.

Kyle says the plan is “bold and challenging”, but he says “it is incredible to be working for a bold and challenging prime minister”.

He introduces Keir Starmer.

Nicola Sturgeon and her husband Peter Murrell have “decided to end our marriage”, the former first minister of Scotland has said. PA Media says:

They have been married since 2010 but, in a post on Instagram, the SNP MSP said “to all intents and purposes we have been separated for some time now”.

She wrote: “With a heavy heart I am confirming that Peter and I have decided to end our marriage.

“To all intents and purposes we have been separated for some time now and feel it is time to bring others up to speed with where we are.

“It goes without saying that we still care deeply for each other, and always will.

“We will be making no further comment.”

Murrell is a former chief executive of the SNP.

Murrell was last year charged in connection with the embezzlement of funds from the SNP. The case has not yet come to court.

This morning the Today programme broadcast an interview with Rupert Soames, president of the CBI, which shed some light on why some in the business world are losing confidence in Rachel Reeves. (See 10.51am.) Soames used to run Serco, the services company. (His brother Nicholas, the former MP, is a Tory peer.) Here are the key points.

• Soames said that he thought the chances of the UK economy growing by 2% in 2025, which is what the Office for Budget Responsibility was forecasting in October, was “very slim”. He said:

The latest CBI forecast, we’re talking about [sub 1.5%, somewhere 1% and 1.5%]. I think what we think is going to happen, we think that the national insurance increases are going to feed through into inflation. So that’s not good news. We’re going to have a lower growth rate. Not good news. But also, because of things like the employment rights bill coming along, you’re going to find people laying people off and less likely to employ people to people.

• He said that, while he would not say business confidence in the government had “gone”, he would say it was “bruised”. As an example of why, he cited the experience of a company in Derbyshire that has been making since 1784 and employs 280 people. He went on:

The combination of the living wage and the [national insurance increase] is completely wiping out their profits. No profits, and out profits they invest. So that is a real problem for them. And I think sometimes it’s not understood the extent of the increase, particularly on companies that employ lots of people.

He said that, while businesses expected some changes in national insurance, they were taken by surprise by the lowering in the threshold at which NI kicks in. That would affect a lot of part-time workers, he said.

• He said the government should water down the proposals in the employment rights bill because currently they could lead to an “ugly rush” of firms getting rid of workers.

A general rule in life is that when you find yourself in the hole, then stop digging. And there’s some stuff coming down the road for businesses, particularly around the employment rights bill – which is definitely going to happen – but the landing place that the government decides to adopt is really important.

I’ve been in business 40 years, I’ve employed, been responsible for employing and hiring tens of thousands of people. I know a little bit about the psychology of people. And, as currently drafted, there are elements of the employment rights bill that are going to be powerful dissuaders from companies employing people.

And when we have 9 million people of working age who are not working, the idea that it is not a priority to get them back into work … does not seem right.

He said that there could be “ugly rush” by companies before the bill becomes law to let people go because of its implications.

I think there could be quite an ugly rush before some of these things come into force where people actually let people go.

He said the rules covering probabation periods for workers were particularly difficult for them.

The things like the probation periods in the employment rights bill – we don’t want that to become an adventure playground for human for employment rights lawyers.

With growth floundering and the Treasury at risk of having to announce further spending cuts, there has been some talk in the media about whether Rachel Reeves will survive a full term as chancellor. Yesterday the Sunday Times published a long article on this topic by its chief political commentator, Tim Shipman, whose work is viewed as required reading in most Westminster circles. Shipman did not seem to rate her chances very highly. He wrote:

UK gilt prices are rising further and faster than in other comparable economies and many in the City think Reeves’s decisions since July have made the situation worse, not better. “She has lost credibility with the financial markets,” said a former Downing Street aide who now advises leading businessmen. “They don’t think she knows what she’s doing. They don’t believe a word she says. They don’t believe she has any idea how to fix this” ….

In the City, they think [Keir] Starmer wants freedom of manoeuvre if Reeves is unable to salvage the situation. “The markets think Starmer will use her for the March statement and the spending review – all the tough stuff – then bin her,” the former No 10 adviser said. “I think they’re affording Starmer too much political nous, but that’s what he should do.”

Shipman said Wes Streeting, the health secretary, and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, were both potential replacements, but he described Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Office minister, as the “firm favourite” to be the next chancellor.

In an interview with Times Radio this morning, asked if he thought Reeves would survive as chancellor until the autumn, McFadden replied: “Yes, I do.”

He also rejected suggestions she should be replaced, saying she had the support of Keir Starmer and the whole government.

Rachel Reeves is the chancellor for a good reason, because she’s the right person to do the job.

And one of the things I’d say about those kind of stories is when we won the general election, we won it as a team that was not afflicted by the kind of rivalries and personalities that had sometimes afflicted governments in the past. And we govern as a team and Rachel’s got the support of me, the prime minister and the whole cabinet.

In an interview with Times Radio, Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Office minister, rejected suggestions that the government should try to halt the rollout of AI because of the potential impact on jobs. That would be like pressing the “pause button” on history, he said.

At what point in history would you have us press the pause button? This is the story of historical and economic change. And we’re on the threshold of another huge one. And the country’s got to seize the opportunities from this.

If we, again, follow the logic of your questioning, just try to press the pause button in previous history, then we’d never have become an industrialised country in the first place.

Good morning. Today the government wants to talk about AI (artificial intelligence). It is due to publish its AI opportunities action plan this morning, Keir Starmer is giving a speech on the topic, and Peter Kyle, the science secretary, is giving a statement to MPs later. The main elements have already been well trailed. Here is the Department for Science’s overnight news release, and here is a story by Robert Booth summing it all up.

As usual, though, what the government wants to talk about and what it will end up being forced to talk about are not the same. The macro story that matters most in UK politics at the moment is the rise in UK government borrowing costs (largely driven by global economic developments, and the prospect of what Donald Trump will do when he becomes US president next week), and whether this will lead to fresh spending cuts in the spring. On the business live blog, Julia Kollewe says UK bond yields (borrowing costs) are marginally up again this morning.

The two stories are, of course, related. Rishi Sunak was also very interested in AI when he was PM and only 14 months ago he chaired a big, international summit on AI. The contrast is striking. Sunak was predominantly focused on the threat posed by AI, which is why it was an “AI safety” summit and, as it wound up, Labour issued a statement criticising him for not committing to swift “binding regulation” to impose safeguards on tech companies developing AI. Now Labour is in power, it is desperate to generate growth, and the announcement today is totally focused on what AI can do for the economy and public services. “Safety” does not seem to get a mention.

(The 2023 AI summit also culminated with Sunak engaging in a slighty fawning Q&A with Elon Musk. That won’t be happening again, obviously. The world’s richest man has now flipped from being willing to humour the person leading the UK government to trying actively bring to bring him down.)

In an analysis, Dan Milmo explains why Starmer now sees AI as central to his growth strategy.

Milmo says: “Low productivity has bedevilled the UK for years, partly due to low investment in nifty technology. AI, it is hoped, will help British workers produce more, which should raise wages and allow spare capital – you don’t need so many workers to do a certain job – to be invested elsewhere. This is even more important if, with an ageing population, the UK must cope with fewer working-age adults in the future.”

Starmer is giving his speech later this morning, but he has already pubished an article in the Financial Times which is bound to give a flavour of what he will be saying, and in it he says AI could “usher in a golden age of public service reform”.

The global race for AI leadership is fast and getting faster. Some countries are going to make AI breakthroughs and export them to the world. Others will be left to buy those breakthroughs and import them. I don’t believe government should be passive or neutral on this – this is the bread and butter of industrial policy. AI is the greatest force for change in the world right now. I am determined to harness it to usher in a golden age of public service reform. And I am determined the UK will become the best place to start and scale an AI business. I know growth in this area cannot be state-led. But it is absolutely the job of government to make sure the right conditions are in place.

He also argues, counterintuitively, that AI could lead to public services becoming more human.

[AI] offers credible hope of a long-desired boost in public sector productivity. Nurses, social workers, teachers, police officers — for millions of frontline workers, AI can give the precious gift of time. This means they can refocus on the care and connection aspects of their job that so often get buried beneath the bureaucracy. That’s the wonderful irony of AI in the public sector. It provides an opportunity to make services feel more human.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Morning: The government publishes its AI opportunities action plan.

Late morning: Keir Starmer gives a speech on AI.

2.30pm: Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

After 3.30pm: Peter Kyle, the science secretary, gives a statement to MPs about the AI plan.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.