No 10 says it has put ‘national interest’ first over UK’s failure to sign AI summit declaration – UK politics live

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He accused the Tories of neglecting the steel industry.

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

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

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

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

He goes on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asked how the government would respond, the spokesperson said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said:

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

There will be two urgent questions after 12.30pm: on the Clonoe inquest, which found that the SAS acted unlawfully when they killed four IRA terrorists in an ambush in 1992; and then another on the US steel tariffs.

A Northern Ireland Office minister will respond to the first, and a business minister will respond to the second.

Kemi Badenoch has restated her opposition to the Conservative party forming an electoral pact with Reform UK.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, she said that a deal of that kind could lead to the Tories losing voters, not gaining them. She said:

The Conservative party is a broad church. When we had disagreements, what people saw was disunity. We’ve now got a place where we are unified.

The idea that you just do something with a whole different bunch of people and it’s going to be fine is for the birds. Politics just doesn’t work like that.

There are many people who vote Conservative, who, if they think that we’re having mergers or pacts or whatever with Reform, will go elsewhere.

Asked if there were any circumstances in which she could imagine forming a pact with Nigel Farage’s party, she replied:

No, not me. Nigel Farage has said that he wants to destroy the Conservative Party.

I have been given something very precious. I am the custodian of an institution that has existed for nigh-on 200 years. We have no guaranteed right to exist. There is no guarantee that we will be in government. But I have to look after this thing. I can’t just treat it like it’s a toy and have pacts and mergers.

Yesterday Farage himself also ruled out a pact. He said:

To do a pact with people, you’ve got to think, ‘I’m going to shake your hand and you’re an honourable person.’ After the betrayal post the 2019 election, we do not believe them to be honourable. Simple as that, so the answer is no.

But the ongoing refusal of the two party leaders to countenance the idea has not stopped other rightwingers talking about it. Last night, speaking on GB News, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary, asked:

Many Conservative MPs fear that elevating Farage to a position of power could alienate moderate voters and factor the party further.

For others, however, clinging to old divisions is simply self-destructive. Reform’s surge in popularity and the resilience of the Tories’ base vote means that Labour, despite its manifold failings and unpopularity, remains favourite to win the next election.

Could the Tories stomach having Nigel Farage as the leader of a combined right wing force? After all, the Conservatives kept both Lloyd George and Ramsey McDonald in government, and they were from the left, rather than the right.

Would this be the best way to unite the right and stop a decade of the Reverend Starmer that we could otherwise face?

Today YouGov has published a poll showing Reform UK again ahead of Labour and the Conservatives and on 26% – its highest ever figure in a YouGov poll.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) budget for England and Wales will be 14% lower in real terms in 2024/25 than it was in 2007/08, an analysis has found.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) said that, due to population growth, the day-to-day spending by the MoJ is set to be 24% lower per head of population than in 2007/08.

It says that even amid a background of austerity during the 2010s, the department responsible for prisons, probation, courts, tribunals, the judiciary, legal aid has fared worse than the average department.

The IFS found that if the MoJ’s budget had increased at the same rate as the average department since 2007–08, it would have been 41% (£4.5bn) higher in 2024–25. If it had grown in line with the average “unprotected” department (all departments bar health, education and defence), it would have been 9% (£1bn) higher.

The report says that the MoJ has been a relative winner since 2019, including at the 2024 autumn budget, but its budget is still set to be no higher in 2025–26 than it was 20 years ago.

Magdalena Dominguez, research economist at IFS and an author of the report, said:

Looking ahead, further cuts could be on the horizon, given the tightness of the government’s spending plans heading into the June spending review. Reconciling that with Labour’s ambitions and manifesto promises of improvements to prisons and courts could be challenging, to say the least.

Richard Atkinson, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, said: .

The dire consequences of the lack of investment are plain for all to see with massive court backlogs, overcrowded prisons and a chronic lack of legal aid lawyers.

After inheriting a justice system on the brink of collapse, the government has taken initial positive steps to increase criminal and civil legal aid. Reviews of sentencing and the criminal courts are also taking place designed to tackle the unacceptable delays faced by victims and defendants.

We hope the government will continue this progress by ensuring justice spending rises in real terms over the rest of parliament. Sustained investment is essential in all parts of the justice system – courts, legal aid, judiciary, prisons and probation – to reverse decades of neglect and to avoid a widespread collapse of the system.

Yesterday President Trump praised Australia’s prime minister as a “very fine man” when he said he would consider exempting the country from his new 25% tariff on steel and aluminium imports.

But perhaps he does not consider Keir Starmer a “very fine man”. At the same press conference, asked if the UK might also get an Australian-style steel tariff exemption, Trump replied:

Well, we have a huge deficit with the UK. Big difference.

As Graeme Wearden reports on his business live blog, the trade body UK Steel says Trump has “taken a sledgehammer to free trade with huge ramifications for the steel sector in the UK and across the world”.

Britain must respect Donald Trump’s “strong and clear mandate for change”, Peter Mandelson has said, but Keir Starmer’s government could “always make our views known privately and directly” to the US president.

In his Today programme interview Danny Kruger, an opponent of the assisted dying bill, claimed that getting rid of the requirement for a judge to approve assisted dying applications at a court hearing, and replacing that with scrutiny by an expert panel (see 9.29am), would make the process private. He said:

Crucially, [the expert panel] won’t be sitting under the normal procedures of a court. I presume they won’t be sitting in public. They won’t be hearing evidence from both sides, hearing arguments from both sides. It will be an approval process rather than a judicial process.

But, in her own interview on the Today programme, Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who has introduced the private member’s bill, said that the expert panel process would be public. She said:

It wouldn’t be done in private. It would take into account patient confidentiality, but they would be public proceedings.

And I think it’s really difficult to suggest that, by having three experts involved in this extra layer of scrutiny, that is somehow a change for the worse. It’s absolutely a change for the better.

As Jessica Elgot reports, in interviews this morning Leadbeater also insisted that the bill would have the strongest safeguards in the world for an assisted dying law.

Good morning. In parliament MPs and peers don’t simply vote yes or no on proposed legislation. They debate it at length, over weeks and months, and consider amendments line by line. This process is at the heart of parliamentary democracy, and it happens like this so that bills, in theory, can be improved before they reach the statute book.

There is a good example of this today. The terminally ill adults (end of life) bill is perhaps the most consequential bill going through this session of parliament and the Labour MP who has sponsored it, Kim Leadbeater, has announced a significant change. As Jessica Elgot reports, she wants to scrap the requirement for an assisted dying application to be approved by a high court judge, because the judiciary said this process would be too time-consuming and would clog up the courts. Instead an expert panel, with a legal chair, would vet the assisted dying applications already approved by two doctors.

Leadbeater has written an article for the Guardian explaining her reasoning here.

In the article Leadbeater claims the change will make her bill “even more robust”. And she is calling it “Judge Plus” implying it involves a safeguard that goes beyond the original one, sign-off by a judge. (She is using this term because a judge would chair the commission that appoints the expert panels. But the panels actually taking the final decisions would not be led by judges, and so arguably that is more spin than accurate labelling.)

In interviews this morning Leadbeater argued that the tabling of the amendment showed the parliamentary process operating exactly as it is meant to. She told the Today programme:

I would say this is exactly what the process is designed to do, and the purpose of having such a comprehensive bill committee procedure hearing from over 50 witnesses. What’s the point of having witnesses if we don’t listen to them, and we don’t listen to the expertise that they provide?

But, whatever it says in the textbooks about democratic theory, in practice governments are normally very reluctant to start tinkering with the wording of legislation once a bill has started its progression through parliament. That is because any amendment is seen by opponents as a sign of weakness. And that is exactly what has happened now with the assisted dying bill.

Danny Kruger, the MP who is leading opposition to the bill (he is a Conservative, but it is free vote, conscience legislation, and so party labels are not particularly relevant), posted this on social media last night.

Approval by the High Court – the key safeguard used to sell the Assisted Suicide Bill to MPs – has been dropped. Instead we have a panel, NOT including a judge, of people committed to the process, sitting in private, without hearing arguments from the other side. A disgrace

And on the Today programme he suggested that this amendment meant that, when MPs voted to back the bill by 330 votes to 275 at second reading, they were doing so on a false premise.

I have to ask why, if this is the plan, why this isn’t the plan that was put to MPs when the whole House of Commons voted it through at second reading. At that point the point was made very strongly that the principal safeguard for the bill, the way people could have confidence that it was going to be safe for vulnerable people, was that there would be a high court judge approving the application.

That’s now being removed. I don’t think it would have passed the House of Commons if this new system – which doesn’t involve a judge, it is involves a panel of people all of whom, presumably, are assisted to the principle of assisted dying, not an impartial figure like a judge would be – [was in place].

Kruger was implying the Commons majority for the bill will now have gone.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.25am: MPs on the public bill committee for the assisted dying bill begin their line by line scrutiny of the bill.

9.30am: The Office for National Statistics publishes the latest data on wellbeing.

Morning: Keir Starmer chairs cabinet.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

11.30am: Wes Streeting, the health secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

2.30pm: Sue Gray, Starmer’s former chief of staff, takes her seat in the Lords.

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.