Lord Bethell, a Conservative, goes next. He says he was impressed by Hilary Cass’s argument (see 5.44pm) because, as a former health minister, he knows how difficult it is to get the leaders of the royal colleges to agree. If they all say this is a crisis, then it is one, he says.

He says the argument about the harm being done to teenagers by social media is persuasive.

He says, when he was in government, he and others worked hard to make the Online Safety Act a success. He goes on:

It is a long, landmark piece of legislation. Bits of it I am extremely proud of.

But it assumed that we could work with the platforms to moderate their algorithms, to remove the filth, to prevent the predators, to limit the screen time. It assumed that we were working in some kind of collaborative partnership with Facebook, Google, TikTok, meta, Snapchat, Twitter, and all the other social media companies, in protecting children.

But that was a catastrophic misjudgement about the nature of these companies and the nature of their leadership. And the outcomes for our children, which have gone significantly backwards in the last two years, is a testimony to that

He says he cannot understand how tools like Grok AI were ever assessed as being safe for children. “It’s a complete joke,” he says.

He says he does not accept the argument that a ban is not needed because better protections might work.

You cannot algorithmically mitigate something that is not a design problem, but a business model problem. The algorithm isn’t broken. The algorithm is doing exactly what it was designed to do. It is to maximise engagement, to keep eyes on the screen, to amplify provocative content, because provocative content keeps people clicking, including our children.

This is not a market failure. This is a market working as designed by the companies that have monetised our children’s child hood as a commodity.

He urges peers to back the Nash amendment.

Hilary Cass, the paediatrician backing the Nash amendment (see 5.10pm) is speaking now.

She says children are increasingly going to hospital as a result of self-harming practices that they have learned about online.

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has since sent a letter, signed by every medical college president to the secretary of state of DSIT [the department for science, innovation and technology] and DHSC [the deparment for health and social care] about what they described as an extraordinarily moving meeting with clinicians giving personal testimony about the horrific cases they have treated.

Now, my medical colleagues here, if there are any, would know that college presidents are like cats. You can’t herd them. So when 23 of them, all 23, agree there is a risk, you need to be very afraid.

Cass says she does not see the need for a consultation.

On Monday evening, I spent 25 minutes online using an incognito browser page. I learnt that I could end my life by inhaling helium., I watched two videos of girls being choked, and I accessed a video with ten tips about how to enhance my sex life with strangulation. Not, I hasten to add, because I wanted to do any of those things. I just wanted to see how easy it was. And it was easy and no age verification was needed.

My Lords, if we think children may be in danger, we act first and we ask questions later.

On the wards, if we had concerns about the competence of a clinician, we suspended them from service first and investigated later.

The government has launched a consultation on a social media ban.

But Nash said that this was “unnecessary, misconceived and clearly a last minute attempt to kick the can down the road”.

He said a ban was needed now.

Every day which passes, more damage is being done to children.

Nash goes on to make the case for a ban.

We have reached an inflection point. We are facing nothing short of a societal catastrophe caused by the fact that so many of our children are addicted to social media.

Many teenagers are spending long hours – five, six, seven or more a day – on social media. The evidence is now overwhelming as to the damage that this is causing. We have long passed the point of correlation or causation.

There is now so much evidence from across the world that it is clear that by every metric – health, cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime, economic productivity, – children are being harmed.

In the House of Lords peers are just starting the debate covering the amendment to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill that would ban children under the age of 16 from having a social media account. The amendment has been tabled by Lord Nash, a Tory former education minister, but another signatory of the amendment is Hilary Cass, the crossbencher and paediatrician who compiled a landmark report on transgender services for young people.

Nash’s amendment is number 94A. All the amendments are on this paper.

The amendments are grouped, and 94A is being debated with 11 other amendments. The debate on this group has just begun, and is set to run for about an hour.

JoJo Penn, a former aide to Theresa May, is the first speaker. She is proposing an amendment that would require the government to produce statutory guidance on screen time for use by nurseries.

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has secured deals at Davos that will benefit the UK, the Treasury says. In a news release, it says:

Britain’s reputation as one of the best places in the world to invest was bolstered today as the chancellor announced major new private investments at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

225 places across Britain – including in the North, Midlands, Wales and the South East – have been identified by savings and investment giant M&G as places where communities could benefit from a landmark £1 billion investment fund, announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves today in Davos.

The new UK Social Investment Fund will invest in areas facing housing and transport shortages and in communities needing town-centre renewal, new education and health facilities, and low-carbon or digital infrastructure to support the UK’s net zero transition.

In a further vote of confidence, global biopharmaceutical company UCB confirmed its £500 million investment in UK R&D and manufacturing, in Surrey.

And Reeves said:

I came to Davos to champion Britain as one of the best places in the world to invest, grow a business, and deploy capital – and that plan is working.

Kemi Badenoch has written an article for the Guardian calling on Keir Starmer to “just get on” with a ban on social media for under-16s, saying delay is a dereliction of duty that is harming children’s mental health.

Here is the article.

And here is an extract.

We will not be bought off with vague promises of a “national conversation” about whether we should get children off these adult platforms. The prime minister must set out how he will act and by when. The crossbench peer Lady Kidron, who supports Conservative peer Lord Nash’s amendment in the House of Lords, is right to say Starmer’s approach “is not leading; it is not governing”. He is “doing nothing – slowly”, which is “the very epitome of party before country”.

Let’s just get on with it.

Today, the House of Lords will vote on measures to get children off adult social media platforms and I am proud that it is the Conservative party that is driving this change. Putting our children’s mental health first is the right thing to do. How much longer will we have to wait until the government agrees?

The debate on the Nash amendment will be starting in the Lords any minute now.

Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, has said that the world would be “better” and “more secure” place if Greenland was part of the US. But he has also said that, as a believer in self-determination, he was opposed to Donald Trump suggesting the US should have it regardless of the wishes of Greenlanders. “You must respect the rights and views of the Greenlanders, because that is what national self-determination is,” he said.

Speaking at an event at Davos, he said:

I have no doubt that the world would be a better, more secure place if a strong America was in Greenland, because of the geopolitics of the High North, because of the retreating ice caps and because of the continued expansionism of Russian icebreakers, of Chinese investment.

So yes, would America owning in Greenland be better for the world in terms of safety and stronger for Nato? It would.

However, if you believe in Brexit, and if you believe in celebrating America’s 250th birthday, if you believe in the nation states and not globalist structures, you believe in sovereignty.

And if you believe in sovereignty, you believe in the principle of national self-determination.

Farage went on:

That’s a key part for those of us at Davos that are fighting the globalists: belief in national self-determination is at the root of what people like me, albeit the minority here, believe in.

Farage, a big supporter and ideological ally of Trump, also made a point of saying that he disagreed with the US president on another point – Trump’s claim in his speech this afternoon that Nato members would not support the US if it were attacked.

Farage said:

[Trump] said Nato have never given us anything back. I would object to that politely by saying this: when the decision was made to go into Afghanistan, we went in with America and the coalition of the willing.

We stayed by America for the whole 20 years, we proportionately spent the same money as America, we lost the same number of lives as America pro rata, and the same applies actually to Denmark and other countries too.

So it’s not quite fair. Yes, in money terms, America has provided more. In terms of surveillance equipment et cetera, America still provides more, but we have when it comes to honouring our commitments to America more than done our bit in terms of action over the last 20 years.

Plaid Cymru has complained about the fact that the government is classifying the Northern Powerhouse Rail upgrade announced last week and an “England and Wales” project – meaning that Wales won’t a proportionate share of the investment.

Raising this in the Commons, the Plaid MP Ann Davies said this could cost Wales £1bn.

Under a system known as Barnett consequentials, when the government allocates money just for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get a proportionate equivalent.

Plaid argue that Barnett consequentials should apply to the Northern Powerhouse Rail project, which just involves proposed infrastructure in England. But, when Davies raised this in the Commons today, she was told by the Welsh secretary Jo Stevens that it is standard practice for “heavy rail” projects to be classified as England and Wales spending.

Afterward Davies said:

The secretary of state for Wales is defending a situation that people across Wales can see for exactly what it is – ridiculous and deeply unfair. Projects built entirely in England are being paid for in Wales’ name, while communities here are told to accept stagnation and broken promises.

These are about political choices by Labour. Choices that leave stations unbuilt, lines unelectrified and whole regions written off. Wales should not be subsidising rail infrastructure elsewhere while our own network remains chronically underfunded.

If you are interested in electoral behaviour, this YouGov report is well worth reading. It has data on voting behaviour adjusted according to multiple factors, including age, gender and class.

This chart shows voting intention by age. It shows that the Green party is now the most popular party amongst people under the age of 30.

And this chart shows voting intention by age and gender. It shows that almost half of women under the age of 25 say they would vote Green, and almost half of men age 65 or over say they would vote for Reform UK.

And here, from YouGov, are some more takeaways from the figures.

-Reform UK support is highest among Leave voters, those with lower levels of education, and those from routine and manual occupations, while peaking among those in their 60s

-Greens now lead among the under 30s, including holding a 37% vote share among 18-24 year olds

-Just 38% of 2024 Labour voters still support the party, with 15% switching to the Greens, 9% to the Lib Dems and 8% to Reform UK, while 17% are unsure who they would back

-Support for the Conservatives remains highest among oldest Britons

-Liberal Democrat support is highest among Remainers, those with degrees and those in higher-earning households

-Only one party – the Conservatives – is polling in double-digits among both Leave (26%) and Remain voters (15%)

Families could be locked into heat pump schemes with “sky-high” costs under the government’s warm homes plan, the Tories have claimed. PA Media says:

Low and zero-interest loans to install solar panels, heat pumps and batteries are included in Labour’s bid to deliver energy efficiency and technology upgrades to British homes. [See 11.07am.]

Announcing the £15bn package, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Desnz) said it aims to cut bills and reliance on fossil fuels, reduce carbon emissions, and lift people out of fuel poverty.

Shadow energy minister Andrew Bowie criticised the plan’s focus on heat pumps, arguing the public is “becoming more sceptical” of them.

However, energy secretary Ed Miliband said the plan “will help families living in social housing and low income owner occupiers to have warmer homes and lower bills”.

Under the proposal, £2.7bn is earmarked for the “boiler upgrade scheme” for heat pump grants.

Speaking in the Commons, Bowie said: “Between winter 2024 and spring 2025 the share of people saying that they were unlikely to install an air source heat pump increased from 38% to 45%.

“And if you ask anyone why they don’t want a heat pump, they will tell you it’s the high upfront cost … but it’s also the high ongoing running costs, which often make them more expensive to run than a gas boiler.

“There is a serious risk that this government’s legally binding targets are forcing them to push people into buying heat pumps, but those families will all be locked into sky-high running costs, because this government has a political target which is pushing up their electricity bills at the same time.

“Yet this plan does nothing to address those high ongoing running costs.”

Miliband had earlier claimed heat pumps are “one of the fastest growing markets in Europe” and “sales in Britain have grown by around 50% annually”.

He set an aim for “at least 70% of heat pumps installed in the UK, being made in the UK, backed by a trebling of public investment in heat pump manufacturing, with £90 million set aside today”.

Donald Trump used his speech in Davos to renew his attack on the government’s clean energy policies. At one point in his extremely rambling, and not always coherent, speech (still going on now, after almost an hour), Trump said:

The United Kingdom produces just one-third of the total energy from all sources that it did in 1999 – think of that, one-third – and they’re sitting on top of the North Sea, one of the greatest reserves anywhere in the world, but they don’t use it, and that’s one reason why their energy has reached catastrophically low levels, with equally high prices.

High prices, very low levels. Think of that – one-third and you’re sitting on top of the North Sea.

They like to say, ‘Well, you know, that’s depleted’. It’s not depleted. It’s got 500 years. They haven’t even found the oil, the North Sea is incredible.

They don’t let anybody drill, environmentally, they don’t let them drill. They make it impossible for the oil companies to go. They take 92% of the revenues.

So the oil companies say, ‘We can’t do it’.

This is a regular complaint of Trump’s. He made the same point when he held a press conference with Keir Starmer at Chequers last year.

Starmer’s government has not banned oil and gas extraction in the North Sea, but it has said that it will not grant licences for new fields to be explored.

Graeme Wearden is covering the speech on his Davos live blog.

An army funded “drone degree” is to be offered at a British university based on lessons learnt from the Ukraine war, PA Media reports. PA says:

The undergraduate course, supported by a £240,000 investment from the Ministry of Defence, will train 15 civilian students and up to five soldiers a year as drone technology specialists.

The new course will be run at the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering in Hereford from September 2026 and will cover the design, build and testing of drone systems.

The devices have been used with devastating impact by both sides in the Ukraine conflict.

Russia has repeatedly launched huge waves of drones and missiles against Ukraine, striking civilian targets and energy infrastructure.

Earlier this month, defence secretary John Healey announced production would start on new type of drone for Ukraine called an Octopus, designed to intercept other drones used by Russia to attack civilian targets.

The UK aims to produce thousands of the drones per month, with each Octopus costing just 10% of the drones they are designed to intercept.

The MoD has more details on this here.

Zack Polanski, the Green party leader, has hit back at Keir Starmer over what Starmer said about him at PMQs. (See 12.28pm.) He says:

Labour are low in the polls and hard on the country.

Fair play to whichever special advisor has written Keir a bit of a snarky line. Maybe Keir could take that energy to Trump on the warpath or the billionaire bosses ruining this country?

There is a reason why “naked opportunism” is a useful cliche in politics. Almost all political activity is in some respects opportunist. But normally it is not just that; and it does not matter if people can detect some more proper or noble motives alongside the the self-interest. In other words, “hidden opportunism” is fine. But when it is obvious that a leader is just engaged in unprincipled point-scoring, you have to be very, very partisan to respect them for it – even if they do it well.

Today Kemi Badenoch was being opportunist – not just nakedly so, but shamelessly so too. it was another example of her being handicapped by her congential oppositionism. Most British voters don’t care very much about the Chagos Islands, but they do have more respect and affection for the Danes and they are strongly opposed to Donald Trump’s threat to annex Greenland. Any other Tory leader would probably have settled for largely agreeing with Starmer on Greenland, while modestly urging him to be a tad more robust.

Badenoch tried to catch Starmer out with the argument that, if he supports self-determination for Greenlanders, he should do so for Chagossians too. The Chagossians were forcibly removed from their homeland in the 1970s when the UK and the US built their military base on Diego Garcia and they, and their descendents, are now scattered around the world. They have had almost no say over the deal struck between the UK and Mauritius transferring sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. Although there is a notional possibility for them to return to the islands under this deal, this does not include Diego Garcia. The other islands are mostly uninhabitable.

Until recently, almost the only MP in the Commons expressing an interest in the right of the Chagossians to self-determination was Jeremy Corbyn. The Tories do object to the Chagos Islands deal, but that is because they don’t really accept that the UK should be giving away colonially-acquired military assets just so the country be in compliance with international law. It is not because they care one jot about the Chagossians. The last Conservative government did not allow them to return, and Badenoch is certainly not promising to build homes for them on the Diego Garcia runway.

Which is a long way of saying – Badenoch was using a bogus argument as she aligned herself with Trump, and Keir Starmer was fully entitled to ridicule and condemn her for this. He did so firmly and effectively. It was a convincing win, and his best performance against her for ages.

Badenoch may have made life harder for Starmer if she had agreed with him. As it was, by taking a critical stance, she allowed him to hit back forcefully with his “I will not yield” line about Trump trying to strongarm him over Greenland. (See 12.05am). It sounded great, and – for a few hours or days – it might at least go some way towards silencing those who want him to sound more like Mark Carney, or Emmanuel Macron (or Hugh Grant in Love Actually).

But it was just language. Rather, just one word (“yield”). All Starmer was saying was that, whatever Trump says or does, he will not change his mind about Greenland’s future being a matter for Greenland and Denmark, not the US.

However, no one ever expected Starmer to change his mind about this. The much more interesting question is what the UK can, or should, do to get Trump to back down. And, on this, nothing much seems to have changed since Monday.

Fred Thomas (Lab) welcomes the consultation on a social media ban for under-16s. He says the Tories did not do this when they were in office, and they did not even support it until last week. He calls for swift action.

Starmer says the government is having a consultation, and it will respond by the summer.

Katie Lam (Con) says South East Water have been “shambolic” in their response to the water shortages in Kent. She says volunteers did a better job providing water to communities. Has the PM lost confidence in the company’s chief executive, as she has.

Starmer says the company’s performance is “totally unacceptable and needs to be fixed”.

Steve Witherden‘(Lab) urged Starmer to commit to retaliatory tariffs against the US. He said Donald Trump was a bully, and bullies always seek out the weakest link.

Starmer repeats his point about not wanting to yield to Trump on Greenland. But he says he does not want a trade war.

UPDATE: Witherden said:

The thug in the White House has shown that he doesn’t listen to grovelling or sycophancy. He’ll continue to harm British interests no matter how compliant we are and, like all bullies, he will always find the weakest link.

Will the prime minister close ranks with our European allies and commit to retaliatory tariffs?

And Starmer replied:

I’ve made our position clear. I’ve set out my principles.

I’m not going to yield on those principles but as I said on Monday, of course we need to protect our national interest and we will always our protect our national interest.

But simply hurtling at the first opportunity into a trade war is going to hurt working people and businesses across the country, and that is why I’m working hard to make sure we do not get to that point, and I’ll continue to act in the national interest.

In response to a question from the Green MP Ellie Chowns about farming pollution, Starmer launched a wide-ranging attack on the Green party. He said:

I have to say, as someone who stood to lead her party, I wonder what she makes of how her leader is responding to this global uncertainty. Because what he’s saying is this is the moment to withdraw from Nato. This is the time to kick the US out of our military bases. This is the time to negotiate this with Putin, to give up our nuclear deterrent.

Starmer joked that Putin would be “quick on the line for that one”. Starmer went on:

It’s just reckless. As irresponsible as their plan to legalise heroin and crack cocaine. That’s the Green party now. High on drugs. Soft on Putin.

Starmer may have been reading, or listening to, the Guardian’s interview published yesterday with Zack Polanski.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, says Tony Blair ignore warnings from the Lib Dems and “tied himself to an unpopular American president and a disastrous foreign policy while close allies like Canada and France looked on in horror”.

He goes on:

With Donald Trump increasingly acting like a crime boss running a protection racket threatened to smash up our economy unless he gets his hands on Greenland.

Will the prime minister avoid Blair’s historic mistake, take our advice this time and join Prime Minister Carney and President Macron in standing up far more strongly to President Trump?

Starmer replies:

I said I will not yield on the principles and values that I uphold [and] this country’s policy in relation to the future of Greenland.

But the relationship with the US matters, especially on defence, security and intelligence, on nuclear capability, also on trade and prosperity.

Whilst [Davey is] trying to get sound bites, we mustn’t forget a war is raging in Europe. It is in its fourth year. The Russians are raining bombs down on Ukrainian civilians day and night. Temperatures were minus 25 last night. 60% without power. People are erecting tents to keep themselves warm. We have to work with our allies, including the US, on security guarantees, to make sure we can do what we must do in relation to Ukraine.

Now, that does not mean we agree with the US on everything … But it is foolhardy to think that we should rip up our relationship with the US, abandon Ukraine and stabilise all the things that are important to our defence, security and good.

Badenoch says Starmer did not say what Trump told him about Greenland. She repeats her criticism of the Chagos Islands deal.

Starmer says the Trump Chagos Islands comment was “expressly intended to put pressure on me to yield” over Greenland. He goes on:

What he said about Chagos was literally in the same sentence as what he said about Greenland. That was his purpose.

UPDATE: Badenoch said:

President Trump thought that we were doing [the Chagos Islands deal], that the prime minister is doing this, for money. The prime minister is giving away territory we own and paying £35 billion for the privilege. Why doesn’t he just scrap this terrible deal and put the money into our armed forces?

And Starmer replied:

The words from President Trump were expressly intended to put pressure on me to yield on my principles. What he said about Chagos was literally in the same sentence as what he said about Greenland. That was his purpose.

And the future of Greenland is a binary issue that is splitting the world at the moment, with material consequences. I’ve been clear and consistent in my position on the future of Greenland. The future is for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone.

The leader of the opposition has taken three positions in 10 days. Ten days ago, she said Greenland was, in her words, ‘a second order issue’. Four days ago, she said she supported our position on Greenland. Now she is backing arguments intended to undermine our position, Britain’s position on Greenland.

This is an important national moment, and yet again, the leader of the opposition has shown she is incapable of rising to it.

Badenoch says, if the people of Greenland should decide their future, why does that principle not apply to Chagossians.

Starmer says Donald Trump was making an argument about the Chagos Islands yesterday to defend his argument on Greenland. He was trying to change the UK’s position. Starmer says again he will not yield on this.

He accuses Badenoch of now aligning with Trump by supporting his case on the Chagos Islands. He says she is putting “naked opportunism over the national interest”.

UPDATE: Badenoch said:

We all know that the people of Greenland do not want to be ruled by America. But does he agree that just as those in Greenland should decide their own future, so should the Chagossians?

And Starmer replied:

I made out my position on Greenland absolutely clear on Monday and a moment ago.

President Trump deployed words on Chagos yesterday that were different to his previous words of welcome and support when I met him in the White House.

He deployed those words yesterday for the express purpose of putting pressure on me and Britain in relation to my values and principles on the future of Greenland.

He wants me to yield on my position, and I’m not going to do so. Given that that was his express purpose, I’m surprised the leader of the opposition has jumped on the bandwagon.

I had understood her position to be that she supported the government’s position on the future of Greenland. Now she appears to support words by President Trump to undermine the government’s position on the future of Greenland. She’s chosen naked opportunism over the national interest.

Kemi Badenoch starts by welcoming Starmer following the Tory lead on a social media ban.

She says the future of Greenland should be decided by the people of Greenland. Did the US president agree when Starmer spoke to him.

Starmer says the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and Denmark alone.

He also says the tariff threats are completely wrong.

He says the Danish PM is coming to the UK tomorrow.

But he says he will not “yield” on Greenland under the threat of tariffs.

UPDATE: Badenoch said:

The prime minister and I agree – the future of Greenland should only be decided by the people of Greenland. When the prime minister made this point to (US) President Trump on Monday, did the president agree or disagree?

And Starmer replied:

Engaging constructively on international security matters hugely, particularly when it comes to security in the Arctic, and that’s the context in which this discussion is going on in relation to Greenland.

As we engage constructively, I have made my position clear on our principles and values. The first of those is that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone.

The second is that threats of tariffs to pressurise allies are completely wrong.

We will continue to engage constructively. I’ve had many international calls in recent days, and the prime minister of Denmark is coming to the United Kingdom tomorrow for bilateral talks.

But I do want to be clear with the House, I will not yield, Britain will not yield on our principles and values about the future of Greenland under threats of tariffs, and that is my clear position.

We’re not far off PMQs. Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.

Steven Morris is a Guardian reporter covering the West of England.

Plans for a food and essentials distribution hub – billed as the first of its kind in England – has been revealed by the West of England mayoral combined authority.

The idea is that a multi-million pound warehouse will serve as a central site to store, coordinate, and redistribute surplus items such as food, household products, clothing and bedding, much of which might have ended up in landfill.

This initiative has been inspired by the example of the Multibank, launched by former prime minister Gordon Brown, which works with a coalition of major retail manufacturers, suppliers, and philanthropists to give businesses a donations point for their surplus stock.

The mayoral combined authority is working in partnership with charities and local authorities including Bristol city council and Bath and North East Somerset council. They say this is the first time such a combination of organisations has worked together to design and run this sort of hub, which they hope will help the 67,000 children currently growing up in poverty in the west of England.

A problem charities and other organisations face at the moment is that they do not have anywhere to store donations of food and other items so they are unable to reach people who could use them.

Helen Godwin, mayor of the West of England, said:

These proposals are innovative and nation-leading, bringing together food and non-food redistribution together for the first time under one roof.

Gordon Brown described the project as ingenious and inspiring.

At his press conference on Monday Keir Starmer played down the prospect of the UK imposing tariffs on the US in retaliation for the “Greenland tariffs” that Donald Trump says he will impose on the UK and seven other Nato countries that have opposed his plan to buy the Danish self-governing territory. Starmer said that he did not want a trade war, and tariffs would not be in anyone’s interests.

But No 10 later made it clear that Starmer was not 100% ruling out tariffs. And, in his interview on the Today programme this morning, Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, also refused to rule them out – although he did say it would be wrong to issue threats and “ratchet up the temperature”.

The EU is considering retaliatory tariffs, and at Davos yesterday several EU leaders said Europe should be more confrontational in response to the Trump threats.

In an interview with Sky News this morning from Davos, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, also played down the prospect of the UK imposing retaliatory tariffs on the US. Asked what her message was to Trump, she replied:

Britain is not here to be buffeted around. We’ve got an economic plan and it’s the right one for our country.

If other countries want to increase trade barriers, that is their choice. But we are determined to bring trade barriers down, which is why this week I’m meeting with European, Gulf partners, Canadians to talk about how we can free up trade and make it easier for businesses to trade around the world.

Asked if she would tell Trump that his Greenland tariffs were wrong, Reeve said:

At the moment, no tariffs have been imposed.

I think the right approach, and the approach that our prime minister, Keir Starmer, has taken over the last year or so is to try and de-escalate and get the best deal for Britain.

We got the best deal, and the first trade deal, with the US last year, and I’m confident that we will continue to get a good deal for Britain.

While Reeves is right to say that the terms of the UK-US trade agreement announced last year were better than those available to most other countries, there are concerns that the details are not as robust as both sides claimed. Eleni Courea and Lisa O’Carroll explained why in this story last month.

Keir Starmer will reportedly visit China next week after controversial plans for Beijing to build a vast embassy in London were approved by his government, Ben Quinn reports.

Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, has apologised to the parliamentary commissioner for standards for failing to declare income received in the Commons register of members’ interest on time on 17 separate occasions. In total, the earnings were worth more than £380,000.

Failing to declare interests within the 28-day deadline is a breach of the Commons code of conduct. But the commissioner, Daniel Greenberg, has the option of using a “rectification” process if he deems that an MP has made an honest mistake, and in these cases the breaches do not get referred to the Commons standards committee for possible punishment.

In a report published explaining why rectification was appropriate in this case, Greenberg said:

During my investigation, I established that there had been 17 breaches of rule 5 of the code by Mr Farage’s failure to add interests within the 28-day period 10 set by the House.

Having met with Mr Farage to discuss how these late registrations occurred, I concluded that the failure to register these interests on time was inadvertent because of staffing and other administrative issues.

In his report, Greenberg also includes a letter from Farage in which Farage said:

In relation to my alleged breach of rule 5 of the code of conduct for Members, I accept that I have breached this section of the code and take full responsibility, and I would first of all like to say I am sincerely sorry.

The late declarations … fall short of what you expect and indeed what I expect from public figures. This was an administrative error on behalf of me and my team, for which I can only reiterate our sincere apologies.

Unlike most members, I have a very complicated and complex set of interests, including my work as a TV presenter and as a successful private businessman, most of which were built long before I was elected as a member of parliament. Compared to most MPs, I have an unusually high number of interests which need to be declared, and I have always and will always continue to declare these. Please let me reassure you, there was no malicious intent to deceive or mislead you or the public in the lateness of these declarations; it was an honest and genuine error.

Farage also told Greenberg he did not claim any expenses as an MP.

And, in a subsequent letter, he said he had been “extremely let down by a very senior member of staff” in this case.

In his report, Greenberg included this list of the interests declared late by Farage.

Commenting on the report, a Labour party spokesperson said:

Nigel Farage is so distracted with tempting failed Tory politicians into his party that he can’t even get the basics right. He isn’t on the side of working people - he’s just lining his pockets when he should be standing up for his constituents.

He boasts about making money ‘because I’m Nigel Farage’, raking in millions through various outside jobs. But he neglects to do the important work that hard-pressed taxpayers fork out for him to do.

Labour will tighten the rules on MPs’ second jobs to make sure the public get the attention they expect and deserve from their elected representatives.

Good morning. On Wednesdays, when it’s PMQs, the prime minister and the leader of the opposition are used to being the centre of attention at Westminster. But, with Donald Trump due to speak at Davos this afternoon – and European and other democratic leaders increasingly worried his Greenland imperialism ambitions will tear apart Nato – most MPs (and probably most Guardian readers too) will be more interested in what the US president has to say.

Some opposition leaders, and some Labour MPs, would like Keir Starmer to be a bit more robust – more like Mark Carney, the Canadian PM, or Gavin Newsom, the Californian governor, or Emmanuel Macron, the French president, or Gordon Brown, the former Labour PM, or even Bart De Wever, the Belgian PM.

But, so far, Keir Starmer has resisted calls to be more confrontational. While clearly stating his oppostion to Trump’s call for the US to be allowed to buy or annex Greenland, he has avoided saying anything provocative, and has implied that the UK would not even join the EU in imposing retaliatory tariffs on the US, in response to the tariffs Trump says he will impose on some Nato countries that have opposed his Greenland ambitions.

In a good analysis, Pippa Crerar explains why Starmer is doing this – and why his cabinet colleagues are backing his “keep calm and carry on” strategy.

And in interviews this morning Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, said that Starmer was right to respond to Trump in the way he is doing. He told Sky News:

The bigger picture here is that the prime minister is, I think, navigating a really difficult international situation with great skill and in our national interest.

I know some people will want to say, why hasn’t the prime minister been matching Donald Trump tweet-for-tweet, all of that. I honestly say to you, we would be in a much worse position as a country.

He has shown calm leadership, which got us the first trade deal with the US, which got us the lowest tariff.

Now this is a very challenging situation, and we’ve got a principle, which is we seek common ground with Donald Trump, but where we disagree, we say so, and that’s what he said on Greenland.

But no, I think Keir Starmer’s leadership is absolutely right on this and I think at this stage, it’s about de-escalation and finding a way through this tricky situation.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.

1.30pm (UK time): Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, speaks at an event at Davos.

2.30pm (UK time): Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, speaks at an event at Davos.

Late afternoon: Peers debate the children’s wellbeing and schools bill. They will vote on an amendment to ban under-16s from using social media. The vote is expected at around 6pm.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), 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.bsky.social. 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.