Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: Grooming gangs. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch went toe-to-toe over whether the investigation into widespread child abuse was fit for purpose — or falling apart before it even started. Word of context: The government confirmed a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation would take place in June. Since then, four abuse survivors quit the inquiry’s victims and survivors liaison panel over their treatment. Former senior social worker Annie Hudson also withdrew from a shortlist of potential inquiry chairs. No confidence: Badenoch said the four victims had “lost all confidence” and were “dismissed and contradicted” by ministers. “What’s the point in speaking up if we’re just going to be called liars,” the Tory leader asked on behalf of one victim. Starmer condemned it as one of the “worst scandals of our time” and said the door “will always be open” if they wanted to return. Bookmark this: The PM insisted the inquiry will “never be watered down, its scope will not change, and it will examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders.” Starmer confirmed crossbench peer and government troubleshooter Louise Casey (mooted as a future cabinet secretary), who wrote the initial grooming gangs audit, would support the inquiry. War of words: The Tory leader asked why victims would return when “the government has engaged in a briefing war against survivors.” That strong accusation drew cries of “shame” from Labour backbenchers before Badenoch referenced another survivor, accusing Labour of creating a “toxic environment.” Pushing on: Starmer conceded there were still “hard yards” to be done to put survivors at the heart of the inquiry, given their “difficult experiences” and “wide range of views.” Nonetheless, the PM insisted, “I want to press on and get this right.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, Badenoch mentioned Starmer’s previous opposition to a national inquiry. “The victims don’t believe them,” she declared. “They don’t like it, but it’s true.” Of course: This sensitive and horrifying chapter in Britain’s history descended into a political knockabout. The PM mentioned work on reopening historic sexual abuse and mandatory reporting, which “fell on deaf ears” from the Tories. He should know: Starmer, often pejoratively labeled a lawyer by Badenoch, was asked why the inquiry wasn’t judge-led, given victims would prefer this, rather than a police officer or social worker chairing proceedings. The PM said judge-led inquiries were “often held back until the end of the criminal investigation,” which he wanted to run alongside the inquiry. Ministerial matters: But Badenoch suggested the chair was not the only problem. Quoting one victim, who accused Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips of lying (which Speaker Linsday Hoyle frowned upon), the Tory leader asked if the PM still had confidence in her. Starmer answered in the affirmative, saying she “has probably more experience than any other person in this House in dealing with violence against women and girls.” The Tories, you won’t be surprised to learn, want Phillips gone. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Roz Savage, the, er, Lib Dem MP for South Cotswolds, initially made PMQs a bit easier for Starmer after the Political Pics X account snapped her question in a transparent folder heading into No 10 … on Tuesday. “There was a very, very serious breach of national security,” she joked. Keeping Starmer on his toes, Savage instead asked about digital ID and, aptly, the risk of data breaches. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 7/10. Badenoch 6/10. Choosing a winner and a loser seems trivial given the main topic this week. Badenoch understandably used the victims’ departure to ask if the inquiry could fulfill its purpose. But the Tory leader’s political points lost the room, with the PM — just about — retaining authority with promises about the inquiry’s scope and remit. The survivors, on and off the panel, will hope those words translate into action.

LONDON — Keir Starmer’s gone all-in on digital identification for Brits. But while many MPs in the prime minister’s governing Labour Party back the idea in theory, there are plenty despairing at a botched communications strategy which they believe has set the wide-ranging policy up for a fall. Under Starmer’s plans, digital ID will be required for right-to-work checks by 2029. Ministers insist the ID — a second attempt to land ID cards for Brits after a botched first go under Tony Blair — won’t track people’s location, spending habits or online activity.  Yet Labour MPs feel a more sellable emphasis on improving people’s experience of public services has gotten lost. Instead, Starmer’s government — with populist right-winger Nigel Farage breathing down its neck — has attempted to link the plan to a migration crackdown. “It’s a no-brainer,” said Labour MP Allison Gardner, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for digital identity. “It absolutely will make people’s lives easier, more secure [and] give them more control over their data. We need to explain it better to people, so that they understand that this is for them, and it’s not being done to them.” HARD SELL  A consultation on the plans will be launched by the end of 2025, before legislation next year. The government’s huge majority means it’s highly likely to become law — but there’s a potentially bumpy road ahead. Two decades after Blair’s New Labour first proposed plastic identity cards, Starmer wants to finish the job, pitching a plan to make digital ID mandatory for right-to-work checks as a way to deter irregular migration. Yet the sweeping change, announced on the eve of Labour conference, didn’t get a mention in Starmer’s setpiece speech — and notably didn’t appear in the party’s election manifesto. “The announcement hasn’t been handled well,” admitted a pro-digital ID Labour MP granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Our argument for it keeps changing but none of it is full-throated enough.” The messaging has shifted since the initial push, too. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall later stressed giving “people power and control over their lives,” saying the public is too often “at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should.” That was only after a drop in poll ratings for the idea. A petition against it has meanwhile racked up close to three million signatures. The shapeshifting rhetoric — painting digital ID first as a necessary inconvenience before calling it vital for state efficiency — caused some heads to spin. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall later stressed giving “people power and control over their lives,” saying the public is too often “at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should.” | Andy Rain/EPA “The government communication … has not learned from the mistakes made when digital ID was proposed 20 years ago,” said a second Labour MP, who thought the focus on immigration meant ministers weren’t “talking about the benefits it brings ordinary British citizens.”  Red flags have also been also waved over compulsory right-to-work checks, given only the very wealthiest Brits never need to work — making it de facto mandatory. “There’s been a kneejerk reaction, particularly to the word mandatory, which I think British people have naturally reacted against,” admitted Gardner, who argues voters should have a choice about using the scheme. “It’s a little bit of a bandwagon people have latched on to, to actually derail the entire concept.”  Farage, eager to paint himself as a champion of civil liberties, has warned digital ID won’t stop “illegal immigration”  but will “be used to control and penalise the rest of us.” Analysis by the New Britain Project think tank, shared with POLITICO, shows that Google searches for digital ID were elevated for around three weeks after the announcement compared to the typical one day spike for most policies. Interest dwarfed other decisions too, with peak search traffic for digital ID 20 to 50 times higher than any other flagship policy terms in the last year. Nigel Farage, eager to paint himself as a champion of civil liberties, has warned digital ID won’t stop “illegal immigration” but will “be used to control and penalise the rest of us.” | Neil Hall/EPA Longstanding Labour MP Fabian Hamilton highlights the dilemma of digital ID: “Nobody likes compulsion, and it will only work if everybody has to have it.” Despite Kendall expressing optimism about a digital key unlocking “better, more joined-up and effective public services,” Hamilton argues that prioritizing migration in the messaging is too simplistic. “I’m sorry to say that the legal migration is tilting the head at a certain part of the electorate that are very concerned about illegal migration and the tabloids,” he argues. NO SILVER BULLET  Whether digital ID works on its own terms — reducing irregular migration — is also hotly contested. Right-to-work checks already exist in the U.K., with employees required to show documentation like a letter with their national insurance number. “It may be helpful, but obviously it won’t affect fundamental factors [driving people to the U.K.] of family links or English language,” warns former Home Office Permanent Secretary Philip Rutnam. He believes the most challenging part of the scheme will be “establishing the status of many people beyond doubt” given some residents may not have formal ID. “There are millions of people whose status it may bring into question,” Rutnam says. “Their status may not be what they have understood it to be.” Whether digital ID works on its own terms — reducing irregular migration — is also hotly contested. | Tolga Akmen/EPA That’s sparked fears among some in Westminster of another Windrush scandal. That debacle saw some people who emigrated to Britain as part of a post-Second World War rebuilding effort later denied rights and, in the most extreme cases, deported under a scattershot Home Office clampdown.  “We need to be very, very careful,” warns former U.K. Border Force Director-General Tony Smith. Smith says digital ID is “not a panacea,” and warns illegal working is likely to remain because unscrupulous employers won’t suddenly become law-abiding. TECH TROUBLES The British government’s ability to handle such a vast amount of sensitive data securely is also far from certain. Kendall has stressed that the data behind digital ID won’t be centralized and says individuals will be able to see who has accessed their information. That’s not enough for skeptics.  A catastrophic Ministry of Defence breach, which leaked details of Afghans applying to resettle in Britain after the Taliban’s return to power, shows the danger of sensitive details reaching the wrong hands. “The track record’s not been great,” Smith warns. “You are trying to turn round a huge tanker in the ocean here, and I do worry that we haven’t perhaps got the necessary gear.”  Rutnam agrees digital ID will be a “very demanding administrative exercise” that politicians need to understand is “complex and inherently risky.”  A catastrophic Ministry of Defence breach, which leaked details of Afghans applying to resettle in Britain after the Taliban’s return to power, shows the danger of sensitive details reaching the wrong hands. | Andy Rain/EPA Perhaps more damning for digital ID’s support among the Labour faithful is anxiety about future governments using the information malevolently. “Faith in our institutions of government and of the state is at an all-time low,” says Hamilton, citing a “bizarre situation” where some Brits lump digital ID in with Covid-19 vaccines as a government conspiracy. One Labour MP vehemently opposed to digital ID says ministers are so far failing to consider “what happens when we’re gone” and warns any safeguards “can be unpicked” by subsequent administrations. Starmer has spoken about digital ID as a positive alternative to rifling through drawers looking for “three bills when you want to get your kids into school or apply for this or apply for that.” “F*ck you,” the anonymous Labour MP above said in response. “I can’t believe that. Is that the best you’ve got for giving away fundamental rights?” Still, Gardner is pleading for colleagues not to block this modern innovation: “We are at risk of throwing a very, very good baby out with the bathwater if we resist this and just keep ourselves in the dark ages.” Emilio Casalicchio and Dan Bloom contributed to this report.

Sanna Marin is a Tony Blair Institute’s strategic counselor. She’s the former prime minister of Finland. As the world’s leaders gather in Rome for this year’s Ukraine Recovery Conference, there is no illusion as to what’s at stake. Ending Russia’s war of aggression remains Ukraine’s overriding priority. But the truth is, even that won’t secure lasting stability. True recovery will demand more than reconstruction funds or military deterrence. It will require deep, sustained investment in the systems that underpin a strong sovereign state. One of the most vital — and most overlooked — of those systems is Ukraine’s own people. Too often, the conversation surrounding Ukraine’s workforce begins and ends with refugee return. But recovery cannot be deferred until people come home. Nor can it depend entirely on external support. Ukraine’s greatest untapped asset is already within its borders: millions of citizens ready to work, retrain and rebuild, if allowed the opportunity. This isn’t a soft-side issue — it’s a strategic imperative. And new research from the Tony Blair Institute shows that taking bold action now could expand Ukraine’s workforce by 25 percent, even while war continues. There are more than 3 million people inside Ukraine today who, with the right policies and support, could be brought into the workforce. Unlocking this potential isn’t just the most realistic way to stimulate economic growth and power Ukraine’s recovery, it’s also the smartest and fastest way to build long-term resilience in the face of ongoing war. This isn’t about abstractions. It’s about mothers who can’t find childcare; displaced people struggling to rebuild their lives after being forced to flee; job seekers struggling to find work that matches their skills and offers the stability that formal employment should provide. It’s also about veterans and individuals with disabilities who are ready to contribute but often encounter barriers due to limited workplace accommodation. Ukraine’s workforce is motivated, but it’s constrained by systems that haven’t kept up. Today, 83 percent of Ukrainians with disabilities are out of work. Women face a 15-point participation gap compared to men. And over one-third of internally displaced people are unemployed. Meanwhile, 40 percent of businesses say they can’t find the skilled talent they need. This mismatch is more than a missed opportunity — it’s a risk to Ukraine’s recovery and long-term sovereignty. Ukraine’s greatest untapped asset is already within its borders: millions of citizens ready to work, retrain and rebuild, if allowed the opportunity. | Sergey Kozlov/EPA The good news is, Ukraine has the tools to change this, and the country has momentum on its side: billions in donor support, a nearly finalized new labor code and real political will. It has digital infrastructure that’s the envy of governments across Europe. It also has a population ready to adapt, with almost 40 percent of Ukraine’s unemployed saying they’re willing to retrain and a quarter of them willing relocate for the right job. That’s an extraordinary national resource. And Ukraine’s partners can help turn this potential into progress by acting on four fronts: First, bring Ukraine’s job market into the 21st century. The country is already a world leader in digital ID. It has ambitious plans to build platforms that would match workers with jobs and training opportunities — especially in regions where the disconnect between supply and demand is stark. It needs international funding and expertise to do this.  Second, put employers in the driver’s seat by tying every reskilling program to a real job opportunity. Even though there are hundreds of available courses, many teach skills that businesses don’t need, or they target workers who already have jobs instead of those seeking work. Reskilling support should be contingent upon employers co-designing curriculums and committing to hire successful graduates. Third, finalize the new labor code. The current one dates back to 1971. Reform is essential — not just for EU accession but for unlocking flexibility, formality and fairness in the workplace. Technical assistance and public advocacy from international partners can help here. Finally, break down the systemic barriers to participation. This means scaling up access to childcare, improving workplace accessibility for those with disabilities and supporting underrepresented groups, from women and young people to the elderly and displaced. These changes are morally right, economically vital and should align with donor priorities. I’m proud to join that conversation, and urge us all to keep people — not just infrastructure — at the heart of recovery. Of course, the return of refugees will be critical to Ukraine’s long-term recovery. But with only half of them currently planning on returning, and most of them uncertain exactly when, this cannot be the cornerstone of today’s strategy. Ukraine cannot afford to wait. The focus must be on unlocking the potential of those already inside the country’s borders. And that starts with modernizing the job market, removing the barriers that prevent people from working, and investing in the skills that will power Ukraine’s reconstruction from the ground up. Recovery doesn’t begin with return, it begins with reform. Ukraine has already proven its courage. Now its people can build a workforce ready to win the peace. But the country needs partners to expedite this task and help its people scale with what they have. With the right investment, Ukrainians won’t just rebuild — they’ll lead.

The Dutch government on Tuesday said children under 15 years old should not have access to social media like TikTok and Instagram. Children over 13 should be able to learn how to use “social interaction platforms” like WhatsApp and Signal, the Dutch government said in new guidelines to help parents handle screen time and social apps. But when it comes to social media, the government advises to wait until the age of 15, it said in a press release. The Netherlands is one of several European Union countries that is taking action against the effects of social media on minors’ mental health and development. France’s President Emmanuel Macron has been vocal about a minimum age of 15 for social media use, and Greece and Spain also support tougher rules. The European Commission has released its own guidelines on the protection of minors online, but many member states appear unhappy with the pace of progress at the EU level. Social interaction platforms like chat apps play a “positive role” as children over 12 develop their social identities, offering “space for social interaction with peers and for self-expression,” the Dutch guidelines said. The guidelines also recommended limiting children’s screen time, starting from half an hour per day for two-to-four-year-olds and gradually increasing to three hours per day for children over 12. Parents and educators should also practice healthy screen time habits to set the example for children, the guidelines said, including putting their phones away and turning notifications off when they are with minors. The Dutch Parliament asked for the guidelines back in February.

BRUSSELS — The European Union is under pressure to step up its tech game and wean itself off a heavy reliance on United States digital infrastructure and services as transatlantic ties hit a new low. That’s going to come with a heavy price tag. European data is primarily stored on U.S. cloud services, with companies like Amazon, Microsoft and Google owning over two-thirds of the European market. Europe accounts for just 10 percent of the global microchips market. U.S.-based companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are leading the artificial intelligence revolution.  Europe’s U.S. tech addiction has long been brushed aside as a fait accompli.  That’s now in question as Germany’s incoming chancellor warned that Europe needs to “achieve independence from the USA” as U.S. President Donald Trump threatens tariffs and withdraws support from Ukraine. Efforts to make Europe more technologically “sovereign” have gone mainstream. The European Commission now has its first-ever “technology sovereignty” chief, Henna Virkkunen. Germany’s incoming ruling party, the center-right Christian Democratic Union, called for “sovereign” tech in its program for the February election. “Mounting friction across the Atlantic makes it clearer than ever that Europe must control its own technological destiny,” said Francesca Bria, an innovation professor at University College London and former president of Italy’s National Innovation Fund. STACKED Over the last year, some influential tech policy people — Bria included — have gathered around the idea of a EuroStack. They claim that to build a European tech infrastructure, three layers of core technologies stacked on top of one another must be addressed and tackled simultaneously.  The first is infrastructure, such as microchips; the second is intermediaries, such as cloud platforms, a digital ID, or the digital euro; and the third is applications, connected and driven by artificial intelligence.  Sovereignty runs through the three layers: chips designed in Europe to power data centers and cloud services that store data locally, on which European AI models are trained.  Cristina Caffarra, a competition economist, told POLITICO in January that the point is not to eliminate U.S. Big Tech in those layers but to at least “create some space for European technology.”  European data is primarily stored on U.S. cloud services, with companies like Amazon, Microsoft and Google owning over two-thirds of the European market. | Ina Fassbender/Getty Images Bria argues that a more European sovereign infrastructure ensures that “no external power can pull the plug on the EU’s digital backbone,” a risk if relations with the U.S. and China cool.  Europe has had promising pilot projects in all layers, but they have either failed to scale or were unsustainable in the long term.  The cloud is Europe’s biggest weakness. Cloud services act as the backbone for many public and business services and store sensitive data. Despite the Franco-German Gaia-X push to convince European companies to store data locally with European providers, the share of European cloud providers has consistently declined in recent years.  EuroStack advocates see that the tide can be turned only with sustained investment, guaranteed government demand, and unified rules on transferring and securing data.  Sebastiano Toffaletti, secretary-general of the Digital SME Alliance and one of the authors of a study on the EuroStack, claims that a Buy European Tech Act could be a decisive step toward a European cloud.  “Europe has plenty of industrial capacity that just needs to be federated,” he said.  “If the European companies were reassured that governments would buy from them, then they would immediately invest and overcome the fragmentation,” he said. The same goes for AI, he added. Sarah Knafo, a French far-right European lawmaker, suggested in a draft report for the European Parliament that governments should favor sourcing from European companies in some “strategic markets.” The Commission has separately recommended a “buy European” push for governments purchasing climate-friendly products. Cybersecurity entrepreneur Bert Hubert, who has advised the Dutch government, said “it is madness to continue transferring the running of European societies and governments to American clouds,” according to a February blog post. U.S.-based companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are leading the artificial intelligence revolution. | Pau Barrena/Getty Images Axel Voss, a German center-right member of Parliament, echoed this, telling POLITICO that “we do not have a reliable U.S. partner any longer” and that Europe should develop its own “sovereign AI and secure cloud” in response. PRICE TAG The EU executive has started picking up the pleas for more sovereign European tech, especially in AI. Boosting AI computing capacity in Europe has been one of the Commission’s key objectives. Virkkunen in December announced up to €2 billion in investment in seven European sites. The U.S. immediately dwarfed that amount by promising a $500 billion AI hardware plan in January. In response, the EU made an attempt in February to mobilize €200 billion for AI hardware from private investors, companies, EU countries and its own funds. The size of the investment needed is likely the biggest hurdle for building a European tech infrastructure. AI hardware is only one of the three layers needed for a sovereign European tech infrastructure. Bria points to a €300 billion price tag for building out the EuroStack over the next 10 years, as estimated in a recent study commissioned by the Bertelsmann Stiftung think tank. U.S. trade group Chamber of Progress, which includes several U.S. Big Tech companies, estimates that the full cost would be much higher, over €5 trillion. That could be too heavy a burden on the EU budget and financial capacity at a time when hundreds of billions of euros are already flowing to boost defense capacity.