Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on National Energy System Operator and summer blackout risks

Just ask the question. Yes.

12:51

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Here, Mr. Speaker. Don't worry. On the 7th of July, the shadow Secretary of State wrote to the Secretary of State wrote to the government alleging practices of poor information handling and interference in operational interference in operational decision making in the control room. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, the government takes this issue incredibly seriously. Since the allegations came to light, we have been engaging with Nisa and Ofgem to establish the facts. Both myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have spoken to the chief executive of Niso.

Niso has now appointed an external legal firm to conduct a full investigation into the claims, with a report to be delivered to the board's head of risk and controls and to Ofgem in the coming weeks. The legal firm will interview members of the control room without any other official employees being present. Niso has already responded publicly that all operational decisions are taken solely by operational, authorised operational control room personnel and that Niso does not instruct employees to avoid retaining records.

We will work closely with Ofgem to monitor both the progress and the outcome of the investigation. However, it would be wrong to pre-empt that outcome and the investigation must be allowed to run its course. I do, however, Mr Speaker want to make it very clear that during this period of unprecedented extreme heat, the Great British Grid remains stable. No customers were impacted by tight electricity margins, and Niso had a number of tools available to them to ensure our energy security. Great Britain has one of the most resilient energy systems in the world, and the government works closely with Niso and the wider sector to ensure that this resilience is constantly maintained.

Market notices, such as those that were issued by Niso during the heat waves, are standard operational tools that can be used to support energy security, and these were used successfully to maintain grid stability. However, it is important to acknowledge that extreme heat events, such as those experienced this summer, are likely to occur more frequently as our climate continues to change. My department will continue to work with Niso and Ofgem to identify any lessons from these events, and to work to ensure our electricity system remains resilient in the future.

Ofgem, as the independent regulator, are also working with Niso to initiate a formal review of events during the June heat wave. I welcome this important transparency and look forward to working with Niso with Ofgem to take forward the lessons learned.

12:54

Rt Hon Claire Coutinho MP (East Surrey, Conservative)

- -

Claire Coutinho Shadow Secretary of State. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Control room operators at the National Energy System Operator have the life or death job of balancing our electricity supply and demand. If they don't get it right, we will have blackouts. And right, we will have blackouts. And in blackouts people die. It is that serious. Which makes what I'm about to say all the more extraordinary. I've been approached by multiple whistleblowers within our grid operator. The allegations are that first, on the 23rd of June, the operator failed to meet the grid security standards put in place to prevent blackouts.

Second, that the corporate affairs team interfered with operational decisions. That is not something that the Minister denied. Putting the reputation of the operator above security of supply. And third, that operational decisions are being recorded in live documents with no audit trail. Again, something the Minister did not deny. I first raised questions on the 2nd of June. Since then, we have had three public electricity margin notices, warnings to the market that we may be short on supply. I cannot stress enough that this is completely unprecedented.

Multiple whistleblowers have now come forward. This too is unprecedented. I've raised this twice now in the House. And despite the seriousness of the allegations. Shockingly, on both occasions, the government dismissed me as scaremongering, considering the consequences of blackouts to people's lives. This is nothing short of a disgrace. The Nyiso has now agreed to do an external independent investigation. This is positive. However, whilst the government washes its hands of this situation, the investigation that has been set up is a complete sham.

It will not look into whether or not the grid is being run securely, or whether there is a breach of security standards on the 23rd of June. It does not grant anonymity to any control room operator who wants to come forward. Those who are not selected by Nyiso management will have to ask those managers to participate if they have concerns. And remarkably, the chief executive of Nyiso on an all staff call on Monday prejudged the outcome of the investigation by calling the allegations false, whilst senior management said the whistleblowers had let them down.

Let me be clear the whistleblowers who've put the national interest over their own careers should be celebrated for their courage and their integrity, not denigrated. So will the government finally get a grip on this? And can the Minister guarantee that every single control room operator who wants to share

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their concerns will be given the opportunity to do this anonymously? Can I just remind the frontbench?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just remind the frontbench? Nothing personal. Far from it. But you've only got two minutes. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

please, we can try and stick to the rules. It's very hard when we can't. And thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Firstly,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, can I just reiterate what I said at the beginning of the statement that the Shadow Secretary of State raised these concerns. Whistleblowers that have been in touch with her for the first time at DESNZ Oral Questions. I

12:57

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

responded to her in that oral question session to say if she had details, she should share them with the department. She. She did that the department. She. She did that and we have subsequently from that taken this matter incredibly seriously, and a process has been put in place to conduct an independent review to take into account the information that she has shared. If there is more information that she has from other subsequent whistleblowers, I'm sure she'll share that with us. We take this very seriously so nobody is this very seriously so nobody is washing their hands of this matter at all.

What I have said to her before, though, is that she is conflating two things I think wilfully, in fact, which is firstly, to say that there are questions to be raised that have been raised with her by whistleblowers, which we absolutely will now investigate. But secondly, she then suggests that the electricity grid was in a state in which blackouts were imminent, which is simply not the case. I would just gently say to her that it is absolutely irresponsible in this place and on social media, to suggest that our energy system was at risk in recent periods.

Electricity margin notices are a standard tool. I do not have time, Mr. Speaker. My answer to read all of the dates at which electricity margin notices were issued under the previous government, but I can tell you that they are a standard tool that has been deployed a number of times in the past, and I think we all have a duty to be careful about our words in this House. And ramping up the rhetoric does not get to the facts that we both share an interest in understanding.

So I say that point first of all, Mr. Speaker. Secondly, can I just share the comments she made at the beginning about the absolutely critical role that the operators in the control room play every day? I was privileged to to visit the control room in this role and to see the job that they do. They have an enormous amount of responsibility on their shoulders. That is partly why we should recognise how seriously they take their role, and partly why this investigation that is being taken independently from the soul is so important to uncover the facts.

I would just say the terms of reference have been published and are available on Ofgem's website, and it states very clearly interviews with power system managers and other control room personnel who worked on shift during that period of time. It will be interviewed and it is right and proper that that is the case. If there are other personnel that have a insight into this. It has been confirmed that they will be able to come forward and be part of that interview process, so we can establish all of the facts.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would just finish this point by saying we take these allegations incredibly seriously, but it is right and proper, as I think everyone in this House would expect, that we then wait for the outcome of an inquiry, which will take a matter of weeks to establish the full facts of this matter, so that we can put in place any additional learning from it, but also so that we can continue to ensure that the country has confidence that our energy system is resilient.

We met the electricity demand on every single one of the days in question. I do not for a second doubt that it was difficult on some of those days, as it was across all of Europe. The answer to that is to invest further in the stability of the grid and to tackle. I have to say, fundamentally the question of why our temperatures are rising year after year after year, which is climate change. Those are two fundamental issues that if she genuinely believes in the long term impact of what is happening, I hope she will change course herself and support the policies that would tackle this.

But in the meantime, we will take this issue seriously. We will investigate all allegations that come forward to us to ensure the confidence in the energy system, and that it is operating exactly as we would expect it to do. Committee.

13:00

Bill Esterson MP (Sefton Central, Labour)

- -

Thank you. >> Mr. Speaker. >> The Energy Select Committee heard from Claire Dictor, who is the director of strategy and policy the director of strategy and policy at Neso. Last week, she told us that operational decisions are taken by authorised trained personnel only. Her comments were confirmed by Alastair Martin, who is the chief strategy officer at Flexi Tricity, in the same session, who said I do not think the idea that the head office at Neso told the control room what to do is plausible.

Does the Minister agree that it is really important for public reassurance, especially in a time of threats to energy security, that the line is not crossed in any way between what is properly evidenced security on the one hand, and conjecture on the basis of rumour, which is verging on scaremongering on the other.

13:01

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Yes, >> Yes, >> Minister. >> I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. First of all, I would, just, as I say a moment ago, just, as I say a moment ago, reiterate the fact that they are incredibly skilled staff who work in the control room 24 over seven in the control room 24 over seven to make sure that we are balancing our electricity demand and supply across the country, and have done so without any disruption to that supply whatsoever. And I pay tribute to the work that they do.

And what I commented on in the past, in terms of the shadow Secretary of State, was not that the allegations that have come forward today are somehow scaremongering. Whistleblowers have raised concerns. It is right and proper that we fully investigate those and we will absolutely do that. But it is scaremongering to take to social media and in this House and to somehow imply that we were close to blackouts, which is simply not the case. I do think we have a responsibility in this House not to simply ratchet up the rhetoric in order to get some retweets on Twitter, but to take seriously the job of balancing our energy system as we did every single day.

And Neso has confirmed that. spokesperson.

13:02

Mr Will Forster MP (Woking, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These allegations are extremely serious. If it is true that Neso bosses instructed control room staff to conceal evidence of grid grid instability from public scrutiny, it would be a shocking breach of it would be a shocking breach of trust from a taxpayer owned body. The investigation must be genuinely independent and its full findings must be published openly, not quietly Fylde away. But let's also be clear this is not a verdict on renewables as much as science denying climate change sceptics wish to to push.

It's a warning sign that our grid is straining under record heat. Ageing gas plants are failing, and years of underinvestment in storage and capacity. The government must get very serious about grid resilience. Will the Minister guarantee protection for those who have come forward and fully commit to to a genuinely arm length investigation and guarantee full transparency on its findings?

13:03

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Minister. a number of important points. The terms of reference are available on on Ofgem's website for the inquiry that has commissioned an independent law firm to carry out. They will carry out interviews with staff who were in the control room staff who were in the control room that day to get to the bottom of the allegations that have been made, because it is right that we take those incredibly seriously. Transparency will be important as part of that. But I would also say that if there are lessons to learn, it is also critical that we very quickly implement those lessons to learn.

Initial has already said, and the inquiry will discover further detail on this, but that corporate affairs staff are present in the control room at a number of times, but that they do not interfere in any way with operational decisions. I think, obviously, this inquiry will get to the bottom of what the operators views are on that, but that is the point that they have made in recent days. On the wider point he raises, I agree with them. It is important that we recognise grid stability is absolutely foundational to everything in our energy system.

That is why we are investing record amounts in upgrading the grid so that it is resilient for the future. It is also why we are looking at how we. As he rightly says, invest in things like storage so that we are able to store renewable energy that we're generating for when we absolutely need it, so that we have more tools at our disposal at moments of tight margins like this. But I would just reiterate the point that I said at the in a number of my other answers, Mr.

Speaker, that although at times frequency moved outside the normal operating range, it never moved outside of the statutory limits, we met demand for all customers. There was no disruption for customers at all. And that is an important fact that is borne out by all of the data that has already been published, but that does not take away from the fact that if we have lessons to learn from that instance, we will absolutely learn them.

13:05

Mr Toby Perkins MP (Chesterfield, Labour)

- -

The Environmental Audit Toby Perkins. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Speaker. I commend the approach taken by my hon. Friend is absolutely right that these absolutely right that these allegations are incredibly serious and that it is crucially important, not only that there is a full investigation, but that it is seen to be independent and that people can have confidence in that investigation. But he's also right to to express the difference between the concerns that are raised by those whistleblowers.

And any suggestion that our grid is currently about to lead to blackouts. Does he agree with me that whilst it is absolutely true that one of the terrible legacies this government got from the previous government was a grid that had been woefully underinvested in for a very long period in time, and that there is a substantial need for investment in the grid in order to achieve the energy ambitions that we have, but that that shouldn't be allowed to be conflated with the suggestion that the lights are about to go out.

And so can he give confidence to my constituents going into this summer that nito have given him all the assurances he needs that there will be no blackouts?

13:06

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Minister. Yes. he framed it. He's absolutely right to say these are incredibly serious allegations, and we take them with the seriousness that that they the seriousness that that they should be taken with any lessons learned. We will absolutely take on board. But I would also just pick up the other point he made about the importance of grid investment. We did inherit a grid that was in dire need of investment, but also one that had not been built to the full needs of the generation that had been built for many, many years, but not connected.

And therefore, we are currently constraining renewable energy that has been built over the past few years because it had not been connected into the grid. So we are doing that work to make sure the grid can continue to to do what it needs to do. On his final point, let me just say, Mr. Speaker, very clearly that electricity supplies were maintained throughout the June heat wave. No customer demand was disconnected. Statutory frequency limits were maintained throughout the whole event, and the largest credible loss that could have occurred was also covered.

And it is worth just being really clear about what we mean by the margin. In this case, the margin represents the cushion of spare generation above the peak peak demand that is maintained by Nyiso. And at no point did we come close to breaching that. It did not indicate any kind of emergency situation. Demand was met and those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, sir.

13:07

Rt Hon Sir Oliver Dowden MP (Hertsmere, Conservative)

- -

Oliver Dowden thank. >> Oliver Dowden thank. >> You, Mr. Speaker. When I was in government, we conducted one of the largest exercises ever called exercise Mighty Oak, involving more than 4000 people testing the effect of a power outage. And it demonstrated this cascaded very rapidly and affected very rapidly water supply, transport and other public services. Can the Minister confirm that he has had the opportunity to read the findings from that and update the House on where the government is in implementing its recommendations?

13:08

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Can I pay tribute to the right >> Can I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and all those who were involved in Operation Mighty Oak? It was an incredibly important exercise. I was not aware of it at exercise. I was not aware of it at all until I came into this job and read the full report, but also the breakdown of all the actions that had been started under his time in office and continued by officials. Now is a really important exercise. And he is right.

The cascading impacts of a national power outage are extraordinary and very quick, and that is why we are, first of all, investing in the grid to make sure that that remains a very low risk on the national risk register. But secondly, taking forward all of the actions. I do not have the detail in front of me, but there are very few of the actions that remain open. Most of them have now been completed. And what we are also doing across government is continuing doing on a much smaller scale exercises to make sure that Ministers are prepared and that we continue to keep on top of the actions, because these are not one time events.

The water industry that he rightly references have to continue to to look at preparedness. That is the wider work we are taking forward on resilience. But it is a really important exercise. Speaker.

13:09

Ms Polly Billington MP (East Thanet, Labour)

- -

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming to the House and providing that clarity and providing that clarity and reassurance that these allegations will be taken seriously. But does he also agree with me that, alongside transparency of this process also comes along the need for responsible reporting and a responsible opposition? Because actually the electricity margin notices are a standard tool that Nieto has used for many years, including when the opposition was in government.

13:09

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Yes, I agree with. repeating myself. Electricity supplies were maintained throughout this period. Tight margins were caused by unprecedented warm weather, as I think we can all testify, having lived through it in that week. And we were not alone in this. Other European countries were facing similar challenges and similar pressures on their electricity system because of the extreme weather. I would just everything we can to prevent that extreme weather becoming even more frequent than it is at the moment, and I hope we will rebuild some of the consensus on that.

She is right to say that the margin notices are a standard operational tool. It means that although there is enough generation available on the system to meet demand, Nisa would like to have an even bigger cushion on that generation. That is what the electricity margin notices are for. They were withdrawn because that that generation was met, and at no point were any customers disconnected. Speaker.

13:10

Richard Tice MP (Boston and Skegness, Reform UK)

- -

There is complete chaos at the National Energy Systems Operator. Complete chaos. Whistleblowers are Complete chaos. Whistleblowers are phoning, phoning politicians, expressing their concerns about blackouts. Independent investigators have had to be appointed, and they had to cut the interconnector for exports without notice in order to guarantee supplies. I wrote to the chief executive, Finton Sly, two weeks ago. I have had no reply to my detailed question. There is an arrogance and complacency by the Minister. Can he guarantee that there will be no blackouts? Does he have complete confidence in the chief executive? Absolutely.

And will this independent investigation be published for us all to see?

13:11

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Hear, hear. Minister. Thank you. it is right and proper. We are here talking about this issue, but I can assure him there is absolutely no complacency in the part of me or the government. I take my responsibilities incredibly seriously, as does Nizoral and as does Ofgem as the operator, and I think he should just be careful of his language on an issue as serious as this. And he shouts from a sedentary position about blackouts. That's exactly the point I'm making, Mr. Speaker.

This is irresponsible language. We are not in a debate across the House. It is totally irresponsible. I am not sure how much more clearly, Mr. Speaker, I can say to the House, but I could point the hon. Gentleman to some reading material that has been published on the nature of what happened during that week. I have not denied at all that it was an extreme weather event that caused pressure on the grid, but at no times did frequency move outside of the normal operating range.

At no time did we not meet demand across the country. At no time were we close to disconnecting anyone from the system whatsoever. Far less any potential blackout, as he frequently likes to share on social media. We have a robust and resilient energy system that came under pressure, and it responded exactly as it should do. The allegations that have subsequently been made about how decisions were made that day are serious and will be taken seriously in the investigations, and we will learn any lessons that come from that.

That does not detract from the fact that we met electricity demand in every single one of the days that was under pressure, and he can dispute that all he wants. But it is a basic fact.

13:12

Dame Chi Onwurah MP (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, Labour)

- -

David Gilmour. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And it is right that an investigation into these allegations has been confirmed, and I welcome reassurances that the grid remains stable. As an electrical engineer, I have always been in awe of the work of the grid and the challenges it faces climate change, electrification, the demand of renewables, the amount of AI, cyber attacks. Could he set out what steps the previous government took, governments took, and their 14 year tenure to invest in a more resilient grid? And what steps this government has taken?

13:13

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Well. >> Can I thank my good friend, who frequently in the past two years have had the privilege of having this job, has has shared her experiences as an electrical engineer. And she's right. I'm also in awe of the grid and the work that the operators of it do day in, day out, to make sure we balance an extremely complex job of balancing supply and demand as they do 24 over seven. And I'm not going to get into what the previous government did or didn't do, but they didn't do enough.

I'm not saying they had no interest in this whatsoever, but there was clearly a long period of not enough investment in building the grid. We need for the future of maintaining the resilience, investing in ensuring that the grid was able to cope with these kind of weather events that we knew, we know are going to become much more frequent. There had to be that increased investment. That is why we are driving forward the biggest upgrade in the grid we've had in generations.

But the work that the operators do at night is also a critical part of that. The system is becoming more complex and that presents opportunities for us in terms of decentralised energy and much more renewable on the system. But it's more complex to manage as well. I am absolutely confident that they are able to do that, but this is a lessons learned exercise it.

13:14

Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)

- -

So, Julian Smith Mr. Speaker, I'm really. I'm really. >> Worried about. This question. >> We sat. >> Here last night talking about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here last night talking about honesty for public servants, and we voted on a on a bill. But as we've seen from my right hon. Friend the Shadow Secretary of State and from the hon. Member for Skegness, there are serious questions that have not been answered. We've got a chair of Nisa who has paid the equivalent of £230,000 a year. Can I ask if the Minister has met him recently? Could I ask about the whistleblowers who apparently were told by the chief executive yesterday that they had let down the company? And on the question that my right hon.

Friend asked about record keeping? What discussions has he had with NSO about whether she is correct?

13:15

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

We ask you a. >> We ask you a. >> Number of questions on the point around the governance of NI. So I do engage with the chair of Nisa, do engage with the chair of Nisa, but also with the government's independent director on on Niso and Niso is also regulated by Ofgem, who have responded in the last few days to their role scrutinising and governing the outcomes of this inquiry. As, as we would expect, Ofgem as the independent regulator, to do on on his wider points around documents.

I am not going to comment on a process that is now under way to establish the truth. The version of events that I have seen is that that is not the case, but clearly we are now doing an inquiry to establish if that is actually true or not around version control and sharing of documents and everything else. That is one of the key questions in the terms of reference. I would say to me, he is right to highlight the point around the bill that we voted on yesterday.

Transparency is important, and I am not seeking in any way to suggest we should not be transparent, but I am suggesting we need to let an inquiry run its course to establish the facts before we pass judgement.

13:16

Gareth Snell MP (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour )

- -

South Down. Central are used to just plugging something in and switching a switch and there being electrical power, but I think we can all accept that with the extreme weather becoming a bigger pattern in our in our yearly living, that these events may be more frequent in the future. So can I ask the Minister what conversations he's having with colleagues across government about those public education programmes to work out how we, as consumers, can do our little bit to help reduce demand at peak times, much like the water companies do when there's extreme heat.

And given that we have discussed this and the speculations and the whistleblowers who have come forward rightly do so on the floor of the House, can the Minister commit that once that independent inquiry has completed, that that report is also brought to the House so that we can discuss the outcome with the same prominent as we've discussed the speculation.

13:17

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Can I thank my hon. >> Friend for both of those questions? On the first, he's right that it is a good thing that the vast majority of public do not vast majority of public do not think about the electricity system at all. When they switch, whatever it is they want on or off. That is the system working as it should do. But he is also right. These extreme weather events are going to become more frequent in the years ahead, unfortunately, and we do need to respond to that.

So that is partly why we are investing in the grid. But it is wider point is around how much we talk to the public about resilience. We are quite an outlier in Europe in not engaging with the public regularly. On the question of how people can have personal and household resilience, whether it is in floods or in storm events or in any other incident. We are going to take forward work as a government to make sure that we are talking to the public much more about that, so that people are prepared for those circumstances.

They can take some control of being able to respond if it did occur. And on his final point, I will just say, when the report comes forward, it will be published, but I will absolutely commit to making sure that the House has a copy of that as well.

13:18

Mike Martin MP (Tunbridge Wells, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Mike Martin thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm curious about this mantra that there haven't been any blackouts over the past six months. Businesses in the Saint John's area of Tunbridge Wells have complained of blackouts. I surveyed my constituents who live in that area. 60% of them said that they had experienced some blackouts, obviously not long term ones, but intermittent blackouts. I wonder if the government could engage with me on on this particular issue and maybe give some guarantees to my constituents that this situation will be improved.

13:18

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we're probably. >> Slightly speaking, at cross-purposes. I think I suspect when the shadow Secretary of State refers to blackouts, she's meaning refers to blackouts, she's meaning a national power outage rather than than supply disruption, which does happen. I can't give a guarantee that there will never be some supply disruption, because there are faults in the system and things. Things will occur, which leads to temporary, temporary loss of supply. I am very happy to work with them, though, if it is a recurring issue, so that we can make sure that the local or the transmission owner is looking at particular faults.

If he writes to me with the details, I'll follow up.

13:19

Lizzi Collinge MP (Morecambe and Lunesdale, Labour)

- -

Lizzi Collinge thank you, Mr. Speaker. These are some very serious allegations, and it's right serious allegations, and it's right that they are investigated independently. And I think all of us urge Neso to have full candour. us urge Neso to have full candour. Grid stability is really important, and the recent heatwave shows the challenges that climate change brings and the importance of our clean energy transition. So does the Minister agree with me on the vital role that nuclear plays in providing stable baseload energy, in supporting that grid stability?

13:19

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> I congratulate my hon. Friend on on getting a question about nuclear into this. And she's absolutely right, and I agree with her 100%, as does the shadow Minister. I hear as does the shadow Minister. I hear it is one of those areas where I think we do have complete consensus, maybe not complete consensus, widespread consensus across the House. Nuclear is going to play a really critical part in our future energy needs. It provides that stable baseload power that runs on the system 24 over seven.

For decades, nuclear power that we build today could well be still operating by the end of this century. It is an extraordinary technology that we should be supporting and investing in as much as possible. That is why we are taking forward Sizewell C in Hinkley, but also why we have unlocked the SMR program and are delivering that at scale, and why we will take forward the reforms in the Fingleton review to make sure that we can build things even faster in Britain.

13:20

Sir Bernard Jenkin MP (Harwich and North Essex, Conservative)

- -

So, Bernard Jenkin. >> So, Bernard Jenkin. >> Mr. Speaker. >> Can I just point out that the very fact that he's at the despatch box answering this urgent question is itself an indictment of the confidence that not only the public, but also people working in Nyiso have in the resilience of the system. Can I also point out that there have been commentators for a decade or more warning about the risk to the security of supply because of the overreliance on intermittent renewables.

And yet, while we have learned that lesson in the Conservative Party and are determined to have a much more robust and secure electricity policy, why is the government doubling down on the risks they are creating? By rushing ahead with renewables vastly expensive grid investment, which would otherwise be unnecessary? And of course, these absurd and obscene constraint payments paid to wind farm operators who cannot feed their electricity into the grid and get paid for it anyway, costing billions of pounds to our customers.

13:21

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Yes, Minister. Speaker, but I'm sorry he's not happy to see me at the despatch box. I'm very happy to see him in his place. And this is an important question that I'm very happy to be here to, to answer on security of supply. Let me let me just say, first of all, yes, renewables are not going to be the entirety of our mix at all times. That is why nuclear is important as well. It is why storage is important so that we can store it for when we need it.

It's why our interconnectors to Europe are a critical part of this as well. But he said in his answer two things that I think show the problem with the logic of the Conservative Party at the moment. On the one hand, he is hearing a question about the resilience of our grid, saying we shouldn't invest in the future of the grid, the very thing that would lead to more issues with grid resilience. The hon. Gentleman just did. If you if you read back, I think you'll see he did.

And the second point he makes is rightly a challenge about constraint payments, which we should not be paying. But I would challenge him that if we had not built renewables without strategically planning where they were and the grid to connect them, we would not be paying that money. And I am sure it is his party who might want to reflect on exactly why that happened. We are fixing the problems we inherited. That involves investing in the grid.

13:22

Chris Vince MP (Harlow, Labour )

- -

Chris Vince thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I wish you a belated Happy Yorkshire Day for yesterday. Happy Yorkshire Day for yesterday. Didn't hear, didn't hear me at all. Can I thank the Minister for his answers so far and for the Shadow Minister for bringing this forward? This is a really important debate issue and one that we, the members of my constituent of Harlow will be keen is obviously dealt with. I think we would all reflect that as we move towards a more and more of reliance on technology, that grid connection, that grid grid resilience is, is, is hugely important.

So I wonder if the Minister could talk to me more about what he's doing to ensure we have grid resilience in Harlow in the east of England and across the UK.

13:23

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Minister Mr. Speaker, I thought >> Minister Mr. Speaker, I thought I'd almost got my hon. Friend that not mentioning Harlow in her question, but we got there. I'm afraid I can't give him a specific answer on the work we're doing on the grid in Harlow, but I can confirm we will absolutely be investing in ensuring the grid is as resilient as it can be for all his constituents in Harlow. And there are two things we are doing with the grid that really matter.

One is recognising the scale of investment that is necessary not just to connect renewables, but actually to connect the economic opportunities, the growth projects, the demand projects that need electricity that we need to be able to connect. We need the upgrade of the grid to do that. But secondly, we're also reforming the grid so that it works much more efficiently, reforming the connections. Q which got completely out of control under the previous government so that projects can connect so that businesses and households in his constituency can benefit from clean, cheap, secure, home grown power.

13:24

Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)

- -

Sir Julian Lewis. >> Sir Julian Lewis. >> I have some sympathy with. >> The minister's. >> Situation because this is a highly technical issue, and highly technical issue, and presumably he will have been briefed to deal with this urgent question by the senior management at Neso themselves, or at least they will have briefed the civil servants who briefed him. What's bothering me is the lack of independence. In this process, it appears that the senior management made an all staff call in which they denounced the whistleblowers as having let the company down.

From what the Minister said, it appears that the firm that is going to conduct the inquiry is an independent legal firm that is going to be paid by the senior management of Nisa. Would it not be better, from the point of view of objectivity and transparency, for Ofgem to engage whoever is going to conduct this inquiry, not the very people whose own careers would be on the line if the whistleblowers are vindicated.

13:25

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Their homework. >> Their homework. >> Minister well, first of all, I'm not going to comment on leaks from internal conversations that may or may not have happened. I wasn't in the I wasn't in the meeting, so I'm not going to comment on that. On his point about the independence. Look, I don't know Eversheds Sutherland, but I'm sure they would challenge his view that they're not independent. They've been they've been asked to carry out an independent review. The findings of that will report into the independent director on the board, and it will be shared with Ofgem and have committed to sharing it more widely.

If, as a result of that, there remain questions that that process hasn't answered, then clearly we will look at what further investigation is necessary. I take this incredibly seriously, and at the bottom of all this, it is not about trying to conclude some process. It's about trying to understand the concerns of the whistleblowers who have shared their information with the shadow Secretary of State, but not with me. And all I have seen is a summary of those points in a letter, a one page letter from the Shadow Secretary.

I have not seen the the detail of those allegations, and she has not shared those with the government. But we take it seriously. We have to get to the bottom of this and find the truth. And whatever is necessary to do that, we will do so.

13:26

Rachel Gilmour MP (Tiverton and Minehead, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Gilmore. perhaps should remind the House of my register of interests. I've been a member of the GMB trade union for 30 years, where I was greatly supported as a whistleblower, and I've just joined the Board of Whistleblowers UK. So with that in mind, what is the Minister doing to actively protect whistleblowers who come forward with serious concerns about both public and private organisations? And will the government heed Liberal Democrat calls to establish an office of the whistleblower to help, better help and protect these individuals?

13:27

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Minister well, first of all, whistleblowers are protected under whistleblowers are protected under legislation. Rightly so. That is important, and we have reiterated that to all those involved in this particular incident, that they are protected in law from from their employment, from being able to come forward with allegations. That has clearly now happened. But the inquiry should also protect their ability to speak about their engagement in all of this without any other staff present, so that their evidence can be compiled into the inquiry report without management being part of that process.

So I take your point very seriously on the second point about the office of the whistleblower. I am afraid it is not in my portfolio, but I will certainly pass it on to other Ministers.

13:27

Douglas Lumsden MP (Aberdeen South, Conservative)

- -

Thank you, deputy. Madam Speaker, this is a really worrying situation that perfectly highlights why we need an energy mix in our grid and in that energy mix, we need to have nuclear, as I mentioned before, but we also need to have gas to provide the inertia into our grid. So the people of Aberdeen South understand that. So does the Minister understand that? And is he concerned with the lack of inertia in our grid as we move to more and more intermittent sources?

13:28

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Yeah. are other tools that can be deployed in order to ensure that that is met and that is being taken forward. But secondly, I would also forward. But secondly, I would also say if he looks at the disruption caused by the weather, he would also see that a significant part of the issue, a significant part of the issue, was caused by gas power stations not being able to operate at full capacity because of the heat. So I'm afraid it is not quite the silver bullet.

He suggests to the House that it is.

13:28

Mark Garnier MP (Wyre Forest, Conservative)

- -

Mark Garnier. >> Mark Garnier. >> Madam Speaker, can I say my my self with the with the comments of my friend from New Forest East when he talks about the management of NI. So creating a hostile environment for for technicians in the in the distribution centres I too like him, have met these individuals in the control rooms and have nothing but admiration for them. So for them to be condemned as being as being enemies of the company by being whistleblowers is profoundly wrong.

But Madam Deputy Speaker, the. We've heard from other members, in particular the member from Tunbridge Wells, who was talking about a small blackout going on in his constituency, and the Minister brushed it off as being a little local problem. The reality of it is, at the moment we're using about 36GW of power. During the winter, we use around 45GW of power, and that's before we've electrified transportation. It's before we've invested a huge amount into data centres and artificial intelligence. These are indicators that the grid is not working.

A small black Adam Tunbridge Wells is an indicator that there could be blackouts in the future. So what is the Minister doing to try to resolve these problems?

13:29

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Minister. Speaker, I didn't brush anything off. I gave a very serious answer and said I would follow up with the individual distribution owner to resolve the issue. I said what I hope would be pretty obvious to everyone that there are faults on the system now and again that lead to temporary disruptions to supply in households and streets that are corrected by engineers who also do an incredible job and who I have huge admiration for, to fix things. That's the nature of the system.

I do not think we could ever have 100% in every single part of the system operating. I wish we could, but I didn't brush it off in the slightest. I am happy to look into the to the issue in his constituency if he wants to raise it with me. Secondly, he references. I don't know where this has come from. A hostile environment and enemies of the company. I have not said anything of the sort here. People have come forward with allegations and we are going to investigate them very seriously because we do appreciate the fact that they have an incredible skill and knowledge of what is going on in that control room, better than any of us, frankly, from the job they do day in, day out.

An independent inquiry will now interview them to establish the facts, and we should wait for those conclusions.

13:30

Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)

- -

Christopher Chope thank you, >> Christopher Chope thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Balancing the grid is really important, but why is the cost of so doing rising from about £1.5 billion a year to £10 billion by 2030?

13:31

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Well, first of all, there is investment that is necessary in order to bring down the costs in the long term. We are currently the long term. We are currently paying to constrain the renewables that are generating electricity day after day, often much, much more than we are able to actually get to homes and businesses. Instead of doing that, paying to turn off wind and turn up gas somewhere else in England to fill the gap, we should be building a transmission system that brings that clean power to households and businesses across the country.

That requires an initial investment, but that investment is repaid by the money long into the future of the virtually free fuel that comes from solar and wind. We built many, many projects under the previous government. I am very happy. Madam Deputy Speaker, to champion those projects. The problem is they did not connect them.

13:31

Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)

- -

Iqbal Mohamed Deputy Speaker. >> Iqbal Mohamed Deputy Speaker. >> And I welcome the minister's response so far, amidst the shocking allegations that staff shocking allegations that staff covered up the greater risks of power blackouts during the recent heatwave. But it's not just heatwave and climate change that is increasing demands for electricity. Artificial intelligence data centres are expanding rapidly across the UK and internationally, bringing with them significant demands not only for electricity, which is estimated to double globally by 2030, but also for water for cooling, land, construction and infrastructure.

Will the Minister set out what steps his department is taking to ensure that the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure does not compromise our energy security, increase the risk of supply shortages or blackouts, place unsustainable burdens on local infrastructure, or leave local communities bearing the costs while others reap the benefits.

13:32

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

We asked a number of important >> We asked a number of important questions about the role of data centres in the future of the country. I'd say, first of all, country. I'd say, first of all, there is a real opportunity if we get this right, and I take his challenge around properly planning where they go. Data centres actually are an opportunity to soak up some of what we're currently constraining, which will actually bring down bills. If we can deploy them in the right places, we get actually a greater a greater customer base for the electricity rather than consumers paying to switch off.

So that's the first thing. The second thing I'd say is, look, AI is a huge opportunity for us as a country to have the sovereign capability here in the UK is going to become increasingly important in the energy space.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is a real opportunity to You utilise AI to actually run the system in an even more the system in an even more efficient way? So he's right to say, we have to get this absolutely right so that local communities get the benefits, not any downsides. We the benefits, not any downsides. We are working through that in a data centre strategy with my colleagues in the Department for Science and Technology, and in the energy side, Technology, and in the energy side, we're working to make sure we're getting the best possible locations for those for the benefit of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

energy system and for consumers. Final question. Jim Shannon thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank the Minister, as always, for his

13:33

Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

answers and for his solution based responses as well? My constituents in Strangford. What's the development with absolute dread when everyday families and vulnerable pensioners are facing vulnerable pensioners are facing skyrocketing bills? The very least that they deserve is the truth about whether the lights are going to stay on this summer. Minister, to stay on this summer. Minister, given that the National Energy System Operator recently signed a System Operator recently signed a major partnership with the System Operator for Northern Ireland to deeply integrate our grids and balance system resilience, a crisis of integrity at the top of Nestle is a crisis for the whole United Kingdom network.

Can the Minister guarantee that these allegations will not undermine the energy security or the grid stability in Stafford.

13:34

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)

- -

Well, can I say, Madam Speaker, I'm disappointed in a Westminster I'm disappointed in a Westminster Hall debate today. I heard the hon. Gentleman was involved in wrapping some of his speech, and disappointingly, he didn't do a wrap in his question today. He's a man of many talents, but he's disappointed me in this fight. In this final week before recess. Can I say, first of all, he knows my answer, which I hope he never takes for me to, to, to, to be disinterested.

My answer always on the grid in in Northern Ireland is that that is a transferred power because there's an All Ireland grid. But he's right about the connections with and our interconnectors with Ireland and with Northern Ireland are an important part for balancing across the system. And when there was storms in Northern Ireland recently and generation was switched off, those interconnectors were vital. It's a really important partnership that we have, and the partnership between the two system operators is really important. So I'll take his points away.

13:35

Message from His Majesty The King

And that concludes the Urgent Question points of order will be Question points of order will be taken after the message from His Majesty. Order, order! The vice chamberlain of the household.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chamberlain of the household. I am to acquaint the house that I have a message from His Majesty the King to this house signed by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

His Majesty's own hand. Well done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Straight. Ashley Fox.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jen Craft.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jen Craft. His Majesty requests that consideration should be given by the House of Commons to the provision made by Parliament for the financial support of His Majesty and other members of the Royal Household, and to the arrangements to be made for the continuation of such support in the

13:36

Judith Cummins MP (Bradford South, Labour)

- -

reigns of his successors. His Majesty desires that the hereditary revenues of the Crown for any revenues of the Crown for any period for which such support is provided should be at the disposal of the House of Commons. In commending these matters to his faithful Commons, His Majesty relies on their attachment to his relies on their attachment to his person and family to adopt any such measures as may be suitable for the measures as may be suitable for the Stafford.

13:37

Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)

- -

Thank you very. >> Much, Madam Deputy Speaker, the leader of Surrey County Council wrote to the Department of Transport on the 27th of March with Transport on the 27th of March with serious concerns about the future funding arrangements for the A31 corridor scheme in my constituency. Despite my writing twice to the Secretary of State for transport and despite being told in response to a written parliamentary question on the 18th of May that government would respond as soon as possible. Nearly four months later, neither I nor Surrey County Council have had any response.

Can you therefore advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, what further avenues are available to me to secure a substantive response from that Department so that my constituents, Surrey County Council and all those affected by this scheme, can finally receive for?

13:37

Judith Cummins MP (Bradford South, Labour)

- -

Yeah, yeah. >> I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It is of utmost importance that Ministers provide importance that Ministers provide timely responses to members. The government frontbench will have heard his concerns, which I hope will be passed on to the relevant Minister. The hon. Member may also wish to raise this with the leader at business questions tomorrow. Who I know takes these matters, take these matters very seriously. Point Mierlo.

13:38

Freddie van Mierlo MP (Henley and Thame, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to seek your advice on whether the hon. Member for whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh South may have given an incomplete answer that risks being seen to mislead the House. In a response to a question on cuts to funding for the Science and Technology Facilities Council, the Minister noted that funding for Stfc has not been cut. It is only true that there are no cuts if you exclude funding for time sensitive projects. This has led to confusion amongst my own constituents who are affected by the cuts.

Madam Deputy Speaker, could you advise me on how 1st May seek to ensure Ministers communicate clearly on matters of such importance?

13:38

Judith Cummins MP (Bradford South, Labour)

- -

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that Ministers are responsible for the accuracy of their words in the chamber. If a mistake is made, I am sure a correction will be forthcoming. If the hon. Member wishes to probe the matter further, he may wish to seek alternative opportunities to question Ministers directly. The clerks in the Table Office can apply in further. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the King has signified his Royal assent to the following acts.

Supply and Appropriation Made Estimates Act 2026, taxation, Energy and Vehicles Act 2026, Steel Industry Nationalisation Act 2026, Cheltenham Borough Council Markets Cheltenham Borough Council Markets Act 2026. We now move on to the Act 2026. We now move on to the presentation of bills. I'll give the House a few moments for the front benches to change over and settle.

13:39

Royal Assent

I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That one. We now move on to the presentation of bills presentation

13:40

Presentation of Bills

13:42

Jim McMahon MP (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, Labour )

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that this House that leave be given to bring in a bill to permit stillbirth to be registered remotely in England and registered remotely in England and Wales and for connected purposes. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this Bill to the House today. This is a modest proposal. It is not about changing the legal definition of a stillbirth. It's not about creating a new bureaucracy or imposing additional burdens on public services, but it is about making a small change to an existing process that would make a meaningful difference to families experiencing one of the most devastating moments imaginable.

Every parent looks forward to welcoming a new baby into the world. No parent prepares themselves for the prospect of registering their child's stillbirth. Yet every year, around 2400 families in England and Wales experience that loss. On average, around seven babies are stillborn every day. Behind every one of those statistics is a family whose future has changed forever. The inspiration for this bill comes from my constituents, Cassie and Ryan Claydon from Chadderton and Oldham, who are here in the gallery today.

They experienced the devastating loss of their daughter Matilda at just 36 weeks and like every parent, they carried hopes, dreams and plans for their daughter that were suddenly taken away. They spoke to me about the grief they experience in the hours, the days and the weeks that followed and the grief that remains with them today. But alongside that, grief became something that need never have happened. Like all parents are stillborn babies in England and Wales, they were legally required to attend their local register office in person to register Matilda's stillbirth.

That requirement may seem administrative, it may appear routine, but for grieving parents, it can become another source of trauma. As Cassie described in her petition, the in-person requirement meant sitting amongst new parents blissfully registering their babies births. There, in a waiting room filled with celebration, we were engulfed in a contrasting wave of sorrow. This compounded our trauma during what was already the worst moment of our lives. Now, my constituency office is based at Chatterton Town Hall, and for many, they will experience the most significant moments in their lives in that building because it acts as a registrar's office and the main council venue for weddings and for citizenship ceremonies.

It holds an important place in the story of thousands of lives in our borough. I hear the joy from reception rooms and waiting visitors for weddings, and to register the birth of a new arrival. But I also recognise that for some, it's where they'll have to register the death of a loved one. But that's quite different than the loss of a child. When you're sitting in a waiting room with other newborns and their parents, I know that no law can remove the grief of losing a child, but surely the law should not make that grief even harder to bear.

The change that this bill proposes is straightforward. It would allow parents the option of registering a stillbirth remotely, either by telephone, by secure video appointment or another approved electronic process. More importantly, this would be an option, not an obligation many parents may still wish to attend in person, and they could continue to do so. But for others, they may wish to remain at home, surrounded by family and loved ones. Rather than travelling to the registrar's office at one of the darkest moments of their lives.

Now that choice should be theirs and theirs alone. And I should say this is not an untested innovation. In Scotland, parents already have been offered the option of registering stillbirth remotely. Registrars can conduct appointments by telephone or online, while maintaining all of the necessary safeguards and processes that are required. And the system works. It protects the integrity of the registrar's process while giving bereaved families greater compassion and flexibility. And if it can work in Scotland, there's every reason to believe it can work in England and Wales too.

Indeed, the principle is one that the government has increasingly embraced in other areas of public administration, with now many services moving online moved online by design. In fact, the Covid-19 pandemic Parliament recognised that requiring bereaved families to attend registrars in person was neither necessary or appropriate, and so temporary provisions were put in place to allow deaths and stillbirths to be registered remotely, with information being provided by telephone and other methods. Those temporary changes demonstrated the system can operate effectively without insisting that grieving families attend in person, and if remote registration was considered sufficiently robust during one of the greatest public health emergencies our country has faced in generations, then surely it can work today.

The pandemic showed us that when government needs to be flexible, it can be. The bill simply asks that we show the same flexibility not because of a virus, but because of compassion. This bill simply asks that bereaved parents are afforded the same consideration at all times. And in preparing the bill, I've also been struck by the work of organisations such as Sands and Tommy's, who for decades have provided practical advice, counselling, support for families who are affected by pregnancy and baby loss.

They also work tirelessly to improve bereavement care and maternity services across the UK. Their work reminds us that support following baby loss is as much about that care and compassion as it is about clinical care. It's also about every interaction with families that go way beyond hospitals and local authorities. And government in itself really mean that we have to put people first, because we rightly talk in this House about trauma informed public services. But it's important that this registration process also reflects that.

And more broadly, I hope that this bill prompts us to reflect on how the state interacts with the citizens, because too often people are expected to navigate processes designed for another era that do not put people first. And I also hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it shows something quite special about our democratic process, because Cassie and Ryan first raised this issue with me in a constituency advised surgery at Royton Town Hall. They came as grieving parents who believed that something in a law could be kinder than it was today.

And because of our parliamentary democracy, constituents who raise those issues can see them being raised on the floor of the House of Commons and forming the official record here today. And I think there's something profoundly important about that. It demonstrates that Parliament is at its best when it listens carefully, responding thoughtfully and seeking practical improvements to people's lives. Now, this bill has cross-party support, and I know that not many ten minute rule bills make it into law, but I do hope that it's something that government can listen to and may well take forward for the sake of families like Cassie and Ryan.

And in the memory of Matilda, I commend this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill to the House. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as I of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no. I say aye. I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rushanara Ali. Anneliese Dodds. Maya Ellis. Carolyn Harris. Simon Hoare. Wera Hobhouse. Alicia Kearns. Hoare. Wera Hobhouse. Alicia Kearns. Uma Kumaran. Andy MacNae. Sarah Smith. Gareth Snell and myself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim McMahon. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Registration of births England

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Wales. Bill. Second Reading what day? Friday the 4th of September.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 4th of September. Friday the 4th of September. We now come to the general debate on Iran. I call the Minister to move. The Minister to move. Once he's in his place. Minister.

13:51

General debate: General Debate on Iran

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move the motion on the Order Paper. I welcome this opportunity to update the House on the latest developments in Iran, the Strait of Hormuz and the wider Middle East. But first, let me say,

13:51

Mr Calvin Bailey MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans and People) (Leyton and Wanstead, Labour)

- -

14:08

Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)

- -

14:24

Dr Jeevun Sandher MP (Loughborough, Labour)

- -

14:35

James MacCleary MP (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

- -

14:43

Brian Leishman MP (Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour)

- -

scale war with devastating consequences not just for the people of Iran, but for the wider Middle East region and, of course, for hundreds of millions more. With the economic and environmental the economic and environmental impacts reaching across the globe. By actively seeking to assert By actively seeking to assert unilateral US hegemony, the Trump administration is dragging the administration is dragging the Middle East and the wider world into a perilous situation is worsening by the day. It is abundantly clear that diplomacy and international law is in tatters.

We can see this by three recent developments. Firstly, the illegal and indiscriminate US Israeli 40 day long military bombardment of Iran. This was following the equally illegal and unwarranted 12 day long barrage of the country in June 2025, both launched when the Iranian government were sat around the negotiating table. Secondly, the rapid unravelling of the subsequent cease fire under Trump's maximalist attitude, with him having stopped the military campaign, his administration had started in the first place with no agreement or approval of it internationally.

And then US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declaring the launch of a campaign to systematically dismantle the International Criminal Court under the pretext that the global tribunal is interfering with US military and law enforcement operations and thereby threatening US sovereignty. There is no doubt we are entering a phase where the US feels emboldened, given short shrift to the basic tenets laid down in the UN charter and in international law. Iran is the arena to wage war at any time, all while demanding that independent and sovereign countries like the UK fall into step, providing direct support.

Without question, without the consideration of entering a protocol of diplomacy, then that is the abandonment of international law and basic humanitarian principles. Now, despite rhetoric on both sides of the conflict claiming some sort of major victory, the reality remains that Iran and primarily the beleaguered Iranian people, have suffered immense loss and devastation. While the Trump administration has clearly failed to achieve any of his constantly shifting objectives, we now witness a new cycle of a rapidly worsening, tit for tat military action, with the Islamic Republic government targeting commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and US assets in neighbouring countries and the US, they are launching blunt force bombardments, primarily of cities and areas along the southern coast, but also elsewhere in the country.

Innocent Iranian civilians are the casualties of war. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Trump administration, on the one hand, cites the illegality of Iran's attempt to exact a toll on the Strait of Hormuz. It is an international war. But also they talk about exacting their own 20% tariff of traffic through the strait. On the other side, this blatantly demonstrates the US imperialist aims regarding control of the Strait and the wider Persian Gulf. They are completely in line with the various recent stances the US has taken in regard to Venezuela, Greenland, the Panama Canal and even neighbouring Canada.

This should serve as a stark warning to all countries, particularly those attempting to appease Trump by accelerating their own militarisation in compliance with his diktats, as recently demonstrated in the NATO gathering in Turkey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the only reason that European defence spending is is growing is because of the president of the United States, because several presidents of the United States have demanded increased defence spending, and the current president has actually achieved it. But Europe really does have to increase its defence have to increase its defence spending. And since the first Trump presidency has almost increased it by 1 trillion.

But that had to be done. So I just wanted to clarify the hon. Gentleman, is he criticising Europe for doing what Donald Trump asked? Because Donald Trump is not the first U.S.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

president to demand more European defence spending. Thank you very much to the hon. Gentleman from the other side there. I think that Trump is absolutely I think that Trump is absolutely throwing his weight, his heft, his influence politically and militarily across various parts of militarily across various parts of the globe. I think he is, and his behaviour is in contravention of behaviour is in contravention of international law. I think it's heinous in the extreme, and I think he is a danger to the broadly speaking phrase of world peace.

There is no doubt about that. However, there are obviously, as we see in Ukraine, as we have seen in other parts of the world. For example, Kashmir is very much on the brink. We've seen mass displacement, ethnic cleansing of millions. The biggest humanitarian and may be wrong. And pardon me if I am wrong, but the biggest humanitarian disaster we have seen is in Sudan. So there are various bits of the world. I think when we amalgamate it all together, I can see, we see the world is on the brink, it's on the precipice.

I, I've often in this place as well quoted the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. I think we're now 85 seconds to midnight, the closest the world has ever been to annihilation. And a lot of that is down to environmental aspects, but it's also down to politics and politicians and political decisions that are made in various bits of the globe. I would like to think that international leadership would be to say no. And the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Gentleman for me, is well aware of my own position on on regard of military spending.

I think there are bigger priorities we have than that because we have a nation with crumbling infrastructure. We have 3.5 million people and rising using food banks. We have 14% of children in the United Kingdom that live in food insecurity. That's the things

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that are in my inbox. That's the things that I want to tackle. Well, I thank. and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and. Just building on the intervention across the chamber. Is it not as simple as this that in it not as simple as this that in recent years, while presidents have called on the European Union, countries and Britain to spend more countries and Britain to spend more on defence, we haven't, because America would fund the defence of the Western world. What we're the Western world. What we're seeing with President Trump is refusal to do that. What we're seeing is his willingness to look to other parts of the world to meet America's strategic interests.

And as a consequence, European countries are stepping up. But missing in this debate is a realisation by the Americans that they gain by playing a fair contribution to the defence of the West. What they are doing is not just burning their bridges with their allies, they are actually harming their own defence. And we in this chamber ought to be emphasised that we will invest in our defence, but we will also call out American behaviour where it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

harming alliances that actually endanger US security. Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend. He touches on something. I just want to expand a little bit further what he said there, as well as spending for defence, isn't just limited to weapons, drones, etc. etc. but what something that we've done and something that I regret that my Labour government has done that my Labour government has done has been the cuts to overseas development aid, which is very much an echo of what Donald Trump did with the US aid package as well, because obviously everyone with the most marginal minute bit of analysis appreciates that overseas development aid is an investment in other, more dangerous, volatile parts of the world to actually combat.

Another thing that is very much a hot political topic in this country at the moment, and that is immigration. So there are more than one way to, to spend to, to secure your borders. The UK must join the moral and principle calls for an immediate and lasting cease fire, to be followed by a swift resumption of negotiations. We must also openly denounce and separate ourselves from the Trump administration's dangerous and hypocritical tactics, specifically his willingness to initiate and pursue a legal wars while claiming to negotiate.

And above all, we must keep in our minds that the vast majority of Iranian people desire peace and wish to rebuild their shattered country. This devastating war has set back the vital efforts of, and the painstaking progress made by civil society and trade union activists who have been valiantly struggling to achieve genuine freedom and social justice and steer Iran towards a democratic, popular, fair and progressive transition. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker the future of Iran remains the sole preserve and remit of the long suffering and long struggling people of Iran themselves, and absolutely only them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gloucester Luke Evans. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to start by spending a and I'd like to start by spending a few minutes on the context of why we are having this debate, because, we are having this debate, because, of course, it was rushed in as an emergency process to have this debate cancelling down to opposition day debates that were opposition day debates that were going to be put in place. I was in the statement when the leader spoke about it, and I've listened very

14:53

Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)

- -

15:07

Chris Vince MP (Harlow, Labour )

- -

15:14

Brendan O'Hara MP (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber, Scottish National Party)

- -

Brendan O'Hara thank. too, would like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment and welcome him to his place. Call me naive, perhaps, but I honestly do believe that there is nobody. There is nobody in this chamber. For all their absenteeism and their manifest faults, who is a supporter of or an apologist for the regime in Tehran as a regime which has for decades sought to export its version of Islamic revolution across the world by organising and financing armed groups and militias while simultaneously being absolutely brutal in crushing any form of dissent from inside its own borders.

It was always a hope that one day the people of Iran, weary of the internal repression and worn down by the collapsing economy, would turn against the regime and overthrow those leaders and begin a new chapter in the history of that wonderful country. And there have been moments in recent years when we thought, indeed fervently hoped, that that could happen. And many of us here will remember the woman life freedom movement, which swept across Iran in late 2022, when those incredibly brave Iranian women took to the streets in their tens of thousands to protest against the murder of Mahsa Amini, the 22 year old Kurdish Iranian woman who died in police custody having been arrested for not public.

Those brave women and girls were soon joined by students, by workers, by members of ethnic and religious minority communities who had had enough of the subjugation of women, their oppression of minorities, the religious fundamentalism, the police brutality and the endemic government corruption. And so, to the cry of women, life, freedom, and in an act of incredible bravery and in deliberate defiance of the regime, they removed their headscarves. And of course, they knew that in so doing that that bravery would come at a huge personal cost to so many of them as individuals and to their families.

Because as professor and the director of the centre for Gender and Feminist Studies at the University of Paris said at the time, what these women were doing in Iran is a revolution. It is at least a cultural revolution. But it was a revolutionary act which could not be tolerated by the regime, and it was one which they punished the only way they know how, and that was with extreme violence. And in the immediate aftermath of those protests, hundreds of protesters were killed and thousands more were arrested.

Yes, in the short term, it cleared the streets. But no matter how the regime in Tehran may have wished, no amount of brutal repression was going to crush the dreams of millions of predominantly young Iranians. And it was only a matter of time before they took to the streets again. And they did so at the end of last year, December the 28th, 2025, and the biggest display of civil unrest since the 79 revolution. Millions of Iranians took to the streets.

They took to the streets amid a collapsing currency, soaring inflation, a deterioration in living standards and so much more. And it spread quickly to over 200 cities. And in the inevitable crackdown which followed, thousands of protesters were killed and the IRGC, using live ammunition, turned on and on protesters over two days of January the 8th and ninth. And in the days that followed, tens of thousands were arrested and there were reports verified reports of mass killings putting the death toll at upwards of 30,000.

The brutality of this Iranian regime is almost beyond comprehension. But the regime must have known that those popular uprisings were only going to become larger, and they were going to become more frequent. And the regime must have known that in late January, early February of this year, that is, the economy collapsed with their continued brutalisation of their women and girls, with the imposition of strict religious laws and the suppression of minorities, they must have known that the people of Iran had had enough, and that pressure was building.

And as sure as day follows night, the regime's grip on its population was loosening. But then, on the 28th of February, President Trump began his illegal war, and one of Trump's many and varied reasons for this massive aerial bombardment was, of course, to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. But this was the same President Trump who told us following the bombardment of 2025, that monumental damage was done to all nuclear sites in Iran. Obliteration is the accurate term, and his assessment was backed up by his Israeli allies, who announced, we significantly damaged nuclear program.

And I can also say we set it back by years. I repeat, years. Yet between them in the face of what was happening inside Iran, the United States and Israel took the decision to attack. And it was in that first wave of American attacks that 165 girls, aged between 7 and 12, were killed when a US bomb hit their school. When they were sitting in their classroom. And that same evening, Trump announced to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand.

I suspect that for many Iranians, particularly the parents of those dead children, freedom had never felt further away. And five months on from that initial attack, the freedom that was promised to them has turned out to be no more than a gimmicky soundbite. We suspected it might be, because what's become clear over the course of the last five months that despite this ill conceived, illegal war of choice, although it remains unclear if it was Trump's choice or Netanyahu's choice, there is no plan, there is no strategy, and there is no sign of an off ramp to bring this war to an end.

All this war seems to have achieved is to all but destroyed the civilian economy, thereby harming the very people that Trump said he was acting to liberate, while at the same time giving the regime in Tehran a huge strategic advantage, one which they are currently exploiting to great effect. And one would have thought one would have hoped and expected that someone in the White House when they were planning a scenario planning this attack, someone would have asked the obvious question, what will we do if the Iranians block the Strait of Hormuz? Unfortunately for the rest of the world, when it comes to someone so desperate to deflect and hide from a scandal or crisis at home, sometimes the bleeding obvious can become obscured because in response to that attack, the very first thing Iran did was to cut off the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most strategically important waterways in the world, leading to what the International Energy Agency described as being the largest supply distribution in the history of the global oil market.

Iran's response sent fuel prices rocketing and the cost of just about everything else, which relies on oil either for its manufacturing or its transportation soaring. And there is not a family anywhere in the United Kingdom who has not paid a direct price for Trump's reckless behaviour. And even if this war were to end tomorrow, the economic shock waves would continue for years to come. The European Central Bank recently warned that a prolonged conflict will likely trigger a period of stagflation, a period of low growth rates accompanied by inflation, and pushed major energy dependent economies, including Germany and Italy, into technical recession.

By the end of 2026. And yet, Madam Deputy Speaker, time and time again, Trump has told us since that initial attack back in February that in one form or another, Iran has been defeated, or that they are begging for a peace deal, or that the Strait of Hormuz is about to return to normal service. None of that has been true, and every ceasefire that has been brokered has collapsed within days, and the dire economic of dire economic consequences of Trump's war of choice continue.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him very much for giving way. And there is little in his analysis that I disagree with, including what I could generously including what I could generously call the maladroitness of the American response. But given the American response. But given the the human rights violations, the utter. The utter disdain that the utter. The utter disdain that the Tehran regime has not only for its own citizens, but citizens across the world, what does he think should be the correct response to a regime that is so brutal and so fundamentally different, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

outside the societal norms that I think he and I think are acceptable. I thank I thank the hon. Member for that question. And it's a difficult question to answer, because I'll tell you what should not have been done and what will not have been done and what will never work. You do not free people from oppression by indiscriminate from oppression by indiscriminate aerial bombardment. You do not free people by killing the people and people by killing the people and killing the children of the people.

You purport to be there to liberate. And of course, there are ways, there are ways in which any democratic country can support a freedom movement within a repressive, a repression regime, or a repressive regime. But what America has done with the Israeli allies is the absolute antithesis of what should be done, because all they have done is they have strengthened their regime. They have polarised the world, and they have irreparably damaged the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

movement for freedom within Iran. And I shall, of course. Brian Leishman thank you very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Brian Leishman thank you very much. Does the hon. Gentleman and I have to say I agree with everything that he said so far. He's making an that he said so far. He's making an excellent speech. Does he agree with me that Trump and therefore Netanyahu's actions are not born Netanyahu's actions are not born out of some sort of passion for liberation for the Iranian people. But really, it is a it's an imposition of imperialist forces. And with imperialism, therefore, naturally comes capitalism.

And its ordinary Iranian people that are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

congratulate. The hon. Gentleman for his usual

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman for his usual erudite explanation. And but but the point he is making is the point he is making is fundamentally correct. This was not done to assist and help liberate done to assist and help liberate the people of Iran from an oppressive theocracy. This was done oppressive theocracy. This was done because American security and American belief that they had some kind of God given right to the mineral wealth that was below the ground in the Middle East and beyond.

And that is what this war is about. It is not about liberation. And even yesterday, Trump announced that once he had U-turned for the zillionth time on his latest plan, he announced yesterday, we are going to knock, knock out all of their power plants. So even after all that has happened, even after all that this man has said, he is still planning to knock out power plants, the power plants that supply the electricity, that keep the lights on, and the houses of the people that he is supposedly determined to liberate.

And of course, we all know that targeting civilian infrastructure is a breach of international law. But sadly, as this year develops, what regard has either Trump or Netanyahu for international law? Madam Deputy Speaker this reckless and illegal action has set back the cause of human rights in Iran by decades. It has strengthened the position of the regime in Tehran, allowing it to portray itself as the victim rather than being made to account for its appalling human rights record.

America and its allies have sacrificed international law and have once again shown that their doctrine of might is right will somehow prevail. It has brought financial hardship to every single home, in every single community, in every single part of the United Kingdom. And for what? The world is less safe. The Iranian people are suffering more. And Epstein scandal has not gone away.

15:29

Deputy Speaker

Order, order! I will now announce the result of today's deferred divisions on the draft trade unions, permissible means of voting and employment rights. Unfair Dismissal Amendment Order 2026. The eyes are 330. The nose were 109. So the ayes have it. And the draft Code of Practice on electronic and workplace ballots for statutory trade union ballots. The eyes were 330. The nerves were 109. So the ayes have it. I now call Sir Alec Shelbrooke.

15:30

Rt Hon Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP (Wetherby and Easingwold, Conservative)

- -

15:53

Clive Jones MP (Wokingham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

cannot neglect our relationships with our European allies, and that with our European allies, and that we cannot rely on Trump driven by ego rather than diplomacy, Trump's ego rather than diplomacy, Trump's reckless strikes have undone weeks of negotiations with Iran and shattered hopes for a peaceful shattered hopes for a peaceful resolution. Most recently, President Trump has announced plans President Trump has announced plans to impose a 20% tax on shipping through the Straits of Hormuz before reversing course just a few hours later.

That proposal amounted to economic extortion, a flagrant violation of international law, and would have further increased costs for UK families already struggling with the cost of living. My constituents in Wokingham are feeling the effects. Rising instability in the streets is pushing up fuel prices at a time when household energy bills remain high. Will the Minister, therefore consider Liberal Democrat calls to cut fuel duty by £0.10 to reduce bus fares to £1, to cut rail fares by 10% and remove VAT on public electric vehicle charging.

I won't. If you don't mind, I'd like to carry on. Thanks. Iran's continued attacks on vessels in the Straits are fuelling instability. This conflict shows little sign of ending of ending. While Trump refuses to acknowledge that military escalation has failed and admit that he was wrong, his reckless and unpredictable approach should strengthen the government's resolve to deepen cooperation with our reliable European allies. That is why I urge the government to back the Liberal Democrats proposal for a new growth and defence partnership with the European Union.

Such a partnership would strengthen our economy, reinforce our security and help Britain respond more effectively to international crises. Finally, the government must do everything it can to encourage the United States and Iran to reform, to return to negotiations, restore stability in the Straits of Hormuz

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and work towards ending this devastating conflict. Yeah, no. Final backbench contribution.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Final backbench contribution. Gregory Stafford thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And before I start on the main topic, I before I start on the main topic, I just want to put my condolences on the record to the family and friends of Ann Widdecombe. I met Ann Widdecombe. The only time I think I met her was when I was a teenager, late teenager at the Oxford Union, and she was a, like Oxford Union, and she was a, like me, a former treasurer of the Oxford Union and as the hon.

Member for Wetherby and Easingwold mentioned, the Oxford Union, the King and Country debate as he

15:56

Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)

- -

16:12

Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)

- -

16:37

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

16:59

Motion: Motion to approve a Statutory Instrument relating to National Security

which were laid before this House on the 13th of July, be approved. on the 13th of July, be approved. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft instrument, which of this draft instrument, which will see three bodies the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the

16:59

Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister of State (Home Office) (Security) (Jointly with the Cabinet Office) (Wallasey, Labour)

- -

17:07

Matt Vickers MP (Stockton West, Conservative)

- -

exist for precisely this purpose. They're there to respond to hostile state activity and those who threaten our national security. It's right that they are now being used. That said, we have consistently argued that these powers should have been deployed sooner, particularly against the IRGC. We made the case repeatedly because the threat was clear. While it's disappointing it's taken this long, it's nevertheless welcome that action is now being taken against these organisations. As we've heard throughout today's debate. Iran continues to pose a serious threat to the United Kingdom.

It seeks to intimidate, to interfere, and to undermine our security, often through the use of proxies and affiliated organisations. That's why it's right that today's regulations do not focus solely on the IRGC itself. The Iranian regime does not operate through one organisation alone. It relies on a network of proxies to spread fear, conduct hostile activity and threaten those it regards as opponents. The Minister has already set out clearly why each of these organisations meets the test for designation, so I will not repeat those arguments, but it's important that we recognise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the danger they pose. I do thank him for giving me. I mean, it does say that he wished mean, it does say that he wished the government acted sooner. The act does not just get royal assent a week or two ago, I think. I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a week or two ago, I think. I think our Ministers acted very quickly indeed. Yeah yeah, yeah. We put in we put in place powers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We put in we put in place powers that assist in this. The first duty of any government is to keep the public safe, regardless of which party is in office. We introduced the National Security Act. The Minister and I have had many debates on this subject actually pushing for action. We've been clear and consistent that there should have been used much more quickly. If government are now doing what is necessary to protect the public, they will have our support.

National security should not be a political football. Groups such as the Islamic Movement, the Islamic Movement of Companions of the right demonstrate how quickly new organisations can emerge, often acting on behalf of hostile states while targeting people here in the United Kingdom. We know that their activities have included threats against dissidents and particularly hostile hostility towards Britain's Jewish community. That brings me to a wider point the rise of anti-Semitism we've seen in recent years is deeply disturbing. Jewish people in this country should never have to look over their shoulder because of who they are or what they believe.

Equally, those who have come to Britain to escape or Thurrock authoritarian regimes should be able to live here free from intimidation and fear. Protecting those communities is not optional. It's a fundamental responsibility of the state. These organisations, and those who support them, should face the full force of the law. Parliament has provided the powers. Now they must be used robustly. When the National Security Act was. Before this House, we spent a great deal of time scrutinising how these powers would work in practice.

We asked whether there were gaps in the legislation and whether hostile actors might find ways around them. I'd therefore be grateful if the Minister could reassure the House that the operation of these new powers is being kept under close review, that their effectiveness is being assessed, and that if weaknesses emerge, the government will not hesitate to act. But legislation alone will never be enough. The organisations we are dealing with today are driven by ideologies that reject everything this country stands for.

They seek to divide communities, spread hatred and undermine confidence in our democratic way of life. They do not believe in debate. They believe in intimidation. They do not persuade. They threaten. That is why our response has to be broader than enforcement alone. Of course, we need strong policing. Of course, we need capable intelligence agencies. Of course we need robust legislation. But we also need confidence in who we are as a country. We need to defend the values that unite us democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Those are not abstract ideas. They are the very things these organisations seek to attack. If we're serious about protecting our national security, we must do both relentlessly pursue those who threaten us while strengthening the resilience of the society they seek to undermine. That is why we support these regulations today. They're an important step, and they send a clear message that those acting on behalf of hostile states or supporting those who do, will find no safe haven in the United Kingdom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Al Carns thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As Russia becomes increasingly boxed in in Ukraine, increasingly boxed in in Ukraine, they look towards horizontal escalation. And I really welcome escalation. And I really welcome the announcement today and the move to prescribe some of these groups. IRGC, GRU, SVR, multiple different IRGC, GRU, SVR, multiple different organisations are seeking ways to undermine our democracy physical,

17:13

undermine our democracy physical, electronic, financial, diplomatic and a multitude of other avenues to try and undermine the right to self-determination. The centrality of democracy in the Western world, and importantly, the way in which we govern as we move towards an increasingly fractious and dangerous period of time with Russia and in the Middle East. Could I ask the Minister, in particular, in her summing up, what more we can do to really clamp down on Russian disinformation in particular, and indeed, hostile state disinformation on social media?

17:14

Al Carns MP (Birmingham Selly Oak, Labour)

- -

Democrat spokesperson James MacCleary. support these regulations. They are welcome. But of course, they are somewhat overdue. For years, we've argued that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should face much tougher action here in the United Kingdom. And despite successive governments recognising the threat, they did not act until now. And that is very welcome indeed. The IRGC is central to the

17:14

James MacCleary MP (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Iranian regime's repression at home and its destabilising, destabilising activities abroad. It is backed by proxy. It is backing is backed by proxy. It is backing proxy groups targeting assistance overseas, and poses a direct threat overseas, and poses a direct threat to people here in the UK. These new designation powers recognise that modern threats extend far beyond modern threats extend far beyond conventional warfare, espionage, cyber attacks, foreign interference and intimidation carried out on behalf of hostile states all threaten our national security.

I also recognise the designation and welcome the designation of the Islamic Movement of Companions of the right and the Russian GRU, so-called Volunteer Corps. However, designation alone is not enough. So can I ask the Minister to tell the House what additional resources are being provided to ensure these powers are properly enforced? How will the government identify and prosecute those acting on behalf of these organisations here in the UK? I also hope the Minister can say a bit more about protecting those most at risk members of Britain's Iranian diaspora and our Jewish communities deserve confidence that these measures will deliver real protection.

Finally, these regulations should form part of a wider strategy. Hostile states increasingly rely on cyber operations, disinformation and political interference. Britain must continue to strengthen our resilience and work and work closely with our allies to meet those threats. These regulations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are a welcome step, and the Liberal Democrats will support them. Final backbench contribution not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on a five minute speaking limit, but 60 minutes, it seems. Mark Stuart. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. 60 minutes to make 60 points. No, I will, I will I will speak very briefly today, will speak very briefly today, Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel I've already taken enough of the House's time on this particular issue, but time on this particular issue, but I did just want to speak briefly about the designation of the IRGC. The first thing I wanted to do was commend the government not only for bringing this legislation forward, but also designating the IRGC.

Almost as soon as the legislation received royal assent. And I would

17:16

Mark Sewards MP (Leeds South West and Morley, Labour)

- -

just gently say to the opposition spokesperson who said many things that I agreed with, but to talk about the length of time this has taken. It was delivered by a Labour government. It wasn't delivered by a conservative government, despite all of the time that they had in office. But that is the only party political point I'll seek to make today. Madam Deputy Speaker, we know. We know the IRGC. He tempts know. We know the IRGC. He tempts me, he tempts me.

But I'm not going to take the offer. We know the IRGC is a direct threat to the safety of the British Jewish community. We have known it for a long time and unfortunately, the evidence is stacked up. As the years have rolled on, we've seen ambulances set ablaze, Hatzolah ambulances set ablaze that served the whole community, not just the Jewish community. We've seen synagogues and community centres firebombed, and we've seen Jewish people stabbed on the streets of Golders Green. It is past time that we designate the IRGC as the threat to this country that they are.

And I am reminded, especially on today, of all days after the Prime Minister's final questions, that it was him who went to the Jewish community in April and made two promises one, that this legislation would be brought forward in the King's Speech and prioritised, and two, that he would use it to designate the IRGC. And I am so pleased that on today, of all days after his final Prime Minister's Questions session, he has fulfilled both promises. And. If you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just say that I am eternally grateful for the work that the Prime Minister did to transform my party.

I think back to 2019. I think back to the worst defeat that we had suffered since 1935. I think back to those feelings that I had in those moments of feeling my party may never come back, but he turned it round. He made us face the public, he rid us of the poison of anti-Semitism, and he delivered the second biggest majority in my party's history. And as I make the short journey over to the PLP office to nominate the Member for Makerfield to succeed our party, in the spirit of unifying behind our next leader.

Assuming this debate is done by 6 p.m. I do just want to place on record my personal thanks to the person who delivered this historic Labour majority and is directly responsible for my job and many of my colleagues job because, after all, serving as a member of Parliament is the greatest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

privilege in the world, and I'll always be grateful to him for that. Mr. Stewart, you've left many,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Stewart, you've left many, many minutes on the clock for a change. Minister. Marie Eagle.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change. Minister. Marie Eagle. Very much. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm tempted to say hold my beer. If I'm tempted to say hold my beer. If there's 50 minutes left, but I suspect that many people will want to have their beers elsewhere in

17:19

Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister of State (Home Office) (Security) (Jointly with the Cabinet Office) (Wallasey, Labour)

- -

17:31

Adjournment: A1 in North Northumberland constituency

17:47

John Lamont MP (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Conservative)

- -

United Kingdom's most important strategic routes linking London, the north east of England and the the north east of England and the south east of Scotland and beyond. For my constituents in the Scottish Borders, the A1 is a vital economic Borders, the A1 is a vital economic and social artery. It connects communities in eastern borders with communities in eastern borders with Newcastle, Edinburgh and the wider national transport network. It is used every day by people travelling used every day by people travelling to work, attending hospital appointments, visiting family and transporting goods.

Yet large stretches of the A1 through Northumberland and the Scottish Borders remain single carriageway. That is simply not good enough for a road of such national importance. The last conservative government approved plans to dual 13 miles of A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham. Those improvements would have created a continuous dual carriageway from Newcastle to Ellingham, improving journey times, strengthening, strengthening connectivity and, most importantly, making the road significantly safer. It was therefore deeply disappointing that the Labour government cancelled the scheme shortly after taking office.

Years of planning had taken place, developed development consent had been granted and tens of millions of pounds, tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers money had already been spent. The decision to abandon the project was short sighted. Businesses do not recognise the border between England and Scotland when they make investment decisions or move goods around the country. The failure to properly invest and improve the A1 in Northumberland has a direct impact on businesses, workers and families. In my constituency in the Scottish Borders.

Too often debates about transport investment focus on major cities, rural and cross-border communities are expected to tolerate slower, less reliable and less safe infrastructure. That imbalance must be readdressed. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to not just focus my my frustration about this road, the A1 on the UK government, the Scottish Government which is responsible for the A1 on my side of the border, is equally responsible because they have responsibility for roads investment and they have also failed, significantly failed to invest in the A1, in the Scottish Borders, in Berwickshire and accidents, serious accidents happen which caused serious significant diversions through very small rural communities, upsetting local residents all too frequently.

And there's also great concerns about some of the junctions on the A1, particularly around Reston, where local campaigners have been campaigning for years. I pay tribute to to Barry Forrest from from Reston and the team there, the community council, who have been campaigning for the A1 junction at rest in Coldingham to be improved because they rightly identify that as being a safety concern. And so the Scottish Government need to play their part in improving this important road as well. Upgrading the A1 would support tourism, agriculture, manufacturing and the many small businesses that form the backbone of the economies of Northumberland and the Scottish Borders.

It would improve access to jobs and services and help unlock investment across the wider region. There is also an overwhelming safety argument, as we have heard already from the Member for North Northumberland, anyone who regularly travels along the single carriageway sections of the A1 understands the risks caused by heavy traffic, slow moving vehicles and the limited opportunities to overtake safely, minor alterations and isolated safety measures are not a substitute for the substantial upgrade this route requires. This should not be treated as an English project or a Scottish project.

It is a United Kingdom infrastructure project. Yes, we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Member for giving way. At that point, we might not agree on all things about the narrative of of what happened over the past decade, but I'm sure. Would he agree with me that as he seems to be saying, that these be saying, that these infrastructure projects are not just about day to day use, they are actually about what binds our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country together across the border. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I think part important point, and I think part of the reason why the Scottish Government and the SNP members are in this debate today, but part of the reason the Scottish Government are perhaps not invested in this road, in this route, because they see it as a road going to England. They perhaps invest in other parts of the Scottish transport network, maybe not ferries and maybe not the A9, but they they they make decisions to invest elsewhere.

But routes going to England undoubtedly don't get the share of the resources that they that they require. So this is undoubtedly a United Kingdom infrastructure project, which both governments should be investing in. So therefore conclude by urging the government to reconsider its decision not to go ahead with these improvement works. Restore the Morpeth to Ellingham scheme and to work with the Scottish Government to set out a credible long term plan to upgrade the A1 through Northumberland and the Scottish Borders. Our communities have waited long enough.

They deserve a road that is safe, reliable and fit for the purpose for the future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Simon Lightwood. Yes. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to be here once again with pleasure to be here once again with you in the chair to answer tonight's adjournment debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland for securing this debate and on the determined and constructive manner determined and constructive manner in which he has represented the views of his constituents on this issue. Can I also mention the issue. Can I also mention the persistent lobbying of my hon.

Friend the Member for Hexham and very, very recently, once again, the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth, who joins me on the front bench this evening, have all lobbied for action on the A1. I recognise the strength of feeling locally about the safety of the A1, and I would like to acknowledge, of course, the tragic fatalities on the route. My thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and communities affected. I know that the future of the A1 has been a matter of significant local interest for many years.

It is a subject on which members from across Northumberland have campaigned vigorously, and I fully recognise the importance attached

17:53

Simon Lightwood MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wakefield and Rothwell, Labour )

- -

11:00

Oral questions: Scotland

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page