Middle East

Luke Myer Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are obviously discussing all matters with the US, all the time. I am absolutely clear what our plan is, and what the basis for our decisions is, and I have set them out to the House.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Our primary duty at this time must be to ensure the safety of British nationals in the region—people like my constituents the Foreman family, who are trapped abroad and do not know when they will be able to come home. Their father’s medication runs out today, and they have no idea whether they will be able to obtain more drugs. What assurance will the Prime Minister provide that consular support will be there for families like my constituents, so that they get the medication they need and, ideally, come home as soon as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking every step we can to ensure that these people have the support they need. That includes the steps taken over the course of this weekend.

Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy

Luke Myer Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 744215 relating to Russian influence on UK politics and democracy.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. In preparation for leading this debate, I met experts and researchers; I also spoke to Alex, the organiser of today’s petition. I thank everyone who took the time to speak with me, I thank the diligent staff of the Petitions Committee for their support in organising those meetings, and I thank the 114,704 signatories to the petition, who have brought this critical issue to the attention of the House.

I know that the Government have already commissioned an urgent review of foreign financial interference in UK politics, led by Philip Rycroft. That is extremely welcome, and I applaud the Government for doing it, but I want to make a clear distinction. Financial interference is just one way in which the Kremlin meddles in our democracy; there are other ways as well. The petition calls for a public inquiry into all Russian interference in our politics. Such an inquiry should be broad, covering all aspects of Russian interference. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to address that in his response.

From my discussion with Alex, I also know that the petition was inspired by events including the conviction of Reform’s former leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, and concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum and Boris Johnson’s close personal relationship with Evgeny Lebedev, a man whom Boris Johnson elevated to the other place and the son of a “former” KGB officer.

I strongly believe in looking for solutions and looking forward, not back, but it is clear to me that the petitioners are deeply concerned about past events. With that in mind, I will start by talking about some of those events and outline how we have reached this point, to explain why the petitioners are so deeply concerned. We then need to talk about the state of play today. Where are our weaknesses? Where are our vulnerabilities to Russian interference? How is the Russian state already meddling in our democracy? Finally, we need to talk about solutions. What can the Government do to mend and protect trust in British politics?

I will start with Nathan Gill. The fact that the petition received so many signatures in Welsh constituencies should tell us that the crimes of Reform’s former leader in Wales were a major cause for concern for all petitioners. Nathan Gill is currently serving a 10-and-a-half-year sentence for taking, at the very least, £40,000 in Russian bribes. Now, £40,000 is a huge amount of money, but I ask hon. Members: is it enough to betray your country? I suggest not. Perhaps Mr Gill’s political leanings were already closer to the Kremlin’s than those of the rest of us.

For the sum of £40,000, Nathan Gill gave TV interviews in favour of an ally of Vladimir Putin and made speeches in the European Parliament. Spouting pro-Russian talking points is not new for Reform politicians: Nathan Gill’s boss, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), blamed the EU and NATO for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, said that the west had “provoked” the invasion and described Putin as the world leader he most admired. It seems that Reform politicians are comfortable doing the Kremlin’s dirty work for it, regardless of whether they get paid for the privilege. Maybe Russia should have asked Mr Gill to betray his country for free. It may as well have saved £40,000.

The problem spreads further and higher than Reform, however. The former Prime Minister Boris Johnson has serious questions to answer about his relationship with Lord Lebedev, whose father was a KGB officer. There is, as they say, no such thing as a former KGB officer. In April 2018, when Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary, he visited Alexander Lebedev’s Italian villa, a location allegedly being investigated for use in spying. He did so without his officials and travelled to Lebedev’s villa directly from a NATO summit. We were told by the former Prime Minister that

“no Government business was discussed.”

We have only his word for that. I will let hon. Members make up their own mind about how much trust should be placed in the former Prime Minister’s words.

In 2021, Italy’s foreign intelligence agency wrote to the Italian Prime Minister to report that Lord Lebedev’s father

“enjoyed the favour and friendship of Vladimir Putin”

and continued to attend KGB meetings in Moscow. The House of Lords Appointments Commission raised concerns about “significant potential risks” from Lord Lebedev’s “familial links”, but thanks to the former Conservative Prime Minister, this man now sits in the other place, with all the access and credibility that that place imparts, not to mention the ability to make decisions about the direction of our country.

Where do we stand now? I found my conversations with various experts extremely helpful in answering that question, and the points that I am about to make owe a huge amount to them.

First, our defences against money as a vector for political persuasion and control are insufficient. The case of Nathan Gill proves that. Although we should be pleased and relieved that Mr Gill was caught and punished, the damage was already done. Appropriate systems must be put in place to prevent any recurrence of his treachery. Some experts mentioned concerns that Russian money is used to fund think-tank reports in Britain. I ask the Minister whether the Government will consider mandating that all UK-based think-tanks declare their funding.

Critically, cryptocurrencies pose a new threat to our democracy. If we do not have the tools to tackle and prevent old-fashioned cash-in-hand corruption, what can we do to tackle bribery and corruption founded on cryptocurrencies? I ask the Minister whether the Home Office is taking steps to develop digital tools to tackle cryptocurrency bribery and corruption. I appreciate that the Rycroft review will assess financial interference specifically, but I would be grateful if the Minister told the House what efforts the Home Office is already making to clamp down on the malign influence of Russian money in our democracy.

Secondly, we must discuss an issue outside the remit of the ongoing Rycroft review. The experts I spoke to were explicit: Britain is on the frontline of an information war. Thanks to the security, crime, and intelligence innovation institute at the University of Cardiff, we know that Russia employs at least 500 political technologists. These are people who plan Russia’s informational, political, economic, cultural and legal subversion of its enemies.

One such political technologist was in London on the day of the 2016 Brexit referendum. On the day we made one of our biggest ever decisions as a nation, this Russian political technologist was in our capital city, taking photos of polling stations and sharing them on social media with his followers in Russia. This man has personally met senior UK political figures, and he wrote a report that personally thanked someone who worked on Conservative campaign headquarters election campaigns and alongside two former Prime Ministers. This man is now using the skills he acquired in Britain to deliver a master’s degree in Moscow, designed to train specialists in information warfare.

Russia clearly sees that this is a war, even if we do not. Its strategy is one of division, to create distrust and to convince Brits that we are all the same.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

During last year’s election in Moldova, undercover reporters exposed a network of people who were being paid by Russia to produce disinformation content on social media platforms, including TikTok and Facebook. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are naive to assume that such things are not happening in this country, too?

[Ben Goldsborough]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. One of the experts I spoke to worked on that campaign, to make sure that loopholes were being closed to protect Moldovan democracy. We are no different from anybody else; he is completely right.

Disinformation relies on and deepens political polarisation in our country, creating uncertainty, distrust of truth and a rush to political extremes. “The Integrity Initiative Guide to Countering Russian Disinformation” says:

“When people start to say, ‘You don’t know what to believe’ or ‘They’re all as bad as each other’, the disinformers are winning.”

Information warfare with the Russian state is not new. So much of what we are discussing today could be straight out of the cold war, but thanks to social media it is now easier than ever for Russia to disseminate disinformation. As one expert put it to me, the UK currently has an analogue response in a digital age. To put it another way, the Russian state has brought an ICBM to a knife fight.

The experts also pointed out that media literacy in our country is poor. We are not equipped to spot disinformation, so people fall prey to lies. This affects everyone: no one is immune to disinformation, and people who think they are immune are most at risk.

Thirdly, our own authorities are unarmed. The Electoral Commission is toothless and not fit for purpose. It is unable to tackle this existential threat and has been stripped of all the powers needed to tackle political interference. The Home Office, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and intelligence agencies are siloed. Our civil servants change jobs too frequently and do not have the experience or expertise necessary to deal with the threat.

What can we do to protect our democracy? First, we need to get real. We might not feel as if we are on the frontline, but we are. Russia knows it, and we need to recognise it now.

Secondly, we need a single agency responsible for identifying, tracking and defending against disinformation. The Swedish have their Psychological Defence Agency, which co-ordinates defence and provides agencies, local government, companies and organisations with support and education in countering disinformation. The French have VIGINUM, which detects information from hostile foreign actors and works to identify bot farms.

Thirdly, we need substantial investment in critical thinking education and a focus on training future generations to critically analyse sources. The threat will be with us for many years to come, and we must ensure that future generations have the tools they need. Much of the framework is already in place in the current curriculum, but we need to go further. Scrutiny of the provenance and validity of sources should be an absolute priority in the curriculum. Maths already does it, so will the Minister’s Department work with colleagues in the Department for Education to improve media literacy?

I cannot impress strongly enough on hon. Members how urgent the situation is. We must act swiftly and decisively to secure our nation from Russian interference.

Digital ID

Luke Myer Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I apologise for the fact that I may not be here for the wind-ups because of the business in the main Chamber.

I begin by restating my firm opposition to the introduction of mandatory digital ID. I opposed it in this Chamber only a month ago, and the public response has been remarkable. The clip of my speech on social media has now been viewed more than 2.5 million times—not because of any great oratory on my part, but because people across the country are deeply worried about the direction the Government are taking. They are worried about privacy, freedom and the steady expansion of state power without consent.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

I am afraid I will not; sorry.

I want to raise a specific issue that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), but that is often missed in this debate: the provisions in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would mandate the NHS number as a single unique identifier for every child in England—namely ID cards, but on the sly. Ministers have confirmed in the House that that identifier will become mandatory. Wigan is already piloting multi-agency data sharing using it, but Members of this elected Chamber have not been given the evidence, the governance frameworks or the risk assessments that would justify such a change.

The Government have produced no credible reassurance that the NHS number will not become a gateway to expanded datasets or new intrusive linkages. There is no clear plan to prevent accidental disclosures that could put vulnerable children at risk, for example by revealing the address of a family fleeing domestic abuse or exposing confidential adoption records. Those are not theoretical concerns; they have occurred in practice. We have seen the warnings from Wales, where NHS numbers were extracted centrally and sent to local authorities with no direct care relationship with the children concerned. The 2024 consultation was highly critical. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners and children’s organisations all warned that such policies risked pushing marginalised families away from healthcare entirely.

Wales’s own child’s rights impact assessment warned of possible breaches of articles 12 and 16 of the UN convention on the rights of the child. It even warned that children could lose their article 24 right to health if families disengaged from GP registration. However, Ministers insist that the NHS number is not sensitive data. The General Medical Council has already rejected that argument. All patient information attracts the common-law duty of confidentiality. There is no such thing as a harmless identifier.

Practically speaking, the Department for Education’s own research warned that mandating NHS numbers would require significant investment, long-term planning and phased roll-out. None of that groundwork has happened. Pilots are under way before Parliament has approved the principle. When trust in Government is already scraping the floor, the worst thing Ministers can do is force through more mandatory digital ID for adults or children, something the public neither asked for nor consented to.

Nearly 3 million people have signed the petition and more than two thirds of my constituents oppose it. Digital ID will not fix illegal migration, but it will supercharge state intrusion. The public deserve clarity, honesty and, above all, consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law]

This scheme presents a much better opportunity to ensure that we have the correct security procedures in place, versus some of our current insecure measures.

[Luke Myer]

Although I appreciate the merits of the scheme, as my hon. Friend has set out, surely the fundamental question facing us today is one of public consent. Some 4,800 of my constituents have signed this petition. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a scheme cannot be introduced without clear consent from the public?

[Noah Law]

I wholeheartedly agree. That is why it is important that in the months ahead and through the consultation, this scheme is introduced on a voluntary basis, just as we have set out, and remains that way. I know some might find this difficult to believe, but this really is no conspiracy. If we are not concerned about the huge threats involving the vast amount of personal data that is held by private companies—they must, of course, be regulated too—why is this scheme such a cause for concern? Although I appreciate that two wrongs do not necessarily make a right, and that many of my constituents no doubt long for an analogue world—as do I, on occasion—that is not the world we live in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Myer Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The agreement in May included the restoration of the UK’s country-specific steel quota, but in October we saw new steel protection measures from the EU. Do the Government expect the article 28 GATT––general agreement on tariffs and trade—process to be honoured for those quotas, and will trade measures be set out prior to the steel strategy?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As he will understand, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is in discussions with counterparts in the European Union about the changing global landscape for steel. This Government are very clear that we should protect British steel and our capabilities to produce steel in the UK, while supporting exports and making sure that British steel is not undercut by cheap global imports from around the world.

Dawn Sturgess Inquiry

Luke Myer Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of keeping our country safe. I assure him that we take that incredibly seriously. We will of course look very carefully at the detail of this report. He asked about the accountability mechanisms in Government. I assure him that the Home Secretary and I take our responsibilities to hold the security services to account very seriously indeed—that is a process that the new Home Secretary and I dedicate a significant amount of time to every single week. But we have to be crystal clear that the inquiry’s report states unequivocally that responsibility lies with the Russian state. The chair of the inquiry found that the operation to assassinate Sergei Skripal was authorised at the highest level, and concluded that it would not have taken place without the approval of President Putin. The use of a military-grade nerve agent on British soil was a violation of international law and a truly despicable act, and the responsibility for that lies with Russia, and Russia alone.

The hon. Gentleman asked, entirely reasonably, about the confiscation of sovereign Russian assets. I assure him that we take that incredibly seriously as well. Our priority is to ensure that all the options that we consider with regard to that matter are in line with international law and are economically and financially responsible, but Russia must be held accountable for the terrible damage it has done in Ukraine. We will do whatever we can to ensure that Russia is held accountable and made to pay for its actions.

The hon. Gentleman’s final point was an important one about Russian interference in our democracy. I chair the defending democracy taskforce, which has recently had its mandate renewed by the Prime Minister. These are matters that we take incredibly seriously. We use the taskforce as the fulcrum point across Government to ensure that we have a whole-of-system response that draws together Government Departments and law enforcement, and I assure the hon. Gentleman of the priority that we attach to that work. It is something that I believe should be a cross-party endeavour, so if he or other Members of this House wish to discuss it with me further, I am always very happy to do so.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The day a British citizen died on British soil as a result of a Russian attack ought to have been a wake-up call for everyone in this country. I recognise the steps that the previous Government took and that this Government are taking to address that threat. The reality is that Russian planes and ships menace our airs and waters, their cyber-attacks have hit our NHS and councils, including Redcar and Cleveland borough council, and their propaganda has been disseminated by British politicians and online. Does the Security Minister agree that, as far as the British public are concerned, this is not a distant threat elsewhere in the world; it is here and now, affecting them today? Can I also push him specifically on social media disinformation, and what steps he can take, working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, to address it in this country?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the threat. It is not a distant matter; it quite literally impacts the lives of our citizens every single day. I give him an assurance of how seriously we take these matters. He is also right to raise the issue of misinformation and disinformation. Again, through the defending democracy taskforce, these are matters that we keep under very close review. He is right to mention the important contribution that is required of DSIT. We work very closely with DSIT and other Government Departments on these matters. We keep a constant vigilance. I think that, in truth, there is more that we need to do, and I will have further conversations with ministerial colleagues about that particular matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Myer Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reform public services.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reform public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Myer]

The Government’s laudable mission-led approach has seen NHS waiting lists fall for five months in a row. Like many public services, our NHS has been plagued by over-specified guidance and unnecessary targets for many years, so will the Minister assure the House that the mission-led approach will mean a focus on core non-negotiables to deliver for the British people?

[Pat McFadden]

The missions set out the Government’s long-term targets, and the plan for change sets out the key targets for the next few years. I do believe that targets can play a key role in driving behaviour, and that the focus on getting waiting lists and waiting times down set out in our plan for change can make a real difference over the coming few years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

A youth mobility scheme is not part of our plans. We have always said that we will listen to sensible EU proposals, but we will not go back to freedom of movement. Where I do agree with the hon. Lady is on concrete proposals and concrete progress on 19 May. We are looking to secure a new partnership with the EU that will make our country safer, more secure and more prosperous.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

T3. Teesside has enormous potential for AI investment. What progress are the Government making on AI growth zones, AI adoption and investment for Teesside?

[Pat McFadden]

AI is a huge opportunity for the UK. The AI opportunities action plan was a statement of our ambition to make the UK a world leader in AI. We launched an expression of interest on AI growth zones and have received more than 200 responses. The first such zone has already been announced at Culham, home to the UK Atomic Energy Authority.

US Steel Import Tariffs

Luke Myer Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

There are plenty of opportunities for Ministers to be held accountable in relation to the dialogue that we have started, and that we continue, with steel producers in the United Kingdom.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s initial point about whether this announcement has come as a surprise, candidly, it has not. However, it is also fair to recognise that the new President has a speciality in generating uncertainty—part of his style of negotiations is creating uncertainty as to what will happen next. As I sought to suggest in my opening answers, we have answers on steel today, but the proclamation that emerged overnight did not give us answers on aluminium. In those circumstances, it is right and reasonable to be mindful of the statements that have been made, which I can assure the House that we were, and to undertake analysis, which I can assure the House we are also continuing to review and reach a judgment on.

At the same time, we should recognise that the date on which these tariffs come into effect is 12 March. As a consequence, there is a window of opportunity to not only engage with the workforce and the companies to ensure that we better understand exactly what they are looking for in light of these specific measures, but critically, to engage directly with the Trump Administration. That is work to which our ambassador is already turning his mind.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Let us not forget that steel is a strategically important industry, both for our economy and our national security, and if other countries are going to be protecting their steel industry, our Government must not be afraid to make the big fiscal choices required to protect our own. Will the Minister assure the House that responding to these tariffs will be a priority for this Government, as will putting the industry on a sure footing in the years ahead?

[Mr Alexander]

In terms of being willing to make the big fiscal choices, we have committed £2.5 billion of public money since July to support the steel industry, with resources being funnelled in part through the national wealth fund. I can assure my hon. Friend that we have already been willing to put money, as well as commitment, behind the steel industry. He is absolutely right to recognise the strategic significance of this industry, not just on its own terms but much more broadly to the manufacturing capability of the United Kingdom. He has alluded to the risk of trade diversion, given the potential remedial action taken by other trading blocs, so I also want to assure him that we have protections that will remain in place until 2026. There are safeguards in place in relation to trade diversion, as well as the UK’s ability to act independently.