Ukraine

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

Today the NATO Parliamentary Assembly has been given an open letter from the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament, Ruslan Stefanchuk. He has been here, and I have met him a few times. He is urging

“the immediate delivery of air defence and air-to-air missiles”.

Ukraine is in desperate need of them, and he has asked all NATO members to speed up this delivery as much as possible.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his comments, and for sharing what the Speaker of the Rada has said. I too have met him. He is a remarkable individual, as indeed are all the Ukrainian MPs we have all met. They stood up to defend their Parliament at the most difficult of times: at the time of the invasion. He raises important points. These are all matters that the Secretary of State for Defence, the Minister for the Armed Forces and others are looking at.

We are very much looking at all the immediate needs, and of course, we stand ready to support Ukraine wherever we can. Indeed, that is why we have led the 50-nation Ukraine defence contact group, alongside Germany. We secured £50 billion in military aid pledges last year, and we are going further. In Project Octopus, we have developed an advanced air defence interceptor drone, which is to be mass-produced in the UK. We are developing a new long-range ballistic missile to boost Ukraine’s firepower and defend against Putin’s war machine.

We continue to lead, not only on supporting Ukraine, but on galvanising partners to maintain support. I met my good colleague from Portugal this morning, and discussed the contribution that Portugal has made. Indeed, many countries across Europe, large and small, have stepped up, and it is important to acknowledge that European partners increased aid by more than 50% in 2025, compared to the year before. In December, as colleagues will know, the European Council agreed a €90 billion loan to help meet Ukraine’s needs, and of course we are also providing up to £4.1 billion in support through a World Bank loan guarantee that runs until 2027.

Of course, as well as the military support that we need to provide to Ukraine, now and into the future, so that it can defend against and deter future threats in the event of a settlement, we must rachet up the pressure on Putin to de-escalate the war, engage in meaningful negotiations and come to the table. I am proud that this Government have sanctioned over 900 individuals, entities and ships under the UK’s Russia sanctions regime, including Russia’s largest oil companies and 520 oil tankers. Last week, as colleagues will know, the UK supported the United States in intercepting the sanctioned vessel Bella 1 in the north Atlantic as it made its way to Russia.

We are working with international partners on further measures to tackle the shadow fleet. Those include additional sanctions, steps to discourage third countries from engaging with the fleet, increased information sharing, and readiness to use regulatory and interdiction powers. By choking off Russia’s oil revenues and squeezing its war economy, we are showing Putin that he cannot outlast us.

Our sanctions are biting hard. There is clear evidence of their impact: Russia’s oil export revenues are at a four-year low. We are preparing to implement further significant sanctions this year, which have been announced, including bans on importing refined oil of Russian origin, and a maritime service ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which a number of Members have rightly called for over past months.

As a result of our actions and those of our partners, Russia’s economy is now in its worst position since the full-scale invasion began. We are also taking the crucial steps to stop the third-country circumvention of sanctions. Whether it is intercepting crypto networks that are flooding resource into Russia, the components and other things on critical lists that it might be using in drones, or the energy revenues that it is generating, we will not cease till we find every way in which Putin is attempting to circumvent our regimes. I am proud to work closely with colleagues in Departments across Government on this, but also, crucially, with European, United States and other partners. That is having a tangible impact, and is as crucial as the direct support that we provide.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member will note that I chose my words about future actions carefully. I will obviously not go into specifics, but let me just say that we know what Putin is doing. We know where he is taking things and what is happening, and we will not hesitate to act where we can, lawfully, to choke off those revenues that go towards fuelling the war against Ukraine. Let us remember that that is exactly what they do. Let this be a warning: we will not hesitate to use the powers we have—lawfully, of course—wherever we can.

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. In December, I went on a cross-party trip with NATO to South Korea; we heard that its Government have changed their position on Russia and are now looking to open plants in Russia. They spouted the Russian lines against NATO. I have fed that into Government, but we have recently signed a huge trade deal with South Korea. Is it a concern in Government that people we are trading with are now shifting their position on Russia?

[Stephen Doughty]

We continue to work and engage with all partners around the world about the reality of any loopholes or routes that could be supporting the war. As we all know, troops from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were brought in by Russia to fight. There are also often entities and individuals operating within countries, and we try to bring those to the attention of the authorities of our partners and friends, so that they can take action, but we will not hesitate to sanction and take action, where appropriate.

Turning to the crucial issue of accountability, we are working closely with Ukraine and its allies to hold Russia accountable for its heinous crimes in Ukraine. We are a founding member and chair of the conference of participants of the register of damage, which allows Ukranians to record losses, injury or damage caused by the war. In December, I was proud to visit The Hague to sign, on behalf of the UK, the convention to establish an international claims commission, which will assess claims under the register of damage to determine future compensation. We are also supporting the office of the prosecutor general of Ukraine and the International Criminal Court to ensure that allegations of war crimes are fully and fairly investigated, using independent and robust legal mechanisms.

As I mentioned, tens of thousands of boys and girls have been snatched from their families, deported and indoctrinated by Russia. We are clear that this is a campaign to erase a nation’s future. We cannot allow that to happen, so we are backing crucial efforts to identify those children and bring them home, and we are working with partners on that. We have committed more than £2.8 million to helping to trace and return them. We welcome all that colleagues have been doing to raise awareness of the issue globally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I want to put it out there to all Members that, in the coming weeks or months, we will potentially vote to put our troops in harm’s way. I have put a friend on the back of a Hercules, in a coffin, in a foreign conflict. That is not something I want to see in this conflict. I am the only Member of this House on the Ukraine-NATO interparliamentary council and I stand in complete support of Ukraine, but it is not a given that we will put troops in harm’s way. We need to set that out clearly.

I want to talk about deployment based on my experience. First, I want to look at two historical deployments, both of which I was on—in Bosnia and Kosovo—to set out some of the challenges to which it would be good if the Minister responded later. Bosnia is 12 times smaller than Ukraine, and at the start there were 2,400 troops. That increased to 11,500 troops during the mid-’90s when the British armed forces numbered a quarter of a million. In 1999, I was in Kosovo, which is 55 times smaller than Ukraine, and the number of troops, including those on stand-by, was 19,000. The British armed forces then numbered over 200,000. For reference, the number of British armed forces today is at around 136,000—significantly fewer. That figure has been declining for 30 years.

What would a deployment look like today? No numbers have been disclosed formally, but the number we have seen so far in the media is 7,500. That equates to 15,000 per six-month period, as there would be 7,500 deployed and 7,500 on pre-deployment training. Over 12 years, that would equate to 30,000 troops tied up in, preparing for or coming back from Ukraine. That is almost half of our Army. It does not necessarily include the naval and air assets that would need to be in the region, which would represent a significant commitment as well.

If we are looking at stabilisation in any peace deal provided by British troops in some way, shape or form, we need to bear in mind, as we have all stated today, that Putin does not respect international law. We do not believe he wants peace. If he says, “I am going to have peace,” and we put British troops right on his border, we have to consider seriously what we will do if he changes his mind or reneges on any deal.

There are 39 million Ukrainian residents. The rule for military deployment of a stabilisation or peacekeeping force, as the Armed Forces Minister will know, is about 20 to 25 troops per 1,000 residents. That will equate to 600,000 to 800,000 troops, roughly the size of the Ukrainian armed forces. What will our 7,500 and France’s 7,500 do with a highly capable Ukrainian military that has been there for a long time?

There is a cost, and I would like to understand what considerations there are and what information will be made available over the coming weeks and months, because this will be a hot topic. How are we planning for a withdrawal and how are we planning to put troops in? We must have a clear, coherent strategy for how our troops will operate, for how long and under what commitment. Why are we looking to operate outside NATO or the JEF? Both Bosnia and Kosovo were NATO missions. We have that framework, and I am very concerned that the coalition of the willing will not work as coherently as the JEF does with NATO. How will the deployment be funded? Even this week, the chief of the defence staff has said that there are in-year pressures and that if cuts are not made, the budget will be exceeded, which is not allowed.

I have concerns about the rules of engagement. Putin does not respect any international law. How will our troops be protected, not just in the short term but in the long term? These are questions that we should be bringing to the House early on. Without a major intervention from the Government for an increase in funding—we need at least a brigade’s strength more to put the proposed level of troops into that region, given the numbers we have in the UK armed forces, both on the sick and deployable—we do not, I believe, have the operational capability to have sustainable forces, in conflict or peacekeeping, in Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their thoughtful and considered contributions, and for their continued commitment to a free and sovereign Ukraine. It is worth pausing to note that Russia has now been at war with Ukraine longer than it was involved in world war two, and just last month there were 35,000 Russian casualties—just think about that. So when we talk about planning, plans, regeneration and capabilities, the severity of the situation in Ukraine is not lost on the Ministry of Defence or on this Government.

As we approach the fourth anniversary, and indeed the fifth year of fighting, since Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion began, and as we intensify work towards a just and lasting peace, it is our collective commitment and our unity that sends the strongest message to Kyiv and the Kremlin that we, the United Kingdom of Great Britain Northern Ireland, stand with Ukraine.

I say this gently: be wary of the words we say in this House, because they are interpreted very differently in Moscow. Yes, we have to be honest to the democratic process, but we must also recognise the second and third-order implications of what we say here and how that reverberates around the world. When we said “for as long as it takes”, we meant it. So before I address the questions raised in the debate, I want to be clear that Ukraine’s security remains our security, as so many hon. Members said today, and without a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, Europe is less secure and the UK is less secure. That is why we, on both sides of the House, have been at the forefront of international efforts to increase pressure on Putin’s war machine and seize the opportunity to secure a just and lasting peace. That has arisen from President Trump’s commitment to the end of the war. It is also why we will continue to do all we can to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to secure that peace and sustain it.

I appreciate the support for our approach that has echoed from almost all aspects of the House. I will try to address the questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked through security guarantees. I reassure him that our Chief of the Defence Staff, our Secretary of State for Defence and our Prime Minister have worked tirelessly to deliver, and hopefully put in place, the security guarantees. That is really important, because it is linked to peace and force posture. No security guarantees mean no peace and indeed no force posture—they are all intrinsically linked. I also reassure him that I have complete and utter confidence in our military’s ability to generate the force, prepare the force, deploy the force, and sustain and then reconstitute the force, if they are asked.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) made the excellent point that, in sum, history does not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. With Georgia, Chechnya one, Chechnya two, Syria, Libya, Ukraine and Ukraine again, Russia is repeatedly and consistently disregarding, in all ways, shapes and forms, the historical norms put in place after the second world war. I also welcome his comments that Ukraine unites us all and is above politics. That is one of the greatest strengths of this House.

I empathise with what was said by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and absolutely support him in saying that there are no braver forces than those standing in front of the Russian machine. What I would say is that I would never ask someone to do something that I would not do myself. If I believe that our way of life or that of our allies is under threat, I will happily go to the front.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on behalf of all Members of the House for the sterling work she has done to highlight the plight of 20,000 children, and put in place the process to return them to their rightful home. It is worth noting that that is Russian doctrine in action. We are dealing with a barbaric nation that has, as part of its doctrine, to steal, kidnap and re-educate large swathes of the population. We are seeing that playing out in Ukraine.

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) raised a valid point linked to the details of the operational plan. There will be a time and place where we will need to talk and discuss cross-party what that looks like. To do the detail in the Chamber would do nothing other than give the advantage to our adversary.

I also welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments about armchair generals. I have full confidence in our generals, admirals, air vice-marshals and air marshals to deliver. When tasked, we must ensure that we do not apply political pressure on them to such an extent that we end up with politicised advice. I would also agree that the inability to vote on Syria emboldened Russia and resulted in a whole cascade of events, which, one could argue—if one played this game back in Ukraine—leads back to some of those decisions in the first place.

I completely agree with the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) that Ukraine must be at the centre of any negotiations. I deeply respect the gallant insight and understanding of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson). He talked about putting troops right on the Russian border, and about numbers, rotation, peace support operations, peacekeeping and comparisons with the Balkans. Language really matters when we are talking about military tactics and doctrine. It is really important, and it is our job in the Government to ensure that those Members with a vested interest understand that detail when the time is right, so that we can represent it correctly in the House. Again, I have complete faith in our military leadership. I absolutely commend the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for his work on supporting disability inclusion in Ukraine.

I shall sum up the questions and allude to some of them later in my speech. On the comments made by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), the peace negotiations are not down to us; they are down to the Ukrainians. We are enabling and supporting, but the Ukrainians must be the very centre of gravity of those negotiations, and we are supporting them to do so. On the shadow fleet, I completely concur that we have some of the best capabilities in the world. There is much to be done. We have done a lot already, but there is more to do and I would say: watch this space. On Qatar, I will not be drawn into comments on force posture, but I can say that the safety and security of our forces is absolutely at the forefront of my mind during any period of instability.

The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) asked about the details of the deployment. From my perspective, the conditions that he puts on us are almost as many as Putin would put on the peacekeeping force itself. To talk about troop numbers, rotations, border policing, naval assets and jets at this point in time would give away too much information to our adversaries who are watching, or perhaps to individuals who are not on these Benches today. It is really important that that information is shared at the right time and place and in the right forum so that we can unify the House and come up with the right political and military decisions to deliver the support to Ukraine that is required.

[Stuart Anderson]

I welcome the Minister’s summary of this debate. Will he commit to ensuring that every Member outside this place can have that information to help inform our decisions when the time is right and without operational security breach?

[Al Carns]

We will always provide the briefings at the appropriate levels.

I would like to thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She made a really important point about hybrid warfare. This is important. There have been several comments about there being no border with Russia, but let me tell you, there may not be a border but there is a frontline. That frontline sits in the north Atlantic, in cyber-space and in influence space, and it has been breached every day of every year. According to the National Cyber Security Centre, there were 20,000 attacks in 2024, 400 of them serious and 89 nationally serious. This costs the UK £15 billion every year. Hostile state activity against the Ministry of Defence is up by 50%, and global instability at the start of this conflict increased food prices, through fertiliser cost inflation, to their highest point in 45 years.

One of the key lessons that many Members have mentioned is the resilience of the Ukrainian people, and this is why we need to think about resilience here in our nation. A country’s security is measured not only by what it can deploy overseas but by what it can deny its adversaries at home. A society that can absorb shocks from pandemic, cyber-attacks, economic disruption, corruption and, importantly, disinformation leaves hostile state actors with far fewer options. Resilience is not a soft concept; it is a hard requirement of modern deterrence. I support Ukraine 110%, as I know the House does. Briefings will come at the right time and in the right place to deliver the right decision here in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.

Venezuela

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Throughout our history, there have been tensions. Since the second world war, there have been tensions around the issues of the rules-based order and the international law that we have championed throughout. During the cold war, there were big tensions between major countries, and there are tensions in some of the debates that take place now about global powers and spheres of interest in different hemispheres. As for how the UK should navigate through that, we continue to maintain and uphold the importance of international law, the rules-based order and the international framework of law because we believe that is in our interests, and is the right thing to do. However, as part of that, we have to maintain rules-based alliances, including the NATO alliance and the transatlantic alliance, which are built on, and underpinned by, our values and laws. That is important too, and it is crucial when it comes to Ukraine, which my hon. Friend has worked on for a long time.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

Thirty per cent of the US naval fleet is positioned off the coast of Venezuela, those vessels having been redeployed from many locations. They include the fifth fleet from the joint UK-US deployment in Bahrain. We will be left exposed in certain areas—90% of data cables between Europe and Asia are in that region—if this goes on beyond the middle of January. What risk assessments have been undertaken to ensure that our troops are not more exposed than they need to be?

[Yvette Cooper]

The undersea cable issue is important, and we have considered it not just in terms of UK defence, but internationally. We have discussed it at NATO, and as part of our alliances. It is why we must continue to take much more seriously the operation of the Russian shadow fleet in our waters.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. It is precisely in order to cast the strongest possible spotlight on the financial transaction involved that we are asking for financial accountability to be magnified. On his geopolitical point, nobody can question the significant geopolitical importance of the base—it is vital to our national security and to global security. It is essential that it is maintained in British hands, but that must be achieved with the consent of the Chagossians.

The resulting report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months would allow us to evaluate whether the Government’s legislative intent has translated into justice and inclusion in the lives of those who are most directly affected.

These amendments would address critical shortcomings with the Bill. They would embed accountability, environmental protection and a commitment to the right to self-determination within its framework for implementation. I urge Ministers to ensure that the Chagossians are not treated as diplomatic collateral in any future discussions with Mauritius. They are not a footnote to be managed between states; they are a people deserving of justice, agency and dignity.

The Chagossians have waited more than 50 years to go home. The least we can do now is let them decide freely and finally what home means for themselves and ensure that they have the tools they need to exercise their rights. The amendments tabled in my name seek to afford those protections and ensure that those rights are respected.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I am delighted to be called so early. I will speak to the amendments in the name of the official Opposition, specifically on the reports going to the Intelligence and Security Committee, especially on security of the buffer zones, foreign security forces, military operations and personnel movements. The ceding of Diego Garcia is a monumental strategic error that will diminish the UK’s standing on the world stage, and I will gladly set out why I believe that is the case.

If anybody thinks they can predict what will happen in the next five years, they have learned nothing from the last five years. When we start extending that to 10-plus years in the current global geopolitical situation, that is so hard to look at. Everybody is playing by a set of rules and working to a past system, which is currently changing.

Strategic leadership is the ability to shape the environment we are in. Let us take two strategic leaders, regardless of our view of them at the moment: President Trump and Xi Jinping. They both want the world to change from where it is, and they want to adjust the shape of what it looks like. The world is currently seeing a disruption to the world order as we know it. The international rules-based order is being challenged. We are setting out a deal and a treaty based on an older system that we being asked to believe will be honoured for the next 99 years, but I do not believe it will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I just want to re-emphasise the point that my hon. Friend is making about the growth of the threat. Is he aware that China today has 130 times the capability to build naval ships that America does? One shipyard in China in this last year has built more naval ships than the whole of the United States. We talk about the threat to the South China sea. It is done.

[Stuart Anderson]

My right hon. Friend makes a great point. I spoke to one of the submarine commanders from the US navy only about six weeks ago. He told me that 15 years ago he would see one Chinese ship or submarine per week, and now he sees 100 a week. The whole area is full of them. When we start looking at the security of buffer zones, we see that we cannot move in this area for Chinese submarines. The whole space is swamped with them.

We are doing a deal that will remove our ability to sit at the table where we used to have such strength. Our armed forces now would have trouble supporting our allies in any area, particularly the Indo-Pacific—[Interruption.] The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry says that is not true. We have HMS Spey and the carrier strike groups, but we have no permanent presence in the Indo-Pacific. With our current commitments, we would need a brigade strength or more to enable us to have a permanent base, to rotate troops through and to have a credible offering without burning out the UK armed forces, given the numbers who are currently on sick at the moment and the strength of the military. I want to see larger armed forces, but we do not have the ability to offer the level that we want.

We believe that the world is playing by an international rules-based order, but not all countries will do that. An international rules-based order is a set of rules set out by, normally, the largest countries around the world. When countries such as Iraq or Kosovo do not adhere to them, they expect everyone else to accept it, but the rise of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea is throwing everything into the mix. I believe that this will be a huge loss for us strategically. I reiterate my point that the ceding of Diego Garcia is a monumental strategic error that, in the next decade, we will come to regret.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

9. What changes were made to the draft agreement to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos islands to Mauritius between October 2024 and May 2025.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

10. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the treaty with Mauritius on the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago on the UK.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

14. How much and what proportion of the funding due to be allocated to Mauritius as part of the agreement concerning the Chagos archipelago will come from his Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I thoroughly reject that statement by the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that I have a lot of respect for him, but I am afraid that he is completely mistaken on this. The fact is that the courts were already making decisions that undermined our position, legally binding provisional measures could have come within weeks, affecting the operational ability of the base to function as it was, and we believe that an inevitable binding judgment would have followed. The deal has been done and this House is now scrutinising it. I have appeared before two Committees in recent weeks, and of course there will be further such scrutiny over the weeks ahead.

[Stuart Anderson]

If the US wanted to launch an attack on Iran from Diego Garcia in the current circumstances, would the UK Government support it?

[Stephen Doughty]

As the Foreign Secretary has made absolutely clear, there was no UK involvement in the US strikes on Iran. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we do not comment on private conversations with our allies or on hypothetical operations.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

As I have already said, this is not a Chinese ally; it is one of two countries that have not participated in China’s belt and road in the continent of Africa, for a reason. It is an ally of India, not a Chinese ally, and it is hard to take the hon. Gentleman seriously if he cannot even get his facts right.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

We have heard with great interest all these other countries that the Foreign Secretary is looking to please. I am interested in our country. I am interested in what goes on in this House. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that we will have a vote, and the mechanism by which that vote will come to this House, so that we can have a say on our sovereignty and what we own?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is not new to this House. We will follow the usual processes, as he would expect.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

It was absolutely right that at the NATO summit we were able to set out that irreversible pathway to membership for Ukraine, and that NATO was able to come together and speak with one voice.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I am proud to have served on NATO operations in both Bosnia and Kosovo. The 2.5% of GDP commitment will strengthen our ties within NATO. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to a timeline at the earliest opportunity to ensure that we do not have to cancel any defence projects and that we have the 2.5% of GDP on defence spending as soon as possible?

[Mr Lammy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) for their service. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the last Government to get to 2.5% of GDP spending on defence was a Labour Government. We intend to get back there and those plans will be announced at a fiscal event in the future.