What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Great British Energy Nuclear’s technical study, which was recently published, confirms that Scotland possesses land areas with high potential for new nuclear development. Such projects could deliver significant investment and thousands of high-quality, unionised, skilled jobs. As a Government, we remain open to discussions with the Scottish Government on deploying these technologies to boost Scotland’s economic growth and energy security.
Whether it is Hunterston in my hon. Friend’s constituency or Torness in my own constituency, Scotland has a proud history of harnessing civil nuclear power to bring jobs and growth to Scotland. Alas, the anti-scientific approach the SNP has adopted of denying us the future of carbon-free energy is one that will also, unless it changes, deny us the high-skilled jobs and investment required in North Ayrshire and across Scotland.
Yes. On that there is cross-party consensus. I can attest to that as the constituency Member of Parliament in Lothian East, where we have had decades of not just sustainable power that is carbon-free, but really high-quality jobs, excellent apprenticeships and stimulus to the local economy. I know the contribution of the hon. Gentleman’s own constituents to the work in Torness. We want to see life beyond 2029-30.
City region and growth deals are having a visible and transformative impact on regional economies across Scotland. Built on more than £1.5 billion of UK Government investment, the deals play a vital role in fostering enduring economic growth, unlocking private sector investment, and improving infrastructure and job opportunities.
In the words of the incoming Prime Minister, we’re up for it, as far as devolving power from Holyrood is concerned. Alas, many of the powers rest with the Scottish Government. We need to end the grinding centralisation that I described in my speech to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities last autumn, and see a renewed focus on the city regions of Scotland.
Let me assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to bringing economic opportunity to every part of Scotland. Unlocking the economic potential of sites exactly like the ExxonMobil Bowling terminal is how we can achieve that for communities and deliver the high-skilled jobs that people want. West Dunbartonshire is presently benefiting from over £500 million through the Glasgow city region deal, as well as money from our new local growth fund. This Government are working hard with local partners to deliver long-term prosperity.
I beg to move, That this House has considered Iran. I welcome this opportunity to update the House on the latest developments in Iran, the strait of Hormuz and the wider middle east. First, as a veteran myself, I know what a remarkable and difficult job Britain’s armed forces are doing. From our RAF pilots, who have flown thousands of hours and had more than 115 successful engagements, to our counter-unmanned aerial systems teams, who have helped to provide crucial protection to some of our key allies, our personnel are serving with great courage and professionalism. We are at a critical moment in a conflict that has profound implications for regional stability, the global economy and the safety of British citizens throughout the region, so today we say thank you—
We say thank you to every member of our military in the middle east, saving lives and working with international partners to defend our interests. Britain is proud of you.
I think it is appropriate that we treat this debate with the appropriate seriousness and that the response comes from people who have this matter as part of their portfolio. I am grateful to be able to speak to the House about the contribution of our brave armed forces personnel, which is why I did not allow the hon. Gentleman’s intervention while I was acknowledging their service. The situation across the region is fast moving. The US has continued to strike Iranian targets this week, including the port cities of Bandar Abbas and Bushehr. A key priority is to reduce Iran’s capacity to attack commercial shipping, after Iranian forces struck two UAE tankers in the strait of Hormuz, killing an Indian crew member and injuring eight others, and attacked facilities in Jordan and Bahrain. As a consequence of this volatility, oil prices continue to rise, with Brent crude climbing above $85 a barrel. Even as events unfold, this Government’s objectives are unchanged. We want to see a diplomatic solution to this crisis. We call for the resumption of a ceasefire and for the United States and Iran to resume negotiations on the memorandum of understanding, leading to a resolution in line with international law. We strongly condemn Iran’s reckless attacks this week on commercial shipping and its ongoing indiscriminate attacks against our partners in the region, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Jordan, as well as Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia. During the crisis, the UK has surged air power into the Gulf, deploying the joint squadron in Qatar and sending additional jets to provide defensive counter-air to our partners.
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I will go on to say, the things we should be concerned about are not limited to the manifestation of kinetic attacks within the region, but include the things that impact us here at home, such as cyber-attacks. We have reinforced regional partners’ air defence capabilities in Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, as well as embedding aerospace management experts, and deployed HMS Dragon to provide advanced air defence and maritime security capabilities, all of which demonstrates our strong commitment. Approximately one fifth of the world’s oil supply passes through the strait of Hormuz. When that narrow waterway is transformed into a theatre of conflict, working people across Britain and the world pay the price, both in higher fuel bills and energy bills and in wider costs to the economy.
At the moment, the destroyer is part of a UK plan, but, should it be used later, it will form part of a broader design alongside the French—at the moment it is not playing that part. Perhaps I can explore that with the right hon. Gentleman later, or answer in greater detail as I progress. Across the globe, it is the poorest who feel the impact the most, so we will continue to work alongside our allies to restore freedom of navigation through the strait. The UK is playing its part through the multinational military mission—this is where HMS Dragon would play its role—providing reassurance to commercial shipping and conducting mine clearance operations. Of course, we continue also to protect British lives and interests across the region. However, it is not just British citizens and military personnel in the middle east who are endangered by Iran. Its far-reaching terror threat extends to the communities, streets and people of the United Kingdom, too. Our security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots on British soil between October 2024 and October 2025, targeting journalists, dissidents and Jewish people living in this country. Britain treats that threat with the gravity it demands. We have sanctioned hundreds of Iranian individuals and entities, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety. In May, we unveiled a package of measures directly targeting those who threaten security on our streets. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary announced sanctions on the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right. Otherwise known as HAYI, this is the organisation that publicly claimed responsibility for seven attacks at locations in the UK linked to Jewish and Israeli communities and Persian-language media, including the despicable antisemitic arson attack on four ambulances in Golders Green in March. These are some of the terrible consequences that this war has had in Britain. State actors like these have been working to create division and manipulate young people, including those in my constituency of Leyton and Wanstead. We must not let them succeed in damaging our social cohesion.
I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention. It is important to note that that regime does not respect freedom of religion. Back here at home, every one of us, regardless of our faith or religion, must stand up for others.
What a great privilege it is to receive my first intervention from the hon. Gentleman. It is important that he gets a full answer to those questions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) will cover them adequately in his closing remarks.
I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for making that point. If we are going to tackle division, we must all be present and contribute respectfully to these debates. I am very grateful for his remarks. I will not take any more interventions, because I am fast running out of time—[Hon. Members: “More!”] We have long been clear that any nation that poses such a terror threat abroad, that murders thousands of its own people and brutally suppresses dissent at home, must never acquire a nuclear weapon.
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his powerful intervention and the point he makes. I took a deviation in my speech to highlight how these threats are manifesting on our streets, and it is incredibly upsetting that, as the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) pointed out, there is an absence of certain political voices within the Chamber at this moment. When we talk about the threats to our nation or the threat of war, we are speaking about nations that are acting within our country to cause division between people and communities and to attack our democracy and our state. We need every voice in the Chamber to contribute to the fight for the fundamentals of our democracy. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that Iran’s total enriched uranium stockpile now stands at 48 times the limit set under the joint comprehensive plan of action. Its stockpile of 60% enriched uranium exceeds 10 IAEA significant quantities—the threshold beyond which the possibility of manufacturing a nuclear device cannot be excluded. Iran does not have a credible civilian justification for enrichment at this level. The international community is not naive about what the stockpile represents. Any final deal must address these concerns comprehensively and verifiably. The UK stands ready to assist, alongside our European partners. We have the technical knowledge, diplomatic relationships and institutional experience to help bridge these gaps. We are ready to work with the US, Iran and the IAEA to achieve a final deal, including lifting relevant sanctions if Iran takes verifiable steps to end its nuclear programme.
My hon. Friend is a campaigner for the personnel at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the things that the Department stands for. He understands the importance of soft power and the relationships he refers to. It is important that we advocate for the Department and the wonderful work that it does, so it is a great privilege to open this debate alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, who is one of its most powerful servants. This is a complex and fast-moving conflict that has the potential to escalate. We should not be distracted from our fundamental priorities: to encourage the resumption of negotiations and a ceasefire; to restore freedom of movement in the strait of Hormuz; to deliver the agreements set out in the memorandum of understanding; and to protect British people and interests and stand firmly with our allies. These measures, I believe, are the right ones to dial down hostilities and help us find an enduring, secure solution. I look forward to hearing the contributions of colleagues across the House.
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Conservative Government’s equipment plan had a funding deficit of between £7 billion and £28 billion? It was filled with unfunded programmes for aircraft and ships. I struggle to understand why he calls the DIP “unfunded” when we have provided £298 billion of funding for it.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger, although the debate has probably not been conducted in the best way to discuss this topic. I draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) to the recent Adjournment debate secured by her colleague the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), which I think she was unable to attend.
That is not what I said at all, Sir Roger. The debate has been perfectly in order, but I do not think the public watching will have got much from it. That is my assessment and, I am sure, the assessment of many others watching. As I was saying, I encourage the right hon. Lady, if she did not see the recent debate on this topic, to look at the remarks by her hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who rightly raised concerns about local communities, but in a way that was, I think, based slightly more in fact than in rhetoric. I will come to the right hon. Lady’s questions.
No, I will not just now, because the right hon. Lady has just given a speech. I will respond to some of her points.
Let me respond to the right hon. Lady’s points. She has now accused me twice in this House of being “elusive” and of “obfuscation”. I have answered every single one of her written parliamentary questions. I am not responsible for the fact that she may or may not like the answers I give, but I have answered every single one of her questions, and I responded to her point of order in the main Chamber. I resent the implication that I have not done that, because I take my responsibilities to Parliament very seriously. First, I will come back a little from the Peak Cluster itself to make some points about why carbon capture is important. I say that partly because carbon capture technology has been around a long time. The previous Government, in which the right hon. Lady served in various ministerial roles, drove forward investment in carbon capture, which we have continued. This is not something that just appeared in July last year; it is a technology that Governments have recognised will play an important part in decarbonising our energy system. This technology is also important for particular parts of our industry, which are now competing against imports from other parts of Europe that utilise carbon capture, usage and storage. Cement is one example that the Peak Cluster project is looking at, but we are taking forward other important clusters, such as the Viking and Acorn clusters, that the previous Conservative Government supported. Decarbonising cement might not seem like a particularly important topic to a lot of people, but it is actually critical. Around 40% of UK cement and lime production takes place in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. Cement is one of the foundational heavy industries, and one of our most important substances, to underpin growth in our economy. As a result, the industry was recognised in the industrial strategy as a foundational input for growth. It is also an economically important sector, contributing around £350 million in gross value added and supporting thousands of jobs. The challenge we have is future-proofing the industry. A number of businesses now want to buy low-carbon cement to construct their projects, but low-carbon cement is produced elsewhere in the world, so it is important to find ways to be competitive in that market. As I said in the Adjournment debate, other technologies for creating low-carbon cement exist, but they are not yet at a stage where they can be deployed at scale. Carbon capture is important, and there is no route to net zero that does not involve this technology. I want to remind the right hon. Member for Tatton why net zero is important, although I know that not everyone will agree. Given that we are living through climate change on such a scale, we as a country should be taking our responsibility seriously to do everything we can, and this is an important part of how we tackle it. This is also an economic opportunity that not only creates thousands of jobs in carbon capture but protects thousands of jobs in the heavy industry that we do not want to see leaving this country to go elsewhere. It plays a strategically important part, along with our economic growth and industrial strategy, in how we will broadly deliver net zero. Before I address some of the right hon. Lady’s points on the Peak Cluster, I want to repeat a point I made in the Adjournment debate about the voice of local communities, which is one that she also rightly made. She made a point about the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, which I want to clarify. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think she was trying to suggest that the Government have somehow contrived for the Secretary of State to make a decision on a particular project. The NSIP regime exists—indeed, it existed under the previous Conservative Government—to recognise that there are some projects of such a scale that local councils cannot individually decide on them, so they should be decided on at a national level. That is a process that has been undertaken for many years. I want to be really clear, however, that that recognition does not suggest, in any way, that there will be a particular outcome from the process. Not only has there been no decision from Government on this project, but it has not even been submitted for a decision at this stage. It is a long way from that process.
I will give way in just a second. The right hon. Lady’s point about the NSIP regime was quite wrong. Decisions are made based on applications that are submitted, but no application has been submitted. They are based on all the facts, including the community engagement that takes place—I will come back to that after I have given way. Applications must demonstrate genuine community engagement and learning from the views of communities; it is not just a listening exercise but a shaping exercise, and that has not yet concluded.
I think I just said that the nationally significant infrastructure project regime exists so that decisions can be made at a national level by different Secretaries of State. In this case, it is an energy project, so yes, the decision will be made by the Secretary of State for Energy. The right hon. Lady seems to be implying that there is somehow a predetermined outcome, but the application has not even been submitted for consideration, so I do not think that is a sensible position to take. The right hon. Lady also cast aspersions on the North Sea Transition Authority, which is an independent regulator. It was the Oil and Gas Authority for many years; it is now the North Sea Transition Authority. It has operated under Governments of all political persuasions to make decisions about how we steward the North sea licensing regime not only for oil and gas but, increasingly, for carbon capture. It makes those decisions independently of Government; Ministers do not interfere in the decision making of the NSTA. Again, she seems to be drawing conclusions about an independent regulator that are neither fair on the regulator nor accurate in fact.
I will give way to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was the point I was going to come on to. Community engagement is absolutely critical. It is an absolutely firm expectation from Ministers that any of these large-scale infrastructure projects should have meaningful engagement with communities. However, it is also absolutely critical for any project that wants to succeed in the NSIP process to demonstrate not only that it has carried out consultation but that that consultation has had a meaningful impact on the shaping of the project. That is one of the key factors in decision making in NSIP applications. I want to echo a point that was made in the Adjournment debate on this subject and that many Members have raised with me outside of debates in Parliament, which is about the need for extensive consultation on this particular project. Criticisms have been levelled at the Peak Cluster project that its consultation with communities has not yet been good enough. I understand that it is planning to do more, but it is not for me to direct it to do that. It must engage meaningfully with communities because, once a proposal has been submitted, if community engagement has not been meaningful, that will count against the project. There is a wider argument here about principle. The Government have said from day one of coming into office that it is important that we build things as a country again and that we do not become a country that just spends decades talking about important infrastructure but never builds it. However, that building should never be done without proper engagement with communities, which means communities feeling that they have had their say and that their say has been listened to. This project is one example of where much more consultation has to happen.
First, on the point about this somehow being a Government project, it is absolutely not. That is why my answers to the right hon. Member for Tatton reflected the fact that, right now, private developers across the country in a whole range of sectors are developing private propositions for all sorts of things. Until those proposals come to Government, either with a request for funding or as part of the NSIP regime, the Government do not have a view on whether they are Government projects or not. They are not delivered by Government; they are private investments and therefore it is for those companies to put forward their proposition. The Government will then take a view on it, as we do with all nationally significant infrastructure projects. That is the first point about this being a Government project, which it is absolutely not. Peak Cluster is also not one of the clusters that the Government have initially taken forward. We are taking forward two clusters initially to drive carbon capture and storage; the Peak Cluster is not one of them. I make that point again on the record. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) made a second point about safety. It is really important to say that carbon capture and storage is not a new technology; it has been tried and tested, across industry and across power generation at scale, for a long time. Geological carbon dioxide storage has been in operation for decades. Norway has stored CO2 since 1996—it has stored over 20 million tonnes of it so far—and a safe and robust regulatory regime exists precisely to ensure that safety standards are as high as they possibly can be. Safety will be at the forefront of any decision about how we take this project forward. It is absolutely critical but, as I have said, CCS is not some novel technology whose safety considerations we do not understand. It is managed, understood and regulated effectively at the moment.
I am aware of that. Councils can take a view on a whole range of things; I do not think there is anything controversial about a council making its views known on a particular project. It is very welcome to do that, and that is why we have democratically elected councillors in this country. On a final point by the right hon. Lady and others about Government funding for this project, she draws a connection between the investment of the National Wealth Fund and the fact that it is wholly owned by the Government. I understand the connection, but equally, it is not correct to say that that represents financial support from my Department or the Government for a project. The National Wealth Fund was set up to provide investment for important infrastructure projects, and it makes its decisions independently from Government. I have not seen or signed off any funding applications for the Peak Cluster pipeline and nor have any Ministers. The NWF makes those decisions on its own framework, as set out by the Treasury and Parliament. It should not be taken as any indication of my Department’s support or otherwise for a particular project.
I can write to my hon. Friend with the specifics of the investment committee, but the National Wealth Fund is set up independently from Government to take stakes in projects on behalf of the British public, so that we would own a stake in some of these projects—instead of just handing out grants for things, we would actually own part of them. There is an investment committee that sets up these decisions, and the Treasury is the body responsible for the National Wealth Fund. I can write to her with specifics.
The principle of the National Wealth Fund is that we can make financial investments in projects. In some of those cases, that means taking an equity stake. Sometimes it does not, but sometimes it does. The National Wealth Fund has been around for long enough now; I am sure Members are aware of it. I will close with something that, in part, reflects what Members said in the Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury. Any large-scale infrastructure project comes with concerns from local communities, and it is right and proper that such communities voice those concerns in any way they can. That has to be a respectful exchange of views, which has not always been the case thus far, but I understand the strength of feeling on this—it is absolutely understandable. The exchange of views is important, and everyone, whether or not they are listening to this debate, should know that the Government take community engagement very seriously. We expect to see meaningful engagement with communities, but at the same time the Government have set out an ambitious plan to decarbonise our economy. That is important for a whole range of reasons, but it is also a hugely important economic opportunity for us as a country. Decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors such as cement and lime, which are critical to our economy, is difficult. CCUS is a route to doing that. It is essential not only for meeting our climate commitments, but for the economic opportunities that it offers. Future project proposals are subject to scrutiny, high standards and a tough regulatory regime. The Government will look at all of this in the round in terms of individual projects. I repeat the point that I made at the beginning: this is not a project that the Government are driving forward, and it is not a project that we are saying we do or do not support, because at this point in time no proposal has come before us to do that. In due course, we will do that. In the meantime, I encourage everyone in the local community, Members of Parliament, the Peak Cluster itself and others to engage with the process.
I am just rounding up. In the end, I hope that we will come to a view where communities feel they have been heard and where projects can move forward on their individual merits. That will be part of the process when we come to it. Question put and agreed to.
On 7 July, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), wrote to the Government alleging practices of poor information handling in NESO and interference in operational decision-making in the control room. The Government take this issue incredibly seriously. Since the allegations came to light, we have been engaging with NESO and Ofgem to establish the facts. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have spoken to the chief executive of NESO. NESO has now appointed an external legal firm to conduct a full investigation into the claims, and a report is 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 NESO employees present. NESO has already responded publicly that all operational decisions are taken solely by authorised operational control room personnel, and that NESO 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 want to make it clear that during this period of unprecedented extreme heat, the Great British grid remains stable. No customers were impacted by tight electricity margins, and NESO had a number of tools available to ensure our energy security. Great Britain has one of the most resilient energy systems in the world, and the Government work closely with NESO and the wider sector to ensure that this resilience is constantly maintained. Market notices, such as those issued by NESO during the heatwaves, 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 NESO and Ofgem to identify any lessons from these events, and to work to ensure that our electricity system remains resilient. Ofgem, as the independent regulator, is also working with NESO to initiate a formal review of events during the June heatwave. I welcome this important transparency, and look forward to working with NESO and Ofgem on taking forward the lessons learned.
First, I reiterate what I said at the beginning of the statement. The shadow Secretary of State raised these concerns about whistleblowers who had been in touch with her for the first time at Department for Energy Security and Net Zero oral questions. I said to her, in that session, that if she had details, she should share them with the Department. She did that, and subsequently we have taken this matter incredibly seriously. A process has been put in place; an independent review will be conducted, taking into account the information that she has shared. If she has more information from subsequent whistleblowers, I am sure that she will share that with us. We take this matter seriously. Nobody is washing their hands of this matter at all. As I have said to the shadow Secretary of State before, though, she is conflating two things, I think wilfully. There are questions to be asked about things that have been raised with her by whistleblowers, which we will now investigate. However, she suggests that the electricity grid was in a state in which blackouts were imminent, which is simply not the case. I gently say to her that it is irresponsible to suggest, in this place and on social media, that our energy system was at risk in recent periods. Electricity margin notices are a standard tool. I do not have time to read all the dates on which electricity margin notices were issued under the previous Government, but I can tell the House that they are a standard tool that has been deployed a number of times. We all have a duty to be careful about our words in this House. Ramping up the rhetoric does not get to the facts that we both share an interest in understanding. I make that point first. Secondly, can I just endorse the comments she made at the beginning about the critical role that operators in the NESO control room play every day? I was privileged to visit the control room in my role, and to see the job that they do. They have an enormous amount of responsibility on their shoulders; we should recognise how seriously they take their role. This investigation, which is independent from NESO, is so important for uncovering the facts. The terms of reference have been published, and are available on Ofgem’s website. They state clearly that power system managers and other control room personnel who worked on shift during the period in question will be interviewed. However, it is right and proper that, as I think everyone in the House would expect, we wait for the outcome of an inquiry that will take a matter of weeks to establish the full facts, so that we can use any additional learning from it, but also so that we can continue to ensure that the country is confident that our energy system is resilient. We met the electricity demand on every single one of the days in question, although I do not doubt for a second that it was difficult on some of those days, as it was throughout Europe. The solution to that is to invest further in the stability of the grid, and also to tackle the fundamental question of why our temperatures are rising year after year, the answer to which is climate change. If the right hon. Lady 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 it. In the meantime, we will take this issue seriously. We will investigate all allegations that come to us to ensure that there is confidence in the energy system, and that it is operating exactly as we would expect it to.
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. Let me first reiterate that, as I said a moment ago, incredibly skilled staff work in the control room 24/7 to ensure that we are balancing our electricity demand and supply across the country, and have done so without any disruption to that supply; I pay tribute to the work that they do. What I said earlier in response to the shadow Secretary of State was not that the allegations that have emerged today were somehow scaremongering. If whistleblowers have raised concerns, it is right and proper that we investigate them fully, and we will absolutely do that. However, it is scaremongering to take to social media or come to the House and somehow imply that we were close to blackouts, which is simply not the case. We have a responsibility in this House not to ratchet up the rhetoric simply 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.
The hon. Gentleman has made a number of important points. The terms of reference are available on Ofgem’s website for the inquiry that NESO has commissioned an independent law firm to carry out. It will conduct interviews with staff who were in the control room on that day to get to the bottom of the allegations that have been made, because it is right for us to take them incredibly seriously, and transparency will be an important part of that. I should add, however, that if there are lessons to be learned, it is critical that we implement them very quickly. NESO has already said—and the inquiry will discover further details in this regard—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. Obviously the inquiry will get to the bottom of the operator’s views on that, but that is the point that it has made in recent days. As for the hon. Gentleman’s wider point, I agree with him. It is important for us to recognise that grid stability is 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 invest in, for instance, storage—which the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned—so that we can store renewable energy that we are generating until when we absolutely need it, and have more tools at our disposal at moments of tight margins such as the one under discussion. As I have said, however, although at times frequency moved outside the normal operating range, it never moved outside the statutory limits. We met demand for all customers, and there was no disruption for customers at all. That is an important fact that is borne out by all the data that has already been published, although it does not take away from the fact that if we have lessons to learn from those incidents, we will absolutely learn them.
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has framed his remarks. He is right to say that these are incredibly serious allegations, and we take them with the seriousness with which they should be taken and will take on board any lessons learned. As for his point about the importance of grid investment, we inherited a grid that was not only in dire need of investment, but had not been designed to meet the full needs of generation that had been built for many years and not connected. We are currently constraining renewable energy that has been built over the past few years because it had not been connected to the grid. We are doing that work to ensure that the grid can continue to do what it needs to do. As for my hon. Friend’s final point, let me state very clearly that electricity supplies were maintained throughout the June heatwave. No customer demand was subject to disconnection. Statutory frequency limits were maintained throughout the event, and the largest credible loss that could have occurred was also covered. Let me explain exactly what we mean by the margin in this instance. The margin represents the cushion of spare generation above the peak demand that is maintained by NESO, 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.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, and to all who were involved in that incredibly important exercise. I was not aware of it at all until I came into this job and read the full report, as well as the breakdown of all the actions that had been started during his time in office and have been continued by officials now. As he says, the cascading impacts of a national power outage are extraordinary and very quick, which is why we are first investing in the grid to ensure that that remains a very low risk on the national risk register, and secondly taking forward all those actions. I do not have the detail in front of me, but very few of the actions remain open; most have now been completed. We are also, across Government, continuing to organise exercises—on a much smaller scale—to ensure 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, to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly referred, must continue to look at preparedness. That is the wider work that we are taking forward on resilience.
Yes, I agree. At the risk of 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 that week—and we were not alone in that. Other European countries were facing similar challenges and similar pressures on their electricity systems because of the extreme weather. I say gently that our aim as a House should surely be to do everything we can to prevent that extreme weather from becoming even more frequent, and I hope we will rebuild some of the consensus on that. My hon. Friend is right to say that the margin notices are a standard operational tool. Although there is enough generation available on the system to meet demand, NESO would like to have an even bigger cushion on that generation, and that is what the electricity margin notices are for. They were withdrawn because that generation was met, and at no point were any customers disconnected.
It is right and proper that we are talking about this issue, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is absolutely no complacency on my part or that of the Government. I take my responsibilities incredibly seriously, as do NESO and Ofgem, the operator, and I think he should be careful of his language on an issue as serious as this. [Interruption.] He shouts from a sedentary position about blackouts. That is exactly the point I am making: this is irresponsible language. We are not debating across the House, and it is totally irresponsible. I am not sure how much more clearly I can say it to the House, but I can point the hon. Gentleman to some published reading material on the nature of what happened during that week. I have not denied at all that an extreme weather event caused pressure on the grid, but at no time did frequency move outside the normal operating range, at no time did we not meet demand across the country, and at no time were we close to disconnecting anyone whatsoever from the system, let alone to a 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. 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, but that does not detract from the fact that we met electricity demand on every single one of the days that it was under pressure. He can dispute that all he wants, but it is a basic fact.
In the past two years, during which I have had the privilege of doing this job, my hon. Friend has frequently shared her experiences as an electrical engineer, and she is right. I, too, am in awe of the grid and of the work that its operators do day in, day out as part of the extremely complex job of balancing supply and demand 24/7. I will not get into what the previous Government did or did not do, but they did not do enough. I am not saying that they had no interest whatsoever in this issue, but there was clearly a long period in which there was not enough investment to build the grid that we need for the future. They did not maintain the resilience of the grid or invest enough to ensure that it was able to cope with these kinds of weather events, which we know will become much more frequent, so there has to be increased investment. That is why we are driving forward the biggest upgrade in the grid in generations, and the work that the operators do at NESO is a critical part of that. The system is becoming more complex, which presents opportunities for decentralised energy and for using much more renewables in the system, but it is more complex to manage as well. I am absolutely confident that NESO is able to do that, but this is a lessons-learning exercise and we will learn the lessons from it.