Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

   I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the Peak Cluster Pipeline and project. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. It is good to see the Minister in his place. I hope to get some meaningful answers from him today on this project; up until now, those have proved elusive from his Department and the Government. The Peak Cluster is a carbon capture and storage project. It will take carbon dioxide from cement and lime plants in Derbyshire and Staffordshire, pressurise it, and transfer it 125 miles across Cheshire, Wirral and then off the coast from Wirral, where it will be stored beneath the seabed. It has been made clear to me by scientists and engineers that the project is wrong-minded and wholly unnecessary.

   Hansard source
2. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

   I agree, but none of that has been forthcoming to the public, no matter how hard they have tried, and the public do not want the project. Right across the region, there have been demonstrations and councils have voted against it. At a recent public meeting in Byley, close to one of the proposed pipeline routes, the failings were laid bare. The local communities of Cheshire, Wirral and Derbyshire know this, and that is why they are calling for the project to be stopped. The project is completely unnecessary. It is a madness of a project—a net zero vanity project. I stand here today on behalf of all those members of the public calling for the Peak Cluster project to be stopped. I call, too, for the Government to answer the most basic of questions about the project, and to stop treating the public like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them absolute rubbish. The Government cannot dodge responsibility and accountability for this project, as they seek to by ducking parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests. Last week I raised a point of order on the Floor of the House about the woeful responses on this matter, only for the Minister to reply that the project is nothing to do with the Government. He said: “It is a private project.”<span id="vol789_col175" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="175" data-volume-number="789" data-external-id="49C7AD9D-C885-4507-BE79-E2F03B5D0053">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 7 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 175.]</span> Really, Minister? If one delves a little bit deeper into the Peak Cluster project, it is revealed that it has deep, direct, structural and financial links to Government, with the final sign-off being from none other than the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.<span id="380WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="380WH"></span> If the Government are still trying to say that they have made no estimate of the overall costs, that they have not worked out how much of the bill will land on the taxpayer, that they have done no cost-benefit analysis of it, and that they have made no assessment of the environmental impact—in fact, that they have not even bothered to work out whether the project is necessary at all—then that is a disgrace. If the Government are really trying to say that they have done no homework whatsoever on the project, then they really do need to do some, because if they did, they would come to the same conclusion as the public: that it is not necessary. Instead, the Government, in ignorance or in full-throttle support, are pushing ahead with the project. In fact, they have deemed it a nationally significant infrastructure project, which means that the local authorities cannot either approve or reject it, despite significant objections from local constituents; rather, it falls for sign-off to the Government. The storage of the carbon dioxide beneath the seabed will require approval from the North Sea Transition Authority, another Government quango—wholly owned by the UK Government—which has responsibility for offshore carbon dioxide storage.

   Hansard source
3. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

   I thank my neighbour for asking that question. If he listens to the rest of the debate, he will see that this is not a private project; it has deep structural and financial ties to, and sign-off by, the Government. It is not, as he wrongly refers to it, a Shell or a BP. That is not true. That is the myth that we have to dispel today. So far, £28 million of funding for the project—nearly half of the money to date—has come from the National Wealth Fund, which is wholly owned by the Government. When announcing the project, the National Wealth Fund said on its own website that it “has an important role to play in helping to amplify government policy”, and on the gov.uk website, the Energy Secretary classed it as a “landmark investment”. The issues I am raising are not highly technical or obscure; they are straightforward, basic questions about safety, cost and the use of taxpayers’ money. The cost is billions of pounds, which rests on the shoulders of the taxpayer. The amount already spent is in the region of £60 million, and that was just to secure planning permission. The full construction costs are estimated at £5 billion, although the full cost is likely to exceed that. HyNet, a similar project, has cost £2.5 billion for just 31 km of new pipeline, in comparison with the 200 km planned for the Peak Cluster. As the Government have so far committed £28 million through the National Wealth Fund, will the Minister say what process was followed before the fund invested in the project? How was it approved, and what role did Ministers play in that?<span id="381WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="381WH"></span> There are huge concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the technology, too. Last year, the Public Accounts Committee warned of a “high degree of uncertainty” over whether carbon capture projects would deliver value for money, so I can see why the Government are ducking away and not doing anything. The chief executive of Octopus Energy also questioned whether carbon capture represents a worthwhile use of taxpayers’ money. Surely, the Department responsible for energy infrastructure did a value-for-money assessment before committing public money to the project. If so, what is that assessment? Residents I have spoken to are rightly and understandably concerned about the health and safety hazards, too. What if a leak were to happen? What emergency procedures are in place? What assessments have been made of the risks to nearby communities and to the maritime environment? The project could cause untold damage to agricultural land, sites of scientific interest and some of our towns and villages. It is ironic that the Government consider this to be an environmental project when it could very well destroy—and is already destroying—the environment. This would be laughable if it were not so serious. Have I received any reassurances on those health and safety matters? No, I have not. Have the Government even taken this into account? They cannot wash their hands of this project. If something goes wrong, the public will want answers. Another claim by the Government, and by some of the people who might be getting tenders from them, paid for by the taxpayer, is that the project will support around 3,500 jobs. What will those jobs be? How many will be permanent rather than temporary construction roles? How many will go to local people, and how many will require specialist contractors to be brought in from overseas? Regarding the future of the project, how long is the infrastructure guaranteed for? I hear that the pipes are only guaranteed for 30 years. Can the Minister confirm or deny that? The north-west should not be a dumping ground for carbon dioxide from not only elsewhere in the country, but elsewhere in the world. Although the project says it will initially be used to store carbon dioxide captured from Derbyshire and Staffordshire, it has been reported that the infrastructure will be designed to allow it to import and transport carbon dioxide from other countries in future. Can the Minister confirm whether those reports are correct? What additional approval would the Government require to grant those permissions? All that the project will do is store up problems for future generations to tackle and pay for. The physicists and scientists who have contacted me mock the Government’s ignorance on this matter, saying that carbon dioxide is needed, and that if the Government really wanted to do something, they could just plant some trees. I am afraid that the Government have been suckered into a multibillion-pound waste of a project about which, as we know, they have no business acumen or know-how. Before the Minister rises and dismisses my questions, as he did last week on the Floor of the House, saying that the Government have nothing to do with this project, I remind him—I ask him to reflect on this point—that the Peak Cluster project has deep, direct, structural and financial links to the Government, with the final sign-off coming via a development consent order by the Energy Secretary. The Government are a <span id="382WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="382WH"></span>stakeholder in Peak Cluster Ltd, the private company the Minister referred to. Local authorities cannot object to the project, as the Government have deemed it a nationally significant infrastructure project. The money invested in it comes from the National Wealth Fund, wholly owned by the Government. With that in mind, will the Government and the Minister kindly give some meaningful answers? If he cannot do so today and needs to go away to do some homework, I will happily accept a written response, but the Government cannot keep using obfuscation and excuses to try to hoodwink the public. The public demand answers today.

   Hansard source
4. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

   Will the Minister give way?

   Hansard source
5. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

   Then don’t be so dismissive!

   Hansard source
6. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

   Will the Minister give way?

   Hansard source
7. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

   Can the Minister confirm that the final sign-off on this project, via a development consent order, will be done by the Secretary of State for Energy—by, in other words, the Government? Is that true or false?

   Hansard source
8. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

   Will the Minister give way on another inaccurate piece of information?

   Hansard source
9. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

   I see the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) in the seat behind the Minister, although I appreciate that, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, he is not able to speak. The Minister might not know this. but I confirm that Wirral council in its entirety, across all parties, objected to the Peak Cluster project. Do the Minister and the PPS sitting behind him know that?

   Hansard source
10. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

    Did the Minister just say, “so that the Government can part-own some of this”? Were those the words he used?

    Hansard source
11. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

    Will the Minister give way in the final 30 seconds?

    Hansard source
12. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    Waste Management Sites

    It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing this important debate. As she strongly articulated, she has had significant issues with sites in her constituency. This debate is an excellent opportunity for her to share her concerns with the Minister. We have heard powerful contributions from across the House and from places across the country—urban, rural and, as ever, in Northern Ireland—about the important health and human impacts. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) talked about fire issues related to batteries. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) discussed the health impacts <span id="407WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="407WH"></span>affecting people young and old. The hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) also discussed the fire issue. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) discussed odour and wellbeing issues. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) also discussed odour issues, as well as the hazards posed by plastics to wildlife and the environment. The hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) discussed access issues in terms of traffic build-up at sites. The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) powerfully articulated the mental health impacts of some of these sites. The hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) discussed issues relating to flies. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) discussed the heavy traffic and the knock-on consequences of these sites, leading people into fly-tipping. I am very proud of the previous Conservative Government’s record on this issue. We introduced the 2018 resources and waste strategy, the 2023 waste prevention programme and a statutory target to halve residual waste per person by 2042. It is essential that the current Government build on that record, with an approach that remains sensible and pragmatic, by taking account of the concerns of local residents while ensuring that the UK reuses more and wastes less. Although all types of waste sites can affect local communities, the worst harm comes from those operating illegally, whether they were illegal from the outset or drifted into illegality over time. Those sites degrade local environments, create safety hazards, can be damaging to health and, in some cases, cut off access to community spaces altogether. Sites that are managed poorly and left to get out of hand by the authorities can lead to a vicious cycle where unscrupulous operators move in, fly-tipping is exacerbated and local communities and the environment are negatively impacted. The Countryside Alliance’s recent report on waste crime is useful here. It identifies major illegal fly-tips, such as the horrendous 150 metre-long dump beside the River Cherwell and the A34 near Kidlington. It also highlights Walleys Quarry, which was closed in 2024 after years of complaints. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme for his efforts on that; he has followed the good work of his predecessor. The report also finds that compliant waste sites can drive fly-tipping if they are made too costly or inconvenient to use. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether she has looked at the report’s recommendations on vehicle owner liability and access to municipal sites. Turning to incineration, prior to the general election, the previous Government issued a moratorium on new environmental permits for waste incineration. That gave the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the chance to properly consider the role incineration should play in managing residual waste in England. That moratorium applied regardless of whether a site already held planning permission, though it rightly excluded hazardous and clinical waste facilities, small incinerators and sites seeking permit variations for carbon capture. In December 2024, the current Government announced that new waste incinerators would receive planning approval only if they met strict new local and environmental conditions.<span id="408WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="408WH"></span> As the Minister may be aware, Friends of the Earth opposes incinerators for environmental reasons. They contribute to climate change through carbon emissions, destroy materials that could be reused and fail to provide an incentive for reducing waste. Moreover, it is important to consider the human element of incinerators and the consequences they can have on local residents’ physical health—including respiratory conditions—but also on their mental health. Does the Minister accept that even a small rise in local air pollutants can affect residents’ mental health? Studies suggest that environmental contamination can bring “heightened stress and anxiety to the point of dread”. The UK Health Security Agency found that “it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from MWI completely”, which will offer little reassurance to constituents living near one. What are the Government doing to support the health—both mental and physical—of those communities? You are by some quirk of fate in the Chair for this debate, Mr Murrison, but you have long campaigned on the issue of waste incinerators, and I note a point that you raised: “Not only does the incineration of plastic produce 175 times as much CO₂as landfill, but the emissions per unit of energy produced from burning mixed waste is the same as coal and nearly double that of gas.”<span id="vol776_col263" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="263" data-volume-number="776" data-external-id="00432FAB-51CD-4E35-8D9B-BD0B77464A84">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 263.]</span> On the issue of energy, which is pertinent, given that incinerators provide around 3% of the UK’s total energy generation, much of Britain’s total energy needs are still met by oil and gas. Both the Government and the Climate Change Committee have admitted that we will still need oil and gas for decades to come. It is vital, therefore, that we make the North sea an investable basin. Reducing domestic production will not mean that we consume any less oil and gas; it will simply make us more dependent on imports. That will mean that we do not benefit from more jobs and investment or higher tax revenues. It will also increase our carbon footprint if we import liquified natural gas from countries such as the US or Qatar. It is therefore much better for both our economy and the environment that we harvest our own oil and gas. Regrettably, we will now not hear from the incoming Prime Minister for many, many weeks about what his new Government’s approach to domestic oil and gas might be. I turn to recycling, which we have heard about today. It was disappointing to see London’s recycling rate show no improvement in 2024-25. It has gone down 0.9% since 2020 and, at 32.7%, is the lowest rate since 2016. It is welcome that the Government have continued the simpler recycling measures begun by the previous Conservative Government. What can and cannot be recycled should not be a postcode lottery. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition support a more consistent and streamlined system. Put simply, waste that is not recycled is destined for incineration or landfill. The Government should follow the lead of the previous Government in carefully assessing the need for new incinerators so that we do not end up with more capacity than we need. The Government must also ensure that waste site operators are operating legally and with due regard to their environmental responsibilities so that they do not blight local communities, as we have heard powerfully from across the House and across the country.

    Hansard source
13. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    Waste Management Sites

    It is always a huge pleasure to be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman. He has been very kind to me over the years. After my maiden speech, he came across the Chamber to speak to me and was very kind, so I will always take an intervention from him, as I am sure everyone else will. I totally agree. The Countryside Alliance is a powerful organisation. The report that I cited earlier shows that it is a powerful voice and that it does its research. The rural voice does need to be listened to in this debate; the report highlighted some of the key issues across the country such as waste crime and fly-tipping, including in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. The issue affects the whole country—urban, suburban and rural—and we need to recognise that. Finally, the Government should look hard at what can be done before waste ever reaches these sites. Above all, they should listen to local residents and take seriously the effect that these sites have on people’s mental and physical health. The Government must, through all their authorities, keep monitoring health data closely and act to help people in their daily lives.

    Hansard source
14. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
15. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    The Minister points out that this is a critical moment. If it is so critical for the national importance of this country, why is the Prime Minister not here to lead this debate?

    Hansard source
16. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    The hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out that there is a dichotomy here. His Government have come forward with a defence investment plan that is £5 billion short. Given his esteemed career as an economist, will he tell us where that money is going to come from? What is he suggesting to his Defence Secretary and the future Prime Minister about how to stop that gap? As he rightly pointed out, the cost of living is going up for the individual taxpayer.

    Hansard source
17. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    The defence chief said that we needed £28 billion for defence, but the hon. Gentleman’s Government have brought forward £15 billion, of which there is a £4.7 billion shortfall. Therein lie the gap and the problem, because there is a difference between what we will need to achieve that ability to deter and actually providing it. What are his thoughts on that?

    Hansard source
18. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    Does the hon. Gentleman have an estimate of how much those policies would cost?

    Hansard source
19. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    I will start by spending a few minutes on the context of why we are having this debate. It was rushed in by an emergency process, meaning that two scheduled Opposition day debates had to be cancelled. I was in the Chamber when the Leader of the House made that announcement and I listened very carefully. I would like to quote some of the important points he made when he justified the need for this debate:<span id="975" class="column-number" data-column-number="975"></span> “I appreciate the frustration of Members when business is changed at short notice and when debates are postponed, but they will appreciate the importance of the House being able to discuss the escalating and fast-moving situation in the middle east before the recess.”<span id="vol789_col768" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="768" data-volume-number="789">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 14 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 768.]</span> He went on: “I remind the House that there is a crisis escalating across the middle east.”<span id="vol789_col770" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="770" data-volume-number="789">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 14 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 770.]</span> Further still, he said: “I point out to her and to Opposition Members that the situation in the middle east is unusual. We could well be in the midst of a greater conflagration in that region.”<span id="vol789_col771" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="771" data-volume-number="789">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 14 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 771.]</span> He went on: “I am talking about a situation that is erupting once again in the middle east.”<span id="vol789_col774" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="774" data-volume-number="789">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 14 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 774.]</span> He said: “Tomorrow’s business is being altered because we are on the verge of a conflagration”.<span id="vol789_col775" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="775" data-volume-number="789">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 14 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 775.]</span> He finished up by saying: “As I have said, the new Prime Minister will come to this House and set out his plans, but we deemed the crisis unfolding across the middle east to be of sufficient priority to change tomorrow’s business. I apologise that that is the case. Nobody wanted to do it, but that is what the importance of the situation demanded. I am sorry if the Opposition cannot get their head around that.”<span id="vol789_col778" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="778" data-volume-number="789">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 14 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 778.]</span> Gosh! As an Opposition MP, I heard what the Leader of the House said and thought, “Wow, I had better make sure I am at that debate.” I have only been in this place for six years, but when I walked in, I was slightly surprised that the Prime Minister was not leading the debate. Fair enough, he is stepping down, but given the urgency of the situation, I would have expected the Foreign Secretary to be leading the debate, especially as she was in the Chamber earlier, but no, she is not here. Fair enough, maybe she is doing the diplomacy, but what about the Defence Secretary? No, he is not here. Instead, we have a brand-new Minister, who I welcome to his place, opening the debate. Fair enough, the Department is busy, but I would have expected the Back Benches to be full. Instead, it is a pleasant surprise to find that I do not have a time limit on my speech, given that there are only six about Back Benchers here to speak in the debate.

    Hansard source
20. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    Amen. We on the Opposition Benches definitely agree with that. They do not make diamonds the size of bricks, and I intend to be erudite in what I say, but I still have a few more points to put on record.

    Hansard source
21. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    My right hon. Friend is right. It may well be that the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary or the Prime Minister has something more urgent to deal with, but I am yet to know what. I hope that in the <span id="976" class="column-number" data-column-number="976"></span>wind-ups we will hear why this debate was needed so urgently, rather than Opposition day business, considering that it is a highly unprecedented move to prioritise a general debate over an Opposition day debate.

    Hansard source
22. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    I will take another intervention.

    Hansard source
23. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    The hon. Gentleman makes a fantastic point about how important it is for hon. Members to have lived experience when they come to this House, especially given that the Leader of the House said that Opposition day debates had to be cancelled to discuss this issue because it is the biggest crisis we face. The new Minister has only been in the Department for a couple of weeks, so he may not be as up to speed as the Defence Secretary—oh no, he is new as well—or perhaps the Foreign Secretary. Given the severity of what is facing the UK and the world, I thought the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) would be here. I even asked the Leader of the House if he would write to the right hon. Member for Makerfield to ask him to come to the debate, but alas, that seems to have gone amiss, but I am glad that we are having this important debate on Iran.

    Hansard source
24. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    Au contraire—how could my hon. Friend possibly make that suggestion? The public will see what this looks like. Did Labour Back Benchers not listen to the words of the Leader of the House about how important this debate is? Clearly, other hon. Members are too busy dealing with something even more important. As I was saying, I am actually very pleased to be debating Iran, because the situation there has an impact on all aspects of our lives. The real question is not why we are debating the situation in Iran, but what decisions will be made by the man who will take charge in four or five days’ time. The Government are effectively asking us to debate a storm without understanding how the captain wants to steer us through it. That is why this debate matters.<span id="977" class="column-number" data-column-number="977"></span> Let’s start with energy. We have heard from both sides of the House about the impact that the situation in Iran will have on energy. Will the new Prime Minister think about opening new licences? What is he going to do about the cost of living and fuel prices? We do not know the answer, but that is going to have a big impact. We know that the cost of energy is going up in this country, despite the Government’s promises at the election that it would fall, and we do not have an answer on what the right hon. Member for Makerfield will do. We are not 100% sure what he will do on net zero. We have just had an urgent question on resilience and possible blackouts in this country, but we do not understand what he will do. I am quite keen to understand the thoughts of the person who will be in charge in five days’ time on how to deal with that issue and grow resilience in the country. We have rightly heard from Members on the Government Benches about defence. There has been a lot of turmoil in defence under the Labour Government. We have lost a Defence Secretary. We have had a defence investment plan and, as I rightly pointed out earlier, it was expected to need £28 billion, but it has hit £15 billion. That is the funding that has been committed, but there is a gap there, isn’t there? We are £4.7 billion short. The right hon. Member for Makerfield will have to fill that gap in the handover, so how is he going to do it?

    Hansard source
25. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I would love to put that question to the right hon. Member for Makerfield, if he was here, although I expect that it would have come more eruditely from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on the Front Bench. This is precisely my point: we do not know how that issue will be resolved. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who spoke before me, spoke about the humanitarian situation, which is hugely important. We have no idea what the decisions of the right hon. Member for Makerfield will be when it comes to dealing with international aid. After all, the current Prime Minister castigated the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, for making cuts to international aid, then went and made cuts himself. The question is: will the new Prime Minister make the same decision? Will he hold to it or reverse it? I do not know—this Chamber does not know, and that is the point. The DIP hits our domestic policies too. The funding needed to defend our nation and ensure that we are protected from the likes of Iran must mean a capital expenditure cut, which will be 1% in health and 1% in education. Which frontline services in health are going? Which hospitals in the hospital programme will not be built? There was a negotiation between the US and the UK on pharmaceuticals in our trade deal. That was signed off with the US, which has a tendency to use leverage on us when it comes to international issues such as Iran and tariffs. We still do not know from this Government where that funding will come from, but it <span id="978" class="column-number" data-column-number="978"></span>has to come from the frontline when it comes to the NHS. I would love to ask the new Prime Minister what that looks like and how he will fund the new drugs that we need, but, alas, we will sadly not get that opportunity. What does the 1% off education look like for school budgets? When it comes to education, especially when we have the likes of VAT on private schools, which has meant that 100 schools have closed and we have less teachers than when this Government came in—

    Hansard source
26. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    Thank you—I will ensure <em>Hansard</em> corrects that. Let me point out that there are 1,900 fewer teachers under this Department for Education. I pose a question to the right hon. Member for Makerfield: how does that factor into the Iranian debate when it comes to defence and having to make cuts and other considerations? What about the reporting on Iran? The BBC has been reporting on Iran. What is the vision of the right hon. Member for Makerfield for the BBC, given that the end of the charter is coming up? We do not know the answers to these questions. We have not had the chance to ask him, and that chance was kiboshed yesterday. We could have extended parliamentary time to pose these very pertinent questions to him. On that point, Iran is one of the best reasons for having this debate, because it shows the scrutiny that we need to place on the incoming Prime Minister. I am shocked, I tell you, to hear from others outside this Chamber that the Government are falsifying information and changing the rules to be able to hide from scrutiny. They are using the fog of war to dull the light of scrutiny when it comes to the new Prime Minister. I will not have that, because I trust that they surely would not be that stupid or Machiavellian. Surely they would not make the naive decision to give the public the perception that the new Prime Minister does not want to take scrutiny when it comes to topics like Iran. We are going to go six weeks without the chance to debate the likes of Iran. We have had a red carpet rolled out for a coronation, but it could appear that the green Benches have been rolled up for those six weeks to allow the king in the north to come down to his United Kingdom. At some point, he will have to face his subjects and tell us how he will deal with domestic issues, international issues and Iran.

    Hansard source
27. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    I would come to the Chamber to answer questions from Parliament.

    Hansard source
28. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    Nineteen.

    Hansard source
29. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

    Hansard source
30. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Iran

    Will we ever see the Cambridge Prime Minister at a debate?

    Hansard source
31. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Waste Management Sites

    Order. We are under time pressure, so I will place an indicative limit of four minutes on speeches.

    Hansard source
32. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Waste Management Sites

    Order. Members will have to be brief. I am sure that Adam Jogee will be an exemplar.

    Hansard source
33. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Douglas Lumsden

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    This is a really worrying situation that perfectly highlights why we need an energy mix in our grid. In that energy mix, we need to have nuclear, as was mentioned before, but we also need to have gas to provide the inertia in our grid. The people of Aberdeen South understand that, but does the Minister understand that, and is he concerned with the lack of inertia in our grid as we move to more and more intermittent sources?

    Hansard source
34. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Independence Referendum

    I will not be overly effusive about the Secretary of State or the Minister, because that might not be helpful for them in the next few days; when there was a previous change of Prime Minister, as soon as Anna Soubry stood up and said that I had done a good job at the Scotland Office, I knew I was doomed! Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) that devolution in itself is not the answer? It is about how it is used. We recently saw that in Scotland, when the Scottish Parliament voted in favour of another independence referendum and against an inquiry into SNP finances.

    Hansard source
35. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    <em>(Urgent Question)</em>: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on allegations from whistleblowers within the National Energy System Operator regarding summer blackout risk.

    Hansard source
36. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    Control room operators at the National Energy System Operator have the life-or-death job of balancing our electricity supply and demand. If they do not get it right, we will have blackouts, and in blackouts, people die; it is that serious. That makes what I am about to say all the more extraordinary.<span id="938" class="column-number" data-column-number="938"></span> I have been approached by multiple whistleblowers within our grid operator. Their allegations are: first, that on 23 June, the operator failed to meet the grid security standards put in place to prevent blackouts; secondly, that the corporate affairs team interfered with operational decisions—that is not something that the Minister denied—putting the reputation of the operator above security of supply; and thirdly, that operational decisions are being recorded in live documents, with no audit trail. Again, the Minister did not deny that. I first raised questions on 2 June. Since then, we have had three public electricity margin notices—warnings to the market that we may be short on supply. I cannot stress enough that this is completely unprecedented. Multiple whistleblowers have now come forward. This, too, is unprecedented. I have raised this matter twice in the House. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the Government shockingly dismissed me on both occasions as “scaremongering”. Considering the consequences of blackouts to people’s lives, that is nothing short of a disgrace. NESO has now agreed to hold an external independent investigation. That is positive. However, while the Government wash their hands of this situation, the investigation that has been set up is a complete sham. It will not look into whether the grid is being run securely, or whether there was a breach of security standards on 23 June. It does not grant anonymity to any control room operator who wants to come forward. Those who are not selected by NESO management will have to ask those managers if they can participate, if they have concerns. Remarkably, on an all-staff call on Monday, the chief executive of NESO prejudged the outcome of the investigation by calling the allegations false, while senior management said that the whistleblowers had let them down. Let me be clear: the whistleblowers who have put the national interest over their own careers should be celebrated for their courage and integrity, not denigrated. Will the Government finally get a grip on this? Can the Minister guarantee that every single control room operator who wants to share their concerns will be given the opportunity to do so anonymously?

    Hansard source
37. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    A1: North Northumberland

    I call the Minister.

    Hansard source
38. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Independence Referendum

    I welcome the Secretary of State’s reassurance on the constitution. The people of Scotland do not want another divisive, distracting and damaging referendum on ripping our country apart. That said, this Labour Government do have a bit of a habit of changing position on certain issues, with 25 U-turns in only two years. So can I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that, whatever else changes and whoever holds the keys to Dover House this time next week—and even if it is the one and only thing they stick to—there will be no referendum and no consideration of one? Will the Government dismiss out of hand immediately any move towards breaking up of our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

    Hansard source
39. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Devolved Powers

    Famously, we have not heard very much from the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) on his plans for government, although we do know that he seems to be a fan of devolution and its job-creating opportunities—for him. Well, I can tell colleagues from experience: devolution ain’t everything it’s cracked up to be. In Scotland, we have had 20 years of SNP mismanagement, and a pervasive and deeply <span id="919" class="column-number" data-column-number="919"></span>damaging devolve-and-forget mentality in London. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Labour will not be devolving any more power to Edinburgh?

    Hansard source
40. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Devolved Powers

    We have demonstrated that we are unafraid to step in and act when decisions taken by the Scottish Government are to the detriment of Scots and Scotland—for example, in the case of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill a few years ago. Will the Secretary of State commit today to urging the new Prime Minister to think long and hard about how devolution in the hands of the SNP is failing Scotland and Scotland’s economy, and examine how, on this Government’s watch, SNP Ministers have been able to jet around the world on taxpayer jollies, allow British civil servants to draw up plans to tear Britain apart, and spend countless hundreds of thousands pursuing a narrow, divisive agenda that is focused on pulling Scotland apart rather than growing it together?

    Hansard source