National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

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.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

It is right that an investigation into these allegations has been confirmed, and I welcome reassurances that the grid remains stable. As an electrical engineer, I have always been in awe of the work of our grid, and of the challenges it faces: climate change, electrification, the demands of renewables and AI, and cyber-attacks. Could the Minister set out what steps the previous Government took during their 14-year tenure to invest in a more resilient grid, and what steps this Government have taken?

[Michael Shanks]

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.

Science, innovation and technology Committee

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on our report, “Science diplomacy: Sovereignty, strategy and the global race”. I am pleased to see members of the Committee in the Chamber. I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee Clerks and specialists who have supported this inquiry, as well as the many witnesses who gave evidence.

I may have mentioned before that I am proud to be a chartered engineer with over 20 years of experience in industry, and for 16 years, I have been an engineer in the House, but as my friends, family and perhaps too many of my colleagues will attest, I am not a diplomat. In chairing this inquiry, I have learned much about the essential work of our diplomatic service and the international work of so many organisations and institutions, from the Royal Society to our armed forces. I thank them for their contribution. We found—the football analogy I am about to use was in the report even before England’s amazing win over Mexico—that the UK is in the premier league when it comes to scientific strengths and our global diplomatic network, but we do not know where we stand when it comes to science diplomacy. We launched our inquiry in April last year to examine how the UK Government should leverage scientific research and innovation to support its diplomatic goals, growth missions and national security. We held five public sessions and received over 50 written submissions. As the topic is so broad, we chose to look at the issues through three lenses: health and life sciences, quantum, and space. We also chose to focus on the UK Government’s strategy for science diplomacy, and its implications for sovereignty and research security, as part of the wider topic.

First of all, we found that the UK has failed to adapt to the pace of geopolitics. The geopolitical landscape has been turned upside down in recent years. Alongside rapid technological advancement, this has made science diplomacy more important than ever. I will give three quick examples to illustrate this. First, the global talent fund was the UK’s attempt to capitalise on the US retreat from science funding, but as it does not address the huge up-front costs faced by researchers, it is unlikely to have the impact that the Government desired. As of June this year, just 18 researchers had been announced as taking up new roles through the fund. That is not going to move any dials.

Secondly, while the Committee recognises that overseas development assistance spending has been reduced to allow the defence budget to be increased, our report highlights the short-sighted nature of some of the cuts that followed, and the impact on ODA for research and development.

Thirdly, the UK-US pharmaceutical agreement has secured benefits—notably, exemptions from tariffs—but it also appears to have involved significant commitments affecting core elements of UK domestic policy. Although the global nature of the pharmaceuticals sector means that trade negotiations will inevitably have an impact on it, surely decisions about NHS spending, pricing and access to medicines should primarily be driven by the needs of UK patients, and balanced with the sustainability of the life sciences sector.

Our second key finding was that there is a lack of overarching strategy. Witnesses consistently cited the strengths of the UK’s research base. Though we have less than 1% of the worldwide population, we have 6% of global publications and receive one 12th of global citations. We found that the Government have not articulated a coherent strategic framework for science diplomacy, despite those strengths. Such a framework should set out priority partners and technologies, and the intended outcomes of partnerships.

For the six frontier technologies in the digital and technologies sector plan, and for space, the Government should bring forward detailed cross-governmental strategies, accompanied by clear delivery plans. The forthcoming plan for space provides an important opportunity to do that. The report also describes the Government’s approach to international scientific agreements and science diplomacy as “opportunistic”.

Thirdly, we found that in a geopolitical landscape that, as I said, has been turned upside down, the UK is in a global race for sovereign capability, whether it acknowledges it or not. The US’s decision to ban foreigners’ access to Anthropic’s most powerful artificial intelligence models was a watershed moment that proved—to mix metaphors, perhaps—that there is actually a kill switch. The Government must reflect on this when considering our ambitions for secure sovereign capability.

Although the own-collaborate-access framework provides a useful foundation for prioritising the UK’s approaches to critical technology, it is applied at too high a level to actually influence and guide decision making. There are so many definitions of “sovereignty” circulating. That impedes our ability to give our international stakeholders clear signals, and prevents businesses from getting the signals that they need to apply their resources—skills, investment, research and development—to the technologies that the Government will procure on a sovereign basis.

The UK is highly successful at generating world-leading research and innovation, but less so in turning that strength into the growth of high-tech domestic companies. Too many UK-developed technologies are forced to look abroad to scale. The private sector needs clearer investment signals. Yesterday at the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s evidence session, the Secretary of State emphasised frontier models, computer chips and compute as parts of the AI tech stacks that she would like to have sovereign capability in. We need more clarity like that.

To finish, we have four areas of recommendation. On global policy, our report calls on the Government to strengthen the UK’s international science and technology position through a clearer strategy, greater investment and improved resilience. On strategy, we call on the Government to publish a coherent science diplomacy strategy, with clear criteria for decisions on science partnerships, and with explicit strategies for engagement with the US and the EU, Commonwealth partners, other middle powers and competitors such as Russia and China. On sovereignty, the Government should define what “technological sovereignty” means when it comes to critical technologies and particularly AI, identify key dependencies in supply chains, and use that analysis to guide investment and procurement decisions. To support innovation, we recommend improving scale-up capital, expanding specialist investment funds and using public procurement more strategically to help UK technology firms grow. Finally, on research security, and with the recent Biobank leak in mind, our report calls for stronger research security guidance, improved information sharing between Government and institutions such as universities, and a cross-Government plan to develop a sustainable domestic skills pipeline in critical scientific and technological fields.

The UK’s excellence in research and innovation is a distinct strategic advantage. To sustain it, we urge the Government to outline a science diplomacy strategy. Through such a strategy, we can ensure that science diplomacy remains a driver of progress, as well as a pillar of soft power.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I start by thanking the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and its entire membership for the publication of a very interesting and timely report. Business, academia and the whole tech sector needs clarity, in some ways more than anything else. Does the Chair share my concerns, which are stated quite well in the report, that

“The government has repeatedly outlined that building sovereign capability is a ‘critical priority’ for the UK but has not been clear on exactly what this means or how it might be measured”?

There are lots of different definitions of sovereignty being bandied around, which mean lots of different things in different contexts. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need some clarity on what exactly it means in this sector when we use the word “sovereignty”?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

It is one of the thrusts of the report that we need greater clarity on sovereignty. This is not an academic debate—we do not need philosophical discussions on what sovereignty may or may not mean—but as the shadow Minister indicated, on tech stacks, particular technologies and their supply chains, we need to understand what we are trying to achieve, so that business, academia and Government, and particularly Government procurement, can move in that direction.

It is interesting, because it was almost implicit that we did not want to say where we were looking for sovereignty, or where we did not have it, as that might alert our competitors to weaknesses. I think China and Russia probably know our weaknesses quite well, and it is our tech start-ups and our great businesses and scale-ups that need to better understand our intended strengths, so that they can support them.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I welcome this very interesting and timely report, and I particularly welcome the recognition that one of the barriers to developing or strengthening our sovereignty is the lack of access to deep capital markets at the later stages of start-ups’ development. Will the Chair tell the House a little bit more about what the Committee found on that, and how she thinks the Government can help make sure that companies that want to rapidly grow in the UK can get resource in the UK, rather than in the United States?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend highlights an important point in the report on investment and access to it, particularly for sovereign capabilities. That may be for what we call deep tech, which is tech that requires a long-term investment and that will not yield a return tomorrow, or even next year. We recommend supporting the setting up of funds that are dedicated to that, because it takes particular skills and particular access to investment vehicles to support that kind of long-term funding.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the report, and for all the hard work her Committee has put into it. I was very interested in the section about space. Does she share my pleasure in the announcement today that the SaxaVord space station is likely to have a launch of a rocket within the next three weeks?

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

In addition to acknowledging the investment from the UK Government, may I ask whether my hon. Friend’s Committee agrees with the recommendation of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which I chair, that we should have a Minister for space in Government? That is because we recognise the cross-cutting nature of many of the issues that face companies that want to be involved in space, and the very many jurisdictions with which they have to negotiate. I think of maritime agencies, as well as Government Departments, local jurisdictions and planning. It would be helpful to have an indication of her view.

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend and Select Committee Chair for that excellent question, and congratulate Scotland on the proposed launch. The Committee chose space as one of the lenses through which to look at science diplomacy and all the issues associated with it. Though we did not recommend a Minister for space per se, evidence to the Committee highlighted the confusion about where the responsibility for space lies. Space is increasingly important in defence, and it is an area in which we already see covert, and sometimes explicit, conflict. There is a huge defence programme to consider. It is economically incredibly important as well; we see the role of Starlink and other private sector providers in Ukraine in supporting communications, and the roll-out here. This issue is also important when it comes to negotiations on space debris and all sorts of matters, and it relates to planning permission and domestic issues as well. My hon. Friend is certainly right to advocate for greater clarity on the responsibilities for space.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am proud to represent Shoreditch, which has a lot of tech start-ups, so I welcome my hon. Friend’s report. Following on from the question from, and answer to, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), will she expand on how we can get that money into tech businesses, so that they can grow and develop? A lot of my businesses find that the machinery of Whitehall is slow and clunky, and they can get better investment quicker from other jurisdictions and sources. What does my hon. Friend hope that the Government can do, in relation to setting up the new fund that her Committee proposes? Does she have any faith that the Government will be able to move at the pace needed for those tech companies to grow, and to stay in the UK?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend and Chair of the Treasury Committee for her question. She highlights one of the principal concerns regarding technology-driven growth, which we reported on in our report “Flying blind: innovation, growth and the regions”: the access to capital, particularly for the kind of tech start-ups that we are discussing, which require long-term investment.

One thing we should regret most is DeepMind going to the US to form Google’s excellent AI base, rather than remaining as a UK-owned company.

How can we get better long-term investment? I recommend encouraging the growth of specialist funds with deep sectorial expertise. In achieving investment goals, we cannot get around the need to have technological knowledge and to attract international talent and technology leaders. The Government should also use their procurement of UK start-ups and scale-ups, because nothing is so valuable to a company as an actual contract signed with the Government, who are generally known to pay on time.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I am very happy to complete this hat trick of Scottish colleagues. I thank my hon. Friend for this excellent report, and I agree about the need to focus on science diplomacy, which is an opportunity for the UK; we should be much more ambitious about what we do.

As a former member of a science and innovation network overseas, running a team that wonderfully created the UK’s first trilateral water research project in the middle east, I put on record the great work that our science teams are doing around the world. Will she say more about opportunities to increase or prioritise work between science, technology and innovation network staff in embassies?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because it gives me the opportunity to put on record how much the work of the SINs, which I now think are called the SATs, or something—

[Alan Gemmell]

SAINTs, maybe.

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

Yes, the SINs and the SAINTs. The name may have changed, and there are concerns about the level of support they are receiving from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but there was unanimous support for the work they did. There are countless examples of that support having enabled tech companies to invest in the UK, and UK tech companies to identify and address attractive markets across the world. The SINs, under whatever name, are a successful example of our science diplomacy network.

Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

In the interests of time, I will focus my speech on four key areas, having waited nearly 10 months for a response to a letter that I sent to the Minister in which he neglected to answer the questions posed.

First is the issue of complexity. The Government argue that it is just too complex to differentiate between goods produced in green-line Israel, legitimate Palestinian goods and those from illegal settlements. However, the Minister is acutely aware that the UK free trade agreement with Israel already requires settlement goods and those from green-line Israel to be differentiated. At the same time, the UK’s trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority means that Palestinian goods have completely different import codes, so the UK should already be distinguishing between goods. Therefore, why is it too complex to implement a ban on illegal settlement goods when, as was mentioned, the Government can apply complex trade sanctions relating to territory in Ukraine illegally occupied by Russia, including an outright ban on goods imported from Crimea?

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those points. I, too, have engaged in written parliamentary questions and oral questions to try to understand why it is apparently so difficult to distinguish between goods from the illegal settlements, which the Minister for the middle east—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer)—said quite clearly should not be traded, and goods from Israel proper. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as long as that differentiation is not made effectively, there is no incentive for Israel to differentiate its goods and to stop hiding settlement goods behind those from Israel proper?

[Chris Law]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. That point could be made the other way round: if Israel cannot differentiate its goods—or it is hiding goods among others—why do we not just ban all goods until Israel proves otherwise? That would be a way to deal with it.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and wish him a happy birthday—I am sure a good birthday present for him would be the regulation of managing agents for the sake of his constituents. Self-regulation does not work when there is no real enforcement, and leaseholders were clear with us that they do not just want mandatory qualifications. As Lord Best put it in his evidence to the Committee,

“being qualified doesn’t necessarily make people behave properly; you still need a code of practice and enforcement”.

What we need is a regulator with teeth—one that will issue meaningful sanctions against agents that treat homeowners like a revenue stream. For the worst offenders, that should include the removal of their licence to operate.

I should acknowledge that our inquiry heard from some campaigners who were concerned that regulation could add to the costs passed on to leaseholders via service charges. On balance, though, we think that regulation is now necessary to protect all leaseholders from rogue managing agents. The reality is that some leaseholders will not be able to convert to commonhold—some blocks will not be able to meet the 50% threshold to convert, and some blocks will have special features that mean they are not eligible. We cannot leave those homeowners behind.

Ultimately, commonhold is a vast improvement, but it will not always be as simple as hiring and firing agents. Commonholds are likely to appoint managing agents on contracts that last for several years, and they need to have confidence that they are appointing high-quality service providers. An independent code of practice would provide that assurance, so overall we think it would be a valuable addition to the final Bill—one that would benefit homeowners. Homeowners want a crackdown on poorly performing agents like FirstPort, with a regulator that has teeth and can deliver.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Florence Eshalomi]

Very quickly.

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of times that nobody should be left behind by this legislation. My constituents suffer from the actions of the St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust, a supposed charity that refuses to allow them to extend their leases and is using a loophole in the current legislation, leaving them—as one constituent put it—as prisoners in their current homes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation should address those concerns and liberate my constituents?

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

The warm homes plan will be funded to £13.2 billion, and we will announce it before the end of the year.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

T4. The north-east is a vital hub for clean energy supply chains, and my constituents in oil and gas want to be part of that transition, but years of under-investment by the Tories mean that many North sea ports cannot host modern turbine manufacturing. As the Government prepare their plan for the future of the north-east, will the Minister consider infrastructure investment to enable communities and workers in the north-east to better benefit from clean energy jobs?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)]

I recognise what my hon. Friend says about the importance of port infrastructure in the north-east. We made a manifesto commitment to support investment in our ports through the National Wealth Fund, and I would be happy to discuss with her how the north-east in particular could benefit from that.

Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very good point about legislation that is somewhat out of date and needs renewing. That is one of the reasons why, as we stated in the King’s Speech, we will introduce a new cyber Bill. I see the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), nodding. If we do not do that properly, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will table an amendment to the Bill when it is debated.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on his new role. I am sorry that we never had the opportunity to welcome him to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee when he was at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but I believe I see the new artificial intelligence and cyber Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), sitting on the Front Bench, and I look forward to welcoming and congratulating him.

The devastating JLR cyber-attack is one of a series of cyber-attacks that have been wreaking havoc on British businesses and consumers and undermining public confidence. Will the Minister confirm my understanding that neither JLR nor Marks & Spencer are deemed to be providers of essential services under cyber legislation, and are therefore not required to meet the highest levels of cyber-security and reporting requirements? If that is the case, will that change under the new cyber-security and resilience Bill, which he mentioned? If not, how will he improve cyber-resilience in our industry and society without such measures?

[Chris Bryant]

It is interesting, is it not? My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is a balancing act for us to achieve: we do not want to overburden businesses with requirements, but we want to make sure they take every action to ensure they are properly protected. I will write to my hon. Friend if I have got this wrong, but my understanding is that those companies are not presently included. I am afraid that she will have to wait for the Bill, but our intention is that it will directly relate to things like energy and water supply—drinking water and things like that. As I say, it is a balancing act, trying to make sure that industry has the freedom to operate as it should while embodying the best practice.

One other thing I will say is that all businesses, whether large or small, should avail themselves of the early warning tool available from the National Cyber Security Centre whenever they think that they may have had an attack. It is really important that we have a real idea of the prevalence of this problem across the whole sector, and that we are able to join up the dots between different incidents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

The hon. Member is right to pay tribute to the tremendous work that posties do up and down the country, rain or shine, to deliver the mail. There have, of course, been issues with performance in the Royal Mail. I am happy to discuss that further with him, and to make sure, with the help of Ofcom, that we get the service that everyone deserves.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

On Friday, the Select Committee on Science, Innovation and Technology published its report on social media algorithms, following the Southport riots. Indeed, there is a Select Committee statement on the report this afternoon. Stakeholders have expressed concern that ongoing trade negotiations with the United States might prevent the Government from responding to the report’s recommendations, holding social media companies to account and keeping the public safe online. Can the Minister reassure us that that is not the case?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I can reassure my hon. Friend and all colleagues that those decisions will always be in the domain of this Government and this Parliament in the UK. There has been a lot of speculation, during the trade negotiations, about what may or may not be involved, but we have shown that we deliver on jobs, goods and services, and that is the basis of sound trade negotiations.

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Member very much for his work. I think the whole House knows of my personal interest in steel and the measures we have taken, including the recall of Parliament and the passing of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 that was required to save his constituents’ jobs. He is right that the investment required in some of the most electricity-intensive opportunities of the future—electric arc furnaces, for instance, were we to go down that route at Scunthorpe —requires the kind of programme that the enhanced supercharger level will get to because of the measures outlined in the strategy.

There is not yet a plan for transition at Scunthorpe. As the hon. Member knows, we have taken control, but we need to resolve the issue of ownership. We continue to run the plant in a way that minimises losses to the taxpayer. That has meant putting more money in up front to run it at full capacity, which I think he will very much support. We will continue to work with anyone in the local area, including him and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), to ensure that there is a bright future for the steel sector. I believe that will be possible based on the policy environment we are putting in place.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

As Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee,, I really welcome this modern industrial strategy because it delivers on the promise Labour made in opposition to put science, innovation and technology and the skills they require at the heart of the drive for growth and industrialisation. I also welcome the strategy as a north-east MP because of the emphasis on regional growth and regional strengths.

My Committee found that one of the major barriers to regional growth and innovation was access to capital. The industrial strategy commits to doubling business investment by 2035. Will the Secretary of State say a little about how the north-east—just for example—might benefit from that?

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Chi Onwurah will be followed by Steve Darling.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

The US is our closest ally and the world’s largest economy, as well as being the UK’s greatest source of foreign direct investment, so I welcome my right hon. Friend’s calm and pragmatic approach, and his determination not to abandon British workers’ rights in the face of these tariffs, as the Conservatives urge us to, but rather to focus on the trade talks. Will the Online Safety Act 2023, the Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and the digital sales tax be part of the talks? Will he also say a little more about his counter-argument to the Trump Administration’s view that VAT and the DST represent tariffs, rather than tax?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend reminds me that I did not get a chance to respond to the shadow Secretary of State. If, following these announcements in the United States, we had come to Parliament and said, “You know, the answer to this is that low-paid people will not get the sick pay they would otherwise have got under this Labour Government,” that would have been the wrong response. Again, as ever, that would be scapegoating the wrong people for difficult things that have nothing to do with their position in the UK economy.

My hon. Friend skilfully leveraged in a number of questions. There are real differences of opinion between us and the United States on VAT. We say that it applies, as it does, to domestically produced goods as much as to goods that come into the UK, and that it is not trade distorting; indeed, the balance of trade between the US and the UK is evidence of that. The argument from the US is slightly different. I will not go into the content of all the negotiations—she will appreciate that—but success in any negotiation is about being willing to be at the table and put forward our argument, while recognising the other side’s argument. That is the approach of this Government, and that is the way forward.

North Sea Energy

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. If questions are not kept short, Members will prevent their colleagues from getting in.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on setting out a plan that supports jobs, skills and communities in the face of technological change�unlike the Conservative party, which abandoned wholesale our industrial base in the 1980s. Like the north-east of Scotland, the north-east of England has jobs, skills and opportunities that depend on the energy of the North sea. Kinewell Energy, in my constituency, leads in wind farm design optimisation. Can the Minister confirm that she will work with the Mayor of the North East, Kim McGuiness, to ensure that the north-east of England benefits from the jobs and opportunities of the North sea?

[Sarah Jones]

I meet industry representatives all the time, and their response to Kim McGuiness is great. She is such a force of enthusiasm, knowledge and power for her communities, and people engage with her. They like what she says about investing in the north-east, and they are responding to her. She is making a real difference in her community. We are doing all we can, through all kinds of levers that the Government can use, to make sure that the investment in clean energy supports all our communities. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that we need to take advantage of the particular skills of people in the north-east.