Graham Leadbitter MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member probably needs to keep up a bit because that position has already been scrapped. That was articulated by the First Minister.

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  That is not the reason for my intervention. If there is such a drive to get investment and renewables in Scotland—there is some, though it is not nearly fast enough—why did it take two years to make a decision about Ardersier? After two years, the rug was pulled from underneath that with a simple no. If that was the decision the Government were going to come to, surely it could have been made sooner, and the project could have moved on and had some investment. That has the potential for 1,500 jobs on site and a further 4,500 in the supply chain.

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  The SNP backs new licences with the normal environmental assessments and everything that goes with that, which, the hon. Lady will understand, is part of the regulatory process that the previous Conservative Government also followed. Every Government would have an appropriate regulatory and licensing regime. The roads infrastructure, the foundations of installations, the fuels currently relied on by vessels transporting offshore wind towers and turbines, and even composite turbine blades rely heavily on oil and gas production. More significantly, the skills required to deliver the renewables revolution that will be at the heart of Scotland’s industrial economy are the same skills currently utilised in oil and gas. Those who wish to force the decline of the North sea without creating renewable jobs will do to the oil and gas communities what the Tories under Thatcher did to our coal and steel communities. That would be unforgivable.

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership today, Ms Furniss. I commend the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. The North sea oil and gas sector is of critical importance for the many of my constituents who work in the sector. Businesses across the north and north-east of Scotland—and far beyond—either directly operate facilities or provide specialist services and a very substantial supply chain. The oil and gas industry lost 70,000 jobs under the previous Conservative Government, and it continues to lose them under the current Labour Government. It is a complex challenge, and there are far too many people who, like the Tories, are backing full-scale oil and gas extraction with little to no focus on renewables or, like Labour, have a full-on focus on renewables while forcing the decline of the oil and gas sector and ongoing mass job losses. Neither of those extreme positions provides a solution to the challenge. While we must strive to substantially reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, there will still be a need to use oil and gas for many years to come.

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I think that the hon. Gentleman is not keeping up with the current debate because the question was about the SNP’s policy. The strategy will be published in due course. Those who believe that we should drill, drill, drill with little to no investment in the renewables transition are simply pushing the cliff edge further away without dealing with the cliff edge itself. That would also be unforgivable. The industry is clear that it needs the Government to protect oil and gas jobs while building up the renewables sector to transfer those jobs to—a focus not on one or the other, but on a transition from one to the other. It is abundantly clear that neither the Tories nor Labour has a serious focus on that transition. A new report out from the Energy Transition Institute at Robert Gordon University—a highly respected Aberdeen institute—makes for stark reading. The report predicts a further 18,000 job losses in the north-east of Scotland by 2035—1,600 jobs every single year. Crucially, the report then points to the huge benefits that can be achieved from a strong transition to renewables. The report’s author states: “That is not a marginal advantage. It is a structural head start that few other regions in the UK or Europe can match.” He goes on to say: “The priority must be to prevent these losses in the first place, not simply to manage the consequences after the fact.” What this needs now is the investment, policy, alignment and co-ordination to match. That is really simple. Scotland has enormous opportunity to reindustrialise with renewable energy technologies, but to do so requires existing North sea jobs to be protected, or the loss of those vital skills will stall that transition to renewables. There is a so-called “Goldilocks zone”, where growth in renewable jobs more than matches reductions in oil and gas jobs, but crucially, only if the transition is embraced and the oil and gas sector is protected through that transition. Other scenarios have devastating consequences for jobs and the people and communities of north-east Scotland. Pragmatism and pace must be the watchwords on energy policy if we are to make the most of this enormous renewables opportunity in front of us and ensure a future for the workers of the north-east. It is abundantly clear that mass job losses under the Tories and the undermining of those vital jobs by Labour are leading to economic and social pain across the north-east of Scotland. The people best placed to support the transition in Scotland and protect jobs and communities are the people who live and work in Scotland. That is why Scotland must have the full powers and control of energy policy that come with independence.

• 21 May 2026 · Costs for Motorists · Hansard source

  More

  Scotland is an energy superpower, so it is particularly galling for constituents and businesses in my constituency, which is a two and a half hour drive end to end, and where road vehicles are an absolute necessity to conduct daily life, to face the prices they currently face. Will the Government commit to using the hundreds of millions of pounds of extra tax revenue from VAT for a VAT freeze for the duration of the current crisis?

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Less than two weeks ago, the SNP secured a landslide, record-breaking Scottish election victory, including the election of two constituency MSPs who have left this place for Scotland’s Parliament. I know that regardless of political difference, there is a significant level of respect across the parties for their contributions in this Chamber and to the wider work of Parliament. That experience will stand them in good stead for what lies ahead in Holyrood. Much more respect for Scottish voters is required from the UK Government. While the Labour Government here in Westminster have floundered month after month, failing to address the cost of living crisis affecting all my constituents, the SNP has offered a message of hope for what Scotland can and should be, with its vast natural resources, its strategically important geographical position in the world, and the incredible talents of its people. It is particularly notable that in Scotland, support for independence is now consistently polling above 50%, and that Scotland’s voters have elected a significant majority of MSPs who support independence—more than ever before—with a clear mandate from the Scottish electorate to pursue an independence referendum. The theme for today’s King’s Speech debate is defence readiness. Many Members will focus on defence spend, defence procurement, national security threats and other direct defence issues. I agree with many of the points that have been made by hon. Members in the debate this afternoon; many of them were extremely well made. However, I contend that for around 4,500 personnel across three significant bases in my constituency and probably the same number again in family members; around 1,000 permanent defence contractors and their families; and an estimated 12,000 veterans and their families—a total of over 30,000 people with a defence connection—there are many issues that contribute to defence readiness. I turn first to the cost of living crisis. Like every other resident in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, our defence community are struggling to cover bills and are having to cope with more month than there is money. Defence personnel posted to the north of Scotland from elsewhere in the UK will experience an amazing place to live and work, but they will also experience among the highest energy prices in Europe, caused by a regulatory system that is hugely discriminatory to the north of Scotland. Labour MPs promised that people would see a £300 reduction in energy bills, but people there are projected to see a more than £400-a-year increase. There is little to nothing in the King’s Speech that seeks to reverse that £700-plus difference from Labour’s manifesto promise or that would remove the discrimination faced by households and businesses in the north of Scotland—discrimination that has gone on for decades, with no action to address it by the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and now Labour. Up until yesterday, there was no plan from the Westminster Government to address growing food costs—something that the SNP is tackling head-on. Seemingly, the Chancellor is now looking to do similar, but, critically, not in a compulsory way. I very much welcome the Government’s late acceptance of the SNP’s wisdom in this matter, but if the Government are going to do it, I strongly urge them to do it properly. There is no plan to cut fuel costs. There has been a promise not to increase tax further, but there is no plan to reduce it. In constituencies like mine, where car use is necessary for accessing basic services and education, leisure and employment opportunities, that is especially disappointing. People in the north of Scotland deserve better than to be punished by Westminster just for living where they live. Defence personnel, who are often hundreds of miles from their family, also deserve better than having to incur substantial costs when they drive home. When it comes to energy and net zero, a sector that has always been a strong destination for retiring forces personnel, and which is very much suited to the skillsets of many who come from a military background, the current Government are intent on repeating the mistakes of the past by accelerating the decline of one sector, in this case oil and gas, at a rate that does not match either demand changes or the growth of the renewables sector. That is simply Thatcherism all over again, which saw the tearing apart of coal and steel communities in Scotland. It is also a betrayal of North sea workers and those in the vast supply chain associated with those jobs, from skilled parts manufacturing jobs to the hospitality staff across the north of Scotland—taxi drivers, cafés and corner shops—who are seeing their revenues eroded to an unsustainable level. The Government’s policies are eroding the opportunities available to defence personnel, too, and the Conservatives are no better. Their answer is simply to push the cliff edge further away, rather than embrace a managed transition, which is what the industry wants to see. Neither of those scenarios is acceptable to Scotland or to my constituents. That brings me back to the theme of today: defence readiness. It is not attractive for people to join the military when jobs and opportunity are being eroded around key bases. That stifles transition opportunities for personnel leaving the services and erodes the vitality of the communities of which those bases are an integral part. Defence spending needs to be significantly increased, we need a better offer for new military personnel, and we absolutely need much stronger defence resilience in a more challenging world—where dictators such as Putin are prepared to threaten peace on a shocking scale and threaten the infrastructure that is critical to our economic and social wellbeing. At the heart of this issue are the defence communities that are embedded in their wider communities. Those defence communities have the same aspirations, and want the same opportunities for themselves, as their surrounding communities and regions. Getting these fundamentals right supports that bigger community, aids recruitment and retention in our armed forces, and provides the opportunities that our veterans deserve when they exit service.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to the energy powers that should be devolved, but it is currently the UK Government’s responsibility. Over the years, Scotland has sent over £350 billion to the Treasury from oil and gas activity, yet when it comes to the crunch, all the Treasury can come up with is the equivalent of £35 per household for oil. Yet again, the Scottish Government have had to step in and boost support by more than doubling the fund, for an issue that the UK Government have failed to address properly in the first place. Rural homes and communities in Scotland are being overlooked and ignored. Is the Minister really happy that he is presiding over discrimination that is putting so much financial stress on vulnerable households? Will the Government take urgent measures to increase significantly the support funding? Will they provide support to those reliant on LPG gas for their heating? Will they properly regulate heating oil with a price cap, which I fully support? If the Government are unwilling to take those actions, will they devolve energy powers and budgets to the people of Scotland, so that they can make their own decisions in their own Parliament on these vital and urgent issues?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this important debate. In his statement to Parliament yesterday, the Prime Minister said that energy bills had gone down on 1 April, yet for literally tens of thousands of my constituents, that is simply not true. It is estimated that in my constituency alone, 22,500 households—approaching 50,000 constituents—are not connected to the gas grid. Thousands of those homes are reliant on oil and LPG tank gas to heat their homes. Let us delve a bit deeper. One low-income house in Newtonmore, which is in the Cairngorms national park, an arctic-alpine mountain environment, went from paying £640 to £1,220. The supplier told them there was a minimum order of 1,000 litres. A constituent in Forres went from paying £307 plus VAT in December, to £827 in March for 500 litres. That constituent is disabled, with multiple health conditions. This inequity is not new. When it comes to their electricity bills, people in Moray, the highlands and across Scotland are paying among the highest energy prices in Europe, and substantially more than most of the rest of the UK, despite vast amounts of that energy being produced right beside them.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  In a Westminster Hall debate on heating oil support this morning, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) suggested that the Scottish Government should be supporting businesses with energy costs. I agree that powers over energy should be totally devolved to the Scottish Government—does the Secretary of State agree with that?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The impact of this conflict is horrific for those in the line of fire. It is also causing significant financial distress for residents and businesses right across these isles. The Prime Minister stated that energy bills had gone down from 1 April, but for the tens of thousands of my constituents who rely on kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas, that is not true, and for the tens of thousands of my constituents who use petrol and diesel to access essential services many miles from their homes, it is not true. Will he correct the record on that? Will he also tell us when he is actually going to do something to help those households that are in distress?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil: Rural Homes · Hansard source

  More

  In Aviemore it will be snowing tomorrow—in fact, in quite a lot of north Scotland it will be snowing to a pretty low level. People in those areas are suffering hugely from massive energy prices for electricity, heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas for tanks. In Aviemore, a 2,500-litre tank, which was filled in November for £1,400, now costs £3,400 to fill. That is the differential that people are having to pay. Does the Minister agree that £35 per household is frankly a drop in the ocean?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not give way again because I do not have much time. There are many reasons why we need to support oil and gas, not least protecting the workforce and not losing the skills. There are also numerous other areas where the Government are not making decisions quickly enough. On the transmission network’s use of system charges, Government policy has taken 18 to 20 months to come through, and it will be several more months before it is in place. That will be after the start of allocation round 8, which is being accelerated, and many companies in the North sea are saying that they will hold on and wait for AR9 before making an investment decision, because they want certainty. That lack of certainty, pace and pragmatism is preventing those jobs from being created and preventing a just transition. I can apply the same point to Ardersier, which is in my constituency, and the proposal by a Chinese company, Ming Yang, which wants to invest there. I understand that the Government have reasons and things that they need to consider in this matter, but it has been on their desk for 18 months. A decision is needed to either move on to other investors or decide that there is a risk, so that we can mitigate the risk, let them get on with it, create supply chain jobs and have serious, high-skilled, high-paid jobs that will provide a just transition and a serious opportunity for North sea workers. That decision needs to be made sooner rather than later. We experienced an excessive delay in the run-up to decisions on carbon capture, usage and storage; it took forever to get there, and jobs have been lost because of that lost time. Let me turn very quickly to consumer pricing. The Government have been waxing lyrical about price gouging by energy companies at the moment. The Government and previous Governments have been responsible for state-sponsored price gouging in the energy market, with the highest prices for electricity in Scotland. With that, I urge Members to—

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I will start with some facts: energy security is national security, global instability is rife, and our closest ally is now, at best, hugely unpredictable, and it is questionable whether it is reliable. When the UK Government should be protecting energy supply, they are instead sacrificing North sea jobs and communities on the altar of ideology. Job losses continue month on month, and the loss of skills is rife. “Just transition” are mere words for the communities affected. For me, this is a repeat of what Thatcher did to Scotland’s mining communities and the steel industry in Motherwell in the ’80s, destroying an industry without proper future planning and transition arrangements. Scottish Labour MPs—indeed, all Labour MPs—should be ashamed of their Government’s actions in that regard. It is utterly shameful.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I think I am here to scrutinise what your Government are doing—that is the job of MPs in the House of Commons. I would also say that Conservative Members are no better on this. Government Members have an ideology of driving towards net zero and clean power, but it appears with no regard for the North sea; Conservative Members have an ideology of protecting oil and gas in the North sea, while getting rid of climate change targets. The industry does not like either of those positions—not the oil and gas sector, and not the renewables sector—and everybody in the Chamber knows that. Those sectors need each other to survive, and they need the skills to transition from one to the other. If we lose skills in the oil and gas sector, we will not develop the renewables sector as quickly as we need to, and those are the facts of the situation. If those skills and jobs are lost, or disappear into other places around the world, such as the Caspian sea or the Gulf of Mexico, they will not easily be brought back.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I supported the coalition at the time because we were gaining plenty of other benefits from it, but I concede that I was not 100% supportive of its position on oil and gas. I suggest that under the current SNP leadership, there is a balanced view of the North sea, and a pragmatic approach to protecting jobs in its oil and gas sectors, while still driving towards renewable jobs and the reindustrialisation of Scotland through the diversification into renewables that we need, recognising that oil and gas will be needed for decades to come.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  Current SNP policy on oil and gas is that there should be a proper assessment of each individual application. That is the normal licensing process. I would think most Members of the House would recognise that if a process is put in place, it should be applied rigorously and consistently.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Without getting into a fight about who has the biggest constituency, Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey is in the top five for geographic size, and my constituents grapple on a daily basis with energy costs across the whole suite of energy measures, whether that is road fuel, heating oil, tank gas, or the electricity prices that they pay. The issue for them is that the combination of all those things is totally disproportionate. The highest prices for road fuel are paid in rural areas such as those in my constituency. The highest price for heating oil is paid there, because there are high distribution costs. The highest price for electricity, because of high standing charges, is paid in my constituency and in constituencies in north Wales and Merseyside, which is the other high standing charge area. The combination of all that means that my constituents are paying substantially more for their energy than constituents elsewhere in the country. Successive Conservative and Labour Governments have presided over discriminatory—I do not use that word lightly—energy charging for electricity. To have that compounded by the highest fuel charges and the highest oil charges is extremely painful for those households who, like everyone else, are suffering from the cost of living crisis. They also have the coldest temperatures in the UK, and these constituencies are producing the highest amount of energy per capita. The people who are using that energy hundreds of miles away are paying less to use it. The situation is utterly disgraceful and needs to change. This Government have had nearly two years to make changes to standing charges and electricity prices, but they have not done it. They have not made a decision on it, and decisions are taking far too long to be made. Pace is everything in this. People are suffering every single day, but it is not just the individuals who suffer. Many Members have referred in this debate to the cost to businesses in these areas, generally from high transport costs. For businesses to get around and deliver their goods, to get their goods to market and to get their supply chain to deliver to them frequently involves travelling large mileages. Public services, including our emergency services, are paying vast amounts for fuel. On Monday, while I was experiencing a very enjoyable walk to work on a bright spring day here in London, my constituents in Aviemore were contending with a temperature that felt like minus 5°, and the Highland council and the trunk road authority had gritters out for a considerable part of the day to keep the roads safe. Those gritters travel hundreds of miles on their routes because that is what they are required to do, which means that local authorities, the NHS boards and other public or emergency services are paying out vast and unpredictable amounts for fuel when budgets have already been set. Capital projects involve built-in risk to cover future price increases that are quite considerable, so they are protected to an extent, but that does not apply when it comes to public authorities’ day-to-day operational costs. The fuel price increases include increases in heating oil prices. Many primary and secondary schools in the Highlands, and Moray and Aberdeenshire and in other parts of Scotland—and, indeed, other rural areas in the rest of the UK—pay for their heating oil, and these increases will have a very detrimental impact on them. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) made many reasonable points about the impact of the energy profits levy and the fiscal regime that governs North sea production, and about the need for us to continue to produce oil and gas for as long as is required, while still making a transition. Let me gently point out to Conservative Members that while I agree with them that the EPL needs to be changed immediately—in fact, it is beyond time for it to be changed—they have drawn away from that transition to renewables because of the pulling away from climate change targets. I know that North sea companies agree with them about the EPL, but they were utterly dismayed about that pulling away from the transition, because the oil and gas majors are the same people who are investing in renewables. We need to get that transition right to avoid the job losses that the hon. Member mentioned. A number of Members mentioned bus fare caps. Let me, again, gently point out that in my constituency in the north of Scotland, and across the highlands and islands, a pilot is being run for a £2 cap enabling people to travel, in some cases, for hundreds of miles for £2. That is progressive, because people in, for example, Inverness in the highlands who need access to services have to travel hundreds of miles to get it. The cap is about treating people with fairness, recognising that they are at the heart of our energy production and are still paying more for their energy, and giving them some services back for that. Peak rail fares have also been withdrawn. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), who mentioned heating oil support in Scotland, has left the Chamber, but I can tell the House that the Scottish Government have more than doubled the heating oil funding provided by the UK Government—although is still nowhere near enough, because the UK Government should be taking far more responsibility and putting in far more money. People will be able to apply for that support from 1 April, and it will be delivered through Advice Direct Scotland. there is a plan in place, and it is moving forward. Red diesel used to be available to local authorities for gritting roads. Reinstating it would make a huge difference to the local authorities in the north of Scotland who have to spread grit for considerably longer than those in many other parts of the UK, and I urge the Minister to consider doing so, because it is essentially an emergency service. Our roads would not be safe in the depths of winter without being gritted, and making red diesel available to those vehicles again would not be a bad idea at all. Finally, let me simply urge the Government to take account of what happens in rural areas—how people commute, how they get to work, and how services are delivered—and to consider that in the context of fuel duty. They have the power to fix fuel duty. Such certainty is important, especially to people who are planning and budgeting for a year ahead, and that applies to public services in particular.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has already covered the EPL, but it is important to recognise that Scottish Renewables and Offshore Energies UK wrote jointly to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressing their deep concerns about its impact on the transition. It will not be possible to deliver the renewables transition we all want if the North sea is allowed—or even forced—to decline at the rate it is doing, and not enough effort is put into the renewables side and supporting that transition. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to address that rapidly? We need pace of decision making and certainty for investors and developers if we are to ensure that we make that transition effectively, which will provide the jobs for the skilled workforce she rightly referred to.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I take the point the Minister makes on nuclear, but the Government have not articulated what they plan to do with nuclear waste. The current projected price for a radiological disposal facility is about £60 billion, and it is marked as red—as unachievable —yet the Government say it is critical. It has not been articulated how any of that will be paid for, how much will come off bill payers in Scotland and why Scotland needs that when we produce more energy than we currently use.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman rightly points to the need for a suite of measures to deliver the Bill’s objectives and the overall reduction in fossil fuel usage by the aviation sector. One of the means of doing that is to massively ramp up green hydrogen production, which will have to happen over a number of years. I am sure that the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), whom I have seen bobbing, will no doubt point to that. A quick way to kick-start that marketplace and boost sustainable aviation fuel would be to increase the amount of hydrogen that can be injected into the gas grid to 20%. The evidence is there to say that it would work. It would act as a massive kick-start for the industry. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Businesses: Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  Businesses and public services in the north of Scotland pay among the highest commercial energy prices in the whole UK. The Government have had 18 months to try and fix that. Why do they still think it is okay to discriminate against people in the north of Scotland in that way?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Local Power Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The SNP has been very committed to community energy projects for a long time; indeed, we have invested more than the previous Government in community energy projects—over £67 million in nearly 1,000 projects. This announcement on community and renewable energy, while belated, is welcome. When the Secretary of State talks about community energy, does he include in that community heat projects that can be combined with community energy projects? A turbine with a community heat network, for example, can drive a huge amount of benefit to the local community.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  We are witnessing in Gaza a catastrophe that was not only foreseeable but preventable. For over two years, the UK Government have hidden behind legal sleight of hand while a genocide has unfolded in Gaza. The definition of genocide set out in article II of the genocide convention is precise. It involves specific acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” First, article II(a) prohibits killing members of such a group. As of January of this year, 71,500 Palestinians have been killed, including 570 aid workers and 1,700 health workers. That is not collateral damage; it is the destruction of a people and it is sickening. Just yesterday, during the current supposed ceasefire, the BBC reported that at least 20 Palestinians, including several children and a paramedic, had been killed and almost 40 others wounded in Israeli strikes in Gaza, according to hospitals in Palestine. The response from the Israel Defence Forces stated that they had carried out “precise strikes”—so precise, apparently, that they had to further state, “The IDF is aware of the claim that several uninvolved civilians, including a medical staff member, were hit in the strike.” That is a familiar trope that they have used throughout the conflict. If those were the reactions of our own military, the standards we would apply in investigation and response would be rigorous and likely lead to court martial because it is not even close to our, rightly, highly robust rules of engagement rooted in moral integrity. Secondly, article II(b) prohibits “Causing serious bodily or mental harm”. We know that over 143,000 people have been injured, with many maimed for life, and the population has been subjected to torture and arbitrary detention. Thirdly, and perhaps most damningly, article II(c) prohibits “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”. Amnesty International has found that Israel has systematically destroyed life-sustaining infrastructure, including water, sanitation and energy grids. By creating a so-called buffer zone, Israel has razed 59% of agricultural land in that area and, as of last month, 81% of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged, and all the while it has severely restricted vital aid and supplies. This is the deliberate erasure of the means of survival, which has led to widely reported and verifiable famine. When Israeli leaders describe Palestinians as “human animals” and speak of “flattening Gaza”, and then proceed to destroy 19 hospitals and block essential aid, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is the “intent to destroy” the group, as per the definition. Even now, despite the UN commission of inquiry finding in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide and Amnesty International confirming that the genocide continues despite the October ceasefire, the UK refuses to act. History will judge this Government and this Parliament for their—

• 29 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. In its recently published quarterly statistics, the Aberdeen chamber of commerce confirmed that business confidence in the north-east has slumped to levels not seen since the height of the covid pandemic, with almost half of companies forecasting a fall in profits. The clear reason cited was the Labour Government’s refusal to ditch the tax on Scotland’s energy, resulting in 1,000 jobs being lost each month—akin to what Thatcher was doing to the coal communities in the ’80s. Can the Minister tell me why his Government are happy to see crucial north-east businesses suffering, and the communities that their workers support? Will he apologise to the workers of the north-east for the thousands of jobs that have been lost at the hands of this Labour Government?