⚡️ Disruption at Heathrow

• Incident Overview: A major fire at the North Hyde substation on March 20 led to a power outage at Heathrow Airport, causing its closure on March 21. This incident affected thousands of passengers, leading to over 1,300 flight cancellations and diversions.

• Response Efforts: Firefighters and emergency services worked swiftly to control the fire. Heathrow airport, National Grid, and other public services were commended for their efforts in restoring power and resuming operations.

• Heathrow’s Actions: Heathrow, which has one of the highest electricity demands in the UK, shut down to safely reconfigure its power supply from the remaining operational substations. The airport used backup generators to ensure essential systems remained operational, enabling some flights to resume by the evening of March 21.

• Passenger Impact and Rights: Over 200,000 passengers were directly affected. UK law requires airlines to offer refunds within seven days or reroute passengers, and the government ensured these rights were upheld and supported recovery efforts by temporarily lifting restrictions on overnight flights.

• Investigations and Reviews: The Metropolitan police confirmed the fire was not suspicious, but counter-terrorism specialists are involved due to the incident’s impact on critical infrastructure. The National Energy System Operator (NESO) and Heathrow’s internal review, led by Ruth Kelly, will investigate the incident and energy resilience, with reports expected within weeks.

• Resilience Concerns: Questions were raised about Heathrow’s dependency on its power setup and the need to review the resilience of critical national infrastructure across the UK. There is a call for a national airports strategy to mitigate risks associated with airport closures.

• Future Implications: Parliament discussed the incident’s potential impact on Heathrow’s proposed expansion and broader implications for energy security and national infrastructure resilience. Discussions included the need for robust backup systems at other airports and industries.

• Government Engagement: The Transport Secretary committed to ongoing communication with Heathrow, stakeholders, and the public, ensuring lessons learned would enhance future resilience and security of critical national infrastructure.

The session shows a moderate level of disagreement, primarily focused on critical issues such as airport resilience, infrastructure security, and the implications of the incident for future planning. While there is a general acknowledgment of the severity of the incident and appreciation for the efforts made in response, several Members of Parliament raise substantive concerns that hint at differing views, though these do not escalate into overt conflict. Here are some examples and explanations for the rating:

1. Concerns over Single Point of Failure:
   • Gareth Bacon (Con) questions the dependency of Heathrow on a single electrical substation and queries the resilience of other major UK airports. This indicates some doubt or disagreement over the current infrastructure setup.
   • Paul Kohler (LD) echoes these concerns, highlighting the vulnerability exposed by the incident and questioning why Heathrow could not reconfigure its power supply swiftly.
2. Impact on Expansion Plans:
   • Jim Shannon (DUP) expresses skepticism about the capability of current operators to manage a third runway at Heathrow, suggesting a disagreement on whether expansion should proceed given the recent incident. A similar concern is raised by Andy Slaughter (Lab), who directly ties the incident to the potential risks of expansion, indicating a disagreement with the Secretary of State’s view that the two issues are separate.
3. Legislation and Consumer Rights:
   • Mark Pritchard (Con) advocates for new anti-price-gouging legislation and a review of monopolies at Heathrow, implicitly disagreeing with the current regulatory framework and its enforcement.
4. Preparedness and Future Resilience:
   • Clive Efford (Lab) and Luke Taylor (LD) question the level of preparedness and the need for implementing resilience standards, respectively. Their concerns indicate disagreement with what they perceive as inadequate measures in place.

Despite these disagreements, there is a constructive tone throughout the session, with most Members seeking assurances and clarifications rather than outright confrontation. The Secretary of State, Heidi Alexander, responds to each point with a commitment to investigate and learn lessons, indicating an openness to addressing the concerns raised. This suggests that while disagreement exists on certain key issues, the level of contention is moderate, hence the rating of 2.