5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I really do not understand the Minister’s answer. If it has not been published on national security grounds, how will we know that it has been laid? The whole thing could be entirely secret. Surely it has to go to the ISC as an accountability mechanism.
I think the Minister is saying that there will be a parliamentary scrutiny mechanism under these powers. Is that what he is saying?
I really think we should be very critical about this. What we are doing now is parliamentary scrutiny. There will be directions in future, which we expect to be laid, and they will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Even where they are redacted because of national security concerns, somebody, or some mechanism of Parliament, will be able to scrutinise them. Can the Minister confirm that?
Clause 45 gives the Secretary of State powers to require regulatory authorities to monitor and report on regulated entities’ compliance with directions given under clause 43 for reasons of national security. Clause 46 provides the Secretary of State with extensive information-gathering powers through the use of information notices to facilitate the giving of directions and monitoring of compliance with directions under clause 45(4). Clause 47 empowers the Secretary of State to conduct inspections to assess whether a regulated entity is complying with directions issued under clause 45(4). The Secretary of State may appoint a third party to conduct the inspection, and require the regulated entity to meet the costs associated with this. I reiterate the point that these powers are necessary; however, given the potential for significant cost and administrative burden for businesses, they should be subject to contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous oversight by parliamentary authorities, observing the necessary confidentiality protocols. I also make the point that these information-gathering powers apply extraterritorially and may lead to conflict with regulated entities’ data privacy obligations in other jurisdictions. What discussions has the Secretary of State conducted with industry and law enforcement counterparts in other countries about the approach to information sharing for this purpose, and the implications for companies operating services on a cross-border basis?
Clauses 48 to 52 deal with notifications and financial penalties where a regulated entity is deemed not to be compliant with directions issued by the Secretary of State under part 4. In particular, clause 48 would grant enforcement authorities powers to issue a contravention notice if they believe a person has failed to comply with a requirement under part 4. The notice must set out details of remedial steps to address the failure, as well as the financial penalty that the enforcement authority intends to impose. Clause 49 would require penalties to be set at a level that is appropriate and proportionate, with the maximum penalty being £17 million or 10% of turnover. A maximum daily penalty of £100,000 applies to ongoing breaches. The maximum fines for failing to comply with an information notice or an inspection would be set at £10 million.
Clause 53 would grant the Secretary of State powers to issue directions to regulators where this is necessary for national security reasons, and to allow a reasonable period for the regulator to comply with that direction. Clause 54 provides that directions may be amended or revoked by the Secretary of State. Under clause 55, directions to regulated entities or regulators must be laid before Parliament unless that “would be contrary to the interests of national security.” I repeat my earlier question about the ISC’s role regarding scrutiny. Clause 56 would permit the Secretary of State and regulatory authorities to share any information obtained under part 4 with each other and the NCSC. The provision also allows for the sharing of information with other UK or overseas public authorities with equivalent cyber-security or national security functions. Government amendments 23 and 24 seek to amend that clause to provide for directions and notices issued under this part to be sent by email to relevant persons who provided those contact details to regulatory authorities. Some reassurance on the extent of information sharing for businesses is delivered through provisions specifying that disclosures of information should be limited to that which is relevant and proportionate. However, those are high-level and subjective terms, open to interpretation by the authority sharing the information. Can the Minister provide any update on the development of protocols between authorities to ensure that information shared is limited to that which is necessary for effective oversight and enforcement in relation to national security risks?
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 2 contains an obligation for the Secretary of State to establish and maintain by regulation a list of foreign powers presenting a significant cyber-security risk to the UK. The list must include states that have been confirmed by GCHQ as having perpetrated a cyber-attack, whether by a state department, agency or affiliate, on the UK in the preceding seven years. It must also include foreign powers that GCHQ has warned pose a risk to the security or resilience of the network or information systems of one or more operators of an essential service or critical suppliers. New clause 3 would compel the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament on the risk to networks and information systems posed by foreign powers appearing on the register under new clause 2, with specific regard to activities undertaken from abroad and the risk posed by locations or premises controlled by those states in the United Kingdom. New clauses 13 and 15, in the name of the hon. Member for Henley and Thame, look as if they have been tabled in the same spirit of genuine concern about the risk of foreign hostile state interference and control in critical systems and supply chains. There is an established precedent in UK legislation for maintaining registers or lists of hostile state actors and other entities presenting a threat to our national security for use by Government. That includes the foreign influence registration scheme under the National Security Act 2023, which came into effect last year. Russia and Iran were placed on an enhanced tier of the scheme, which applies to foreign powers considered to pose a risk to the UK’s safety or interests. The Government said that that was in response to those countries being identified as presenting an elevated national security risk. China was conspicuous by its absence, despite the director of GCHQ having confirmed in 2024 that her organisation devotes more resource to China than to any other single mission.
Frankly, I find it astounding that, according to my understanding, in response to the planning decision being granted our security services said that they would take measures to start moving sensitive digital cables. It strikes me that a decision about sensitive digital cables should have been pertinent to the planning application in the first place. The Government remain reluctant to name China as a threat to UK national security, despite the overwhelming and growing portfolio of evidence. In case the Government are still in any doubt, we need look only at the oral testimony given to this Committee by the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China for a clear picture of the role of China and its state affiliates at the forefront of the cyber-security threats to our critical sectors. Given that established and growing threat, new clause 3 would compel the Secretary of State to review, among other matters, the cyber-security risk to surrounding critical networks in the vicinity of the super-embassy site in the City of London. In the Commons debate on the embassy application in June last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) reminded the Minister for Housing and Planning that the Government’s own cyber-security experts, Innovate UK, have warned about the threat to the City of London from the embassy. My hon. Friend made specific reference to the Wapping telephone and internet exchange that would be surrounded on three sides by this new embassy—not to mention the fibre cables I referred to earlier, which carry highly sensitive information and run beneath this site.
I do not want to repeat the discussion that we had a moment ago. I think it is complete lunacy to permit the building of a super-embassy—one of the biggest in the region—next to highly critical data transmission. I am also concerned by media reports that the Prime Minister’s recent visit to China was greenlighted only following the final approval of the embassy. I am deeply depressed that, following the visit, Jimmy Lai has been effectively sentenced for life. I respect the tone and constructive way in which the hon. Member for Harlow approaches this debate, but it is fair to say that the Government are sadly weak on standing up to hostile state actors such as the Chinese Communist party. As I said at the start, there is simply no point in granting the Secretary of State powers to issue directions on the basis of national security if the Government are not willing to be clear-eyed about the most critical cyber-security risks to the nation. I therefore submit that the new clauses are a vital addition to the Bill to focus the attentions of the Secretary of State to ensure that her functions under part 4 are carried out in the best interests of our national security. No responsible Government would or should vote against such provisions. Parliament should make it crystal clear that the Chinese Communist party is a threat to the United Kingdom. We must support new clauses 2 and 3. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Taiwo Owatemi.)
I will allow Munira Wilson to intervene—at a stretch, because she arrived late to the debate.
Order. I am going to begin calling the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm—do the maths.
Does the Minister appreciate how appallingly bad it looks for the Prime Minister of this country and the then ambassador in Washington, the disgraced Peter Mandelson, to have met Alex Karp, the chief executive of Palantir, in February last year without any written record of the meeting being made? Is he at least able to say which officials—other than, of course, our then ambassador—were present at that meeting?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a parliamentary vice-president of London Councils and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I would like to thank those organisations for the excellent research that they have supplied to Members to help us prepare for today’s debate. While I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing the debate, listening to her story of being a councillor—one that is reflected, I think, by a good number of Members who were present this afternoon—made me think about where it sits in the context of what is happening with the local government funding formula overall and the particular impact that it is having on our inner-London boroughs. We know that London’s funding formula has always, to an extent, created a city of two halves. There are the inner-London boroughs, with a relatively generous settlement from that funding formula and, historically, generally lower council taxes. Then there is a doughnut of outer-London boroughs, in which my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) are found, with a funding level broadly in line with the surrounding county and district authorities. For a long time, it has been a source of concern among London authorities that there needs to be some levelling out to ensure consistency across council tax and funding. To address the longer-term funding issues, however, the Government clearly need to address the nature, scope and purpose of many of the statutory duties that exist across all those authorities, in order to enable us all to live within our means and to set levels of taxation that are reasonable for our constituents to pay. Sadly, we are not seeing that happening. Instead, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) described, we have a Government who came to office saying that they were the cavalry coming over the hill, and that they could be trusted to inject additional resources into inner London, outer London and other parts of the country that were concerned about funding. In their first Budget, however, local government was left £1.5 billion net worse off through the jobs tax—the national insurance rise—alone. The consistent feedback from councillors across London is that they feel a sense of shock and surprise at just how fast things have got so much worse. There are also particular significant dynamics in inner London. As several hon. Members have said, in the local government finance settlement, more than two thirds of the additional resources announced by the Government would come from the maximum possible council tax rise being imposed across the board. That is not additional Government funding, it is simply councils being required, as a minimum, to use their maximum possible tax-raising powers on the household budgets of all their local residents. We also see the impacts of exceptional financial support, a policy that has existed under Governments of all stripes under different names for a long time. It is essentially a measure to allow a council to borrow to get it through temporary financial difficulties. It is a way of avoiding the issuance of a section 114 notice, which is the equivalent of a bankruptcy notice, by the statutory finance officers in that local authority. On an almost weekly basis, this Government make written ministerial statements on local government best value interventions, and on agreeing exceptional financial support to the extent that it is no longer exceptional. It is clearly simply a method of sustaining local authorities to avoid bad headlines, rather than addressing the nature, scope and purpose of statutory duties, which need to be addressed to get budgets back into balance. Acute pressure has been created by an explosion in rough sleeping and homelessness in inner London since this Government took office. We need to be clear: London has always had a challenge around rough sleeping. Although my constituency does not cover Heathrow, it is a significant factor in my local authority’s activities. The number of people who find their way to an airport that is open 24/7, with showers, toilets and security, means that there are a disproportionately large number of rough sleepers in my local authority’s area. As we heard, there has been a 27% increase in street homelessness since this Government took office. That contributes to the sharply rising pressure on temporary accommodation that London Councils, on behalf of the capital’s local authorities, has highlighted as the biggest single factor driving inner-London councils to seek exceptional financial support and to look at significant reductions across the capital in the services that our constituents expect local authorities to provide, such as libraries, parks and clean streets. At the same time, according to a recent report by Savills, two thirds of London boroughs report reaching net zero: not net zero in the traditional sense of an environmental target, but net zero new housing starts. In two thirds of our capital’s boroughs, no new homes are being added to the housing stock at a time when the Government have an increasingly unattainable target of 1.5 million new homes. To hear hon. Members from throughout the Chamber talk about the acute pressure from housing need, at a time when housing delivery in the capital has absolutely collapsed, demonstrates that things are not going in the right direction. We are due to consider the local government finance settlement in the main Chamber tomorrow. More two thirds of local authorities have reported, having crunched the numbers on that funding formula, that they will be left worse off under it. Two thirds of councils in the country are worse off under the funding settlement being introduced by this Labour Government. There is another significant factor. This week we heard that the SEND White Paper is to be delayed further. It will address the significant long-term structural and demographic concern driven by the increasing numbers of children with more acute needs for whom local authorities have a statutory duty—another duty over which they have no discretion. Although the statutory accounting override—to which Ministers have referred in the past—goes some way to avoiding that becoming an acute problem, we see acute pressure building up across the country, not just in inner London. All that amounts to a situation where residents in inner London face extraordinarily significant increases in their taxes. The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea has reported potential increases of council tax of up to £500 a year. Earlier, I met with one of the Conservative councillors from the London borough of Barnet, traditionally one of the less affected outer London boroughs, who reported that a £200 million funding gap is opening up as a result of the changes that this Government are making. Even for those of us in outer London boroughs, where council tax rates are broadly similar to those in the surrounding county and district areas, the combination of the rises in the mayoral precept, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, and those acute pressures, mean that in many cases council tax will already be at or well in excess of the £2,000 benchmark that Ministers have set out for council tax across the country. In conclusion, we see a consistent message from across the sector. The leaders of inner-London boroughs—Labour and Conservative—talk of acute pressures getting much worse much faster than they had expected, and shortfalls in this funding settlement so excessive that no level of cuts could lead to boroughs achieving them and meeting their statutory duties. When she speaks on the local government finance settlement tomorrow, will the Minister announce a more fundamental rethink? Local authorities have a huge range of statutory duties, with more than 800 different services delivered by a typical local authority. The rise in national insurance alone has significantly driven up the cost of those activities. We do not simply need more sticking plasters. Our residents, hearing a message from the Labour Government that there is more money in the system, find that money is coming straight out of their pockets and wallets, through massive increases in council tax. We need a fundamental rethink about how we deliver local government in the capital, so that it is affordable, deliverable and sustainable for the future.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it is great to see you back on your feet. Last week, the Labour party voted to increase the carbon tax, which increases costs for households and industry, and those costs have already doubled because of its policies. It is absolutely shameful for the Government to say that they have had no impact on the carbon tax whatsoever. It now accounts for over 10% of household electricity bills, and the rise is in effect a £5 billion a year tax on the British economy. Can the Minister explain why the Labour party wants to tax our industrial jobs out of existence, leaving Britain reliant on dirtier imports from abroad?
Last year, the Secretary of State signed a secret energy deal with China, which he has refused to publish. This is simply unheard of. We have heard repeatedly from intelligence services that China might seek to disrupt our energy system, so it is crucial that the public get to see what he has signed us up to. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing the full text of his secret energy deal with China, and if not, will he tell the House what it is that he is trying to hide?
That is frankly another patronising non-answer from the Secretary of State. I am not sure whether he got the memo, but his party is fed up with the sexist boys club. What is crucial is that the public have lost faith in the Labour party. This is a serious moment. Does he accept that when he stands at the Dispatch Box and tells the public that by his calculation their bills are falling, not rising, they simply do not believe him? Does he also accept that when he does not set out what any of his plans—such as doubling the carbon tax or clean power 2030—will do to bills, he makes a mockery of his party’s pretence that it cares about the cost of living? Does he not reflect on all this—the £300 nonsense pledge, the Great British Energy fig leaf—and realise that when it comes to loss of trust, he is not their salvation but their problem?
Order. The hon. and learned Lady will know that she had three minutes, which she has used. I call the shadow Minister.
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question ought to relate to the urgent question.
The hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair. I do not intend to continue the debate via points of order.
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
I thank the Secretary of State for making his statement—and for not doing so in Lycra.
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It is of course crucial that Members receive timely responses to correspondence with Ministers. As he will know, it is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted his concerns. If there have been delays to responses to written questions, he can raise that with the Table Office. Bill presented Images (Non-consensual Recording and Distribution) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Wera Hobhouse presented a Bill to create offences relating to the non-consensual recording of images of a person and the online distribution of such images for profit with the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or of causing humiliation or distress to that person; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 381).
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion: That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.
I have two points for the Minister to address. First, could he clarify whether an organisation would face repercussions if a regulator believed in retrospect that notification should have been provided sooner? Secondly, on customer notification, can the Minister address the concern around striking the right balance between informing the customer and ensuring that the update that they receive is meaningful and not so vague that it causes further distress or worry?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. When introducing new legislation, it is essential that those who fall under its new regulations be clearly identified and given adequate time to prepare for compliance. However, despite the aims of the Bill and the wish to avoid worsening a cyber-attack incident, the Bill still presents far too much ambiguity. It is right to recognise the cyber landscape as continuously evolving. There is no dispute that this terrain becomes increasingly complex each day, requiring a level of flexibility in legislation to ensure that it keeps pace. However, this desire to safeguard such adaptability, and the goal of future-proofing, must not come at the expense of the effectiveness of legislation in the present day. The powers afforded to the Secretary of State to change the classification of essential activity, and to bring new sectors into scope of the Bill at any time, undoubtedly create uncertainty for many sectors and cast a shadow over long-term compliance. To be clear, we want organisations to comply with this legislation. We want to improve national cyber-resilience, gather vital intelligence and restore public confidence in our security. Why, then, would there not be a significant effort to make these regulations as easy to apply as possible, rather than leaving thousands of businesses second-guessing whether they fall within scope, with the pressure of large financial penalties hanging over their heads? In addition, many will know that I am a firm supporter of parliamentary process. I support the notion that all legislation should receive the scrutiny it is due by the democratically elected Members of the House of Commons. That is why I believe the Bill must not only set out clearer guidelines for who is in scope, but require an official amendment, debated in the House, to permanently bring any new sectors into scope after the Bill has been passed. I understand that, in times of emergency, the longer process of House of Commons scrutiny may not always be possible. That is why the Secretary of State should have powers to bring in sectors necessary in an emergency temporarily into scope, with less imposing of non-compliance penalties until their inclusion is made permanent by the House. Such an approach would not only allow for the quick reactions that cyber-security demands, but respect parliamentary processes and safeguard against organisations’ being unaware that they had suddenly been brought into scope until they received a potentially financially ruinous penalty notice for non-compliance. Looking at the need for more definitive guidelines on who will be regulated under the Bill, we have already heard from numerous industry stakeholders that are unsure whether they, or other organisations in their sector, will fall within the mandatory scope. In addition, industry experts have publicly shared concerns about how far the net may be cast in some sectors, leading to the unintentional inclusion of organisations that are critical only to a single larger organisation, rather than to our national security, while ignoring other essential sectors altogether. Looking at recent cyber-attacks that have had a significant impact on our country, it is concerning that the definition of essential services may not include them within scope. While it is predicted that many of Jaguar Land Rover’s supply chains will be in scope, it has been publicly questioned whether it will be included. As the largest car manufacturer in the United Kingdom, it directly employs over 30,000 people across the UK and supports around 100,000 jobs indirectly. It is therefore no surprise that the cyber-attack it endured, estimated to have had a financial impact of over £1 billion, was significant to many, including more than 5,000 organisations impacted and many of my constituents, with JLR being one of the largest direct and indirect employers in the west midlands region. How, then, if a key aim of the Bill is to ensure that all essential services whose disruption would profoundly impact our nation in the event of a cyber-attack report all major incidents, can the vagueness of the definition of essential services be allowed to stand—especially when it creates a situation in which previous key victims are excluded? Of course, JLR is not the only victim where questions of inclusion remain. Also potentially falling outside the regulatory reach is Marks & Spencer, whose recent cyber-attack was another stark reminder of the rapidly advancing cyber-crimes scene and caused significant disruption, with costs estimated to run into the millions of pounds. Having met with M&S representatives recently, I had the opportunity to discuss their experience of enduring such an attack. Archie Norman, M&S chair, gave evidence to the Business and Trade Sub-Committee on Economic Security, Arms and Export Controls, where he said that “a growth economy” is “a cyber-resilient economy”. Having a cyber-resilient UK, and making the UK the safest place to do business, is a competitive advantage. I agree with that sentiment and firmly believe that increasing our cyber-resilience can only benefit our economy. It is imperative that we get this right. These cyber-threats are not going away; they are only going to get stronger and more technically advanced. We have seen that in the past year, with the National Cyber Security Centre reporting a 50% increase in British cyber-incidents deemed highly significant. Indeed, representatives of M&S told me that, at times, they found it much easier to get updates and information from the United States FBI than they did from our own authorities. We also know that foreign hostile states are becoming bolder in their actions against us. A few months ago—as a reason for introducing my ten-minute rule Bill, the Cyber Extortion and Ransomware (Reporting) Bill—I stated that research had revealed that 74% of UK IT leaders cited China and 71% cited Russia as their top cyber-security concerns. It is undisputable that last year’s espionage trials threw a harsh spotlight on the threatening scale of state-sponsored cyber-attacks. Improving our national cyber-resilience, and safeguarding all our infrastructure and essential services, including in the private sector, is vital in order to secure a prosperous economy and reinforce public confidence in our ability to defend ourselves against such threats.
I have two points for the Minister to address. First, can he address concerns around whether funds raised will be directly reinvested into improving cyber-security, rather than covering administrative overheads? Secondly, there is no specific reference to turnover thresholds, so how can the Minister be sure that a one-size-fits-all approach will not be used, causing many similar organisations to suffer financially?
Can the Minister elaborate on how he will ensure that regulators have the capacity to cope with large-scale data reports?
On the point about banding, can the Minister assure us that there will be consistency applied across regulators so that different events are not differentially penalised depending on the regulatory body? On the question of turnover and the financial penalty, can the Minister elaborate on how the figure was derived?
I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s arguments about the importance of local government, and I believe that it should be within scope of the Bill. Essential services are provided by councils on a day-to-day basis, but local councils are increasingly cash-strapped. Does he share my concern about the burden of compliance falling on councils, many of which differ in size and scale from their adjacent neighbours? They have differing degrees of IT infrastructure capability. We run the risk of increasing the compliance and regulatory burden on councils at a time when they may already have stretched budgets and lack the resource and capacity in the system to accommodate that additional burden.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, on my first outing on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this important debate, and I join Members who have welcomed the work of Sir Jon Cunliffe. I thank local action groups across England that are campaigning hard and cleaning up our waterways, and the employees in our water industry working hard, day in, day out, to make a difference within the framework that they operate in. I took note of the rivers that were mentioned during the debate: the River Lim in West Dorset, plus two chalk streams that I am afraid I missed; the Rivers Wharfe and Aire in Shipley; the River Wye in North Herefordshire; and the Rivers Ouse and Foss in York. We are all agreed that they need to be cleaned up. Ensuring that we have a plentiful supply of clean water and waterways across England matters to us all, including my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire. Like many places across England, Mid Bedfordshire is having to adapt to a growing population, dry summers and increasingly wet winters, all with ageing infrastructure. Having grown up spending many an hour playing in my local river, a tributary of the River Test in Hampshire, I enjoyed a childhood that many simply cannot enjoy today, with the latest assessments showing that no rivers in England are in good or high overall health. Nature is also in grave danger. Freshwater habitats cover less than 1% of the earth’s surface but support more than 10% of global species. Since the 1970s, freshwater species have declined by 85%, far outpacing declines in terrestrial and marine systems. England’s globally significant chalk streams, which make up 85% of the world’s total, are among the habitats most affected by pollution and abstraction, and I was pleased to hear many passionate advocates for our chalk streams in this debate. But what did this Government do when Opposition Members tabled amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to restore and protect those habitats? The amendments were ignored, citing care for our environment and countryside as blockers against so-called progressive builders. That all illustrates, in the first 18 months in government, a level of arrogance that will do absolutely nothing to secure our future and clean up our waterways. The problems with the water sector have been known for a long time and are well reported. The Environmental Audit Committee’s report, “Water quality in rivers” dating back to January 2022 provides a clear picture of the concerns, and the previous Government went on to help to identify the scale of the problem. When Labour left power in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were being monitored; by 2023 it was 100%. That unveiled the severity of the situation facing the water industry, with water company storm overflows spilling into England’s rivers, lakes and seas for a record 3.61 million hours in 2024—although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about us needing to understand the volume, not just the hours. There is much more to do. The previous Government’s plan for water introduced the water restoration fund, which channelled environmental fines and penalties into projects that improve the water environment. Ministers in the previous Government also took action to ban water company bosses’ bonuses for illegal action. Sir Jon Cunliffe’s independent review was a serious undertaking, running to 460 pages and 88 recommendations, much of which His Majesty’s official Opposition have cautiously welcomed. For example, we know that, as it stands, the regulators are not working as they should, and that creating a single joined-up regulator is a sensible recommendation. However, I am concerned at both the speed at which the Government are moving and some of the proposals in their White Paper, which may see bills rise for families. Can the Minister confirm how many of Sir Jon’s 88 recommendations were accepted by the Government and included in the water White Paper? On water bills, what assessment has the Minister made of how smart metering may impact the average family’s water bills? Secondly, after the benefits of water metering, what additional hit to disposable income does the Minister expect that increasing bills will have on families, coming, as it will, on the back of record tax rises by this Government? Thirdly, can the Minister tell us how much taxpayer and bill-payer money has been allocated to their White Paper, and over what timeframe those taxes and bills will be used to pay for the work in it? To reduce the root causes of pollution, the Government have announced that they intend to implement pre-pipe solutions—which have been discussed in this debate—but have not yet provided any examples of how those will be implemented. Can the Minister provide further details on the implementation, and particularly how it will be integrated into the planning system? The Minister knows that since being elected, I have been calling for schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be enacted, first in my Adjournment debate on flooding in Bedfordshire, and also through the Environmental Audit Committee, which recently recommended doing so. The Minister at first seemed sympathetic to the arguments, but now seems to consider that there are other ways to achieve the same outcome. Could the Minister highlight what those other ways are? Our infrastructure is ageing and needs investment. That is abundantly clear to communities in the south-east now suffering repeated and unacceptable supply disruptions. How will the Minister make sure that the infrastructure is upgraded to ensure that those catastrophic failures, such as those seen under South East Water in the last two months, do not happen again? A glaring gap in the Government’s rhetoric on water is conserving and ensuring water security. That means improving supply. How and when will the Government improve water security? It is important that in the efforts to reform the water sector, all stakeholders are engaged in the process. That includes farmers, and I was pleased to hear hon. Members today talk about the importance of engaging with farmers. Early last year those farmers had the rug pulled from under their feet when the Government suddenly halted applications to the sustainable farming incentive scheme. The SFI scheme rewarded farmers for adapting land management practices to reduce pollution, manage water flow and improve water quality. We are almost a year on from the closure of the SFI, and the Government—despite promising details on a new scheme last summer—only announced in January this year that a new scheme would open in June. Does the Minister not appreciate that farming is an occupation that requires long-term planning and certainty, particularly when so many other aspects, such as the weather, are left to chance? In another potential blow to farmers, the Government have confirmed that they are considering whether environmental permitting should be extended to cattle farming, when this was not included as a direct recommendation in the independent review. As National Farmers Union vice-president Rachel Hallos said: “Such a change would have a direct impact on farm business growth”. The beef sector is already struggling with increasing costs and higher taxes imposed on them by the Chancellor, so how does the Minister intend to ensure that it does not face another new cost pressure? Is she engaging with it to listen to its concerns? Many of my constituents care deeply about water quality and security. They are quite simply fed up that their water bills are increasing while water companies are failing to clear up their waterways. Given the Government’s habit of missing their own deadlines in the first 18 months of this Parliament, will the Minister give an iron-clad commitment that the transition plan will be published in parliamentary time this year? Will she clarify how long the transition will take? As she knows, and may well repeat to me, people voted for change and expect it, especially in our water sector. They demand that the Government move faster.
I want to return to a question that was initially asked by the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). When the Prime Minister met Palantir and Peter Mandelson in February 2025 in Washington DC, was he aware that Palantir was a client of Peter Mandelson’s firm Global Counsel?
The Secretary of State talked about British people having a stake in our energy system, and generating returns for local communities and people. He then went on to say that he was on the side of local communities. I appreciate that he was talking about auction round 7, not nationally significant infrastructure projects, but in my constituency, we have the East Park Energy solar farm proposal. At 1,900 acres, it would have a huge impact on local communities. Residents of Great Staughton and Hail Weston in my constituency are massively opposed to the development. What would he say to my constituents, who feel that he is not on the side of local communities, given that the decision on this project falls squarely to the Secretary of State?
A recent survey conducted by Censuswide shows that two thirds of households with heat pumps say that their heating costs have increased, driven by electricity prices that are four times higher than gas. With energy bills now £190 higher, despite this Government promising to cut them by £300, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that his choices are making it harder for households to make the switch to greener heating options, and that, unlike the Conservatives’ cheap power plan, they are leaving households with higher bills?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I must start by saying that it is rather odd to rise in a Delegated Legislation Committee pertaining to an order that is significant to the functioning of the devolution settlement and that will affect constituents of mine, as well as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Gordon and Buchan and for Dumfries and Galloway, and to see such a lack of attendance from Scottish Labour MPs, with the notable exceptions of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), who is here in her capacity as the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee but cannot vote on the order. I was planning to begin my contribution by asking why the Government had not taken up the advice of the Scottish Affairs Committee to have this debate on the Floor of the House. I wonder whether we can read into the absence of Scottish Labour MPs, and even the Scotland Office Whip, some lack of support for the Government’s decision and a worry from the Government about getting the order through. It speaks to a lack of respect for Scots, who will be affected by this change, that a Government with 37 Members of Parliament representing constituencies north of the border could not muster more than one to sit on this incredibly significant Committee. Even in the Conservatives’ diminished capacity in the previous Parliament, when we had only six MPs on the Government side from north of the border, we would have been able to muster more than one to sit on the Back Benches of such an important Committee, considering changes to legislation that will have a direct impact on the lives of Scots. I wonder whether the Government might think about what that represents and how it looks to many Scots who will be wondering where their representatives are, given that the draft order pertains directly to their lives and how we move forward on the important issue of legislating for and regulating assisted dying in this United Kingdom. That is a question for the Government to examine their conscience on. As you said, Mr Twigg, this is not a debate about the merits of the assisted dying Bill being considered by colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, nor indeed of the Bill going through its stages in the other place here in the Palace of Westminster. There will be strong, impassioned views on both sides of the wider debate, but the progress of the Member’s Bill in Holyrood is a matter for our Members of the Scottish Parliament. It is a conscience issue for those in my party and others. The matter before us is not the political context of the draft instrument, but the modification order itself—its competence, the precedent it establishes and its consequences. I must say that His Majesty’s Opposition have grave concerns about the implications of this instrument. The order invokes the powers granted under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 to alter the devolution settlement, granting the Scottish Parliament new powers to legislate on medicines, medical supplies and poisons, which would otherwise be a reserved competence. Let us be clear: this is a novel and in some ways unprecedented circumstance. Use of that mechanism to amend the devolution settlement is rare. The last application was in 2012, enabling the Scottish Government to hold the 2014 independence referendum. That came about as a result of months of discussion, ending in the Edinburgh agreement signed by both the Scottish and the British Governments. The draft order, however, is unprecedented in so far as it makes provisions to enable the consideration of legislation that is not sponsored by the Scottish Government, but a Member’s Bill. The assisted dying Bill under consideration in the Scottish Parliament would, under clause 15, give Scottish Ministers the power to specify the drugs or medication to be used to assist a patient to die. As matters stand, that is within the reserved competence of medicines, medical supplies and poisons. The Member’s Bill under discussion in the Scottish Parliament requires clarity on that issue and a raft of other reserved competences, and it is entirely unclear how the Government intend to resolve them, hence the attempt with this modification order to tread a middle ground with a time-limited provision, as the Minister set out. Clearly, the issue of the regulation of medicines is integral to the MSPs’ consideration of the debate on assisted dying. This draft legislation, however, seems to be a leap ahead into a hypothetical position. It lays the foundations for the implementation of a Bill that the Scottish Government and the UK Government are neutral on. The Member’s Bill is not Government-sponsored legislation and, given that the assisted dying Bill is still under way in the Scottish Parliament and further steps remain required if that Bill is to sit within the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence, it seems a strange sequencing of events pre-emptively to order the limited devolution of such powers to provide for the circumstances were the Bill to pass in Scotland.
We hold issue with the hypothetical nature of the draft order. Were the Bill to pass, it should then be for the UK Government to determine how we facilitate the devolution of such powers, so as to make it legal and competent within the Scottish Government’s purview. I do not think, however, that the right step is pre-emptively to devolve power ahead of a Bill being passed. That, I am afraid, runs the risk of setting a dangerous precedent for other issues and items, which may come about as a result of the Members’ Bill process in the Scottish Parliament—not least, perhaps, around issues pertaining to the constitution, which I am sure the hon. Member was not referring to in any way. On accountability, proposed new paragraph 4A(1) in article 2 of the draft order outlines the scenario in which powers can be conferred on Scottish Ministers to use subordinate legislation to identify the relevant medicines, medical supplies and poisons, subject to approval by the Secretary of State. Proposed new sub-paragraph (2) provides for the conferral of power to the Secretary of State for the regulation of such medicines. In either case, the Secretary of State retains a veto power over the regulation of medicines. The Scottish Government would not truly be accountable for the implementation, and the Secretary of State does not directly influence Scottish Parliament Bills. I understand the Minister’s argument regarding the coherent regulation of substances across the United Kingdom, and the implications for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, but does she foresee any incompatibility between the consistent regulation of substances across the UK and the effective implementation of any assisted dying subordinate legislation that would identify medicines to be used for that purpose? Section 30 orders have never previously been used to confer powers directly on a British Government Minister. The precedent the order establishes is one of piecemeal devolution and disintegration. Furthermore, the veto power conferred on the Secretary of State, and the resultant confusion in terms of authority and accountability, is an unprecedented power-sharing lay-out, representing a departure from the constitutional norm we have had since 1999. The Opposition are absolutely not against the sovereign Government of the United Kingdom taking an increasingly active and interested role in the governance of Scotland, but this is not the mechanism nor the way to go about having the conversation. Indeed, it is yet another reason why this debate should be taking place on the Floor of the House and not in a Committee Room at 2.30 pm on a busy afternoon, with no Scottish representation—bar one. Moreover, the limited approach does not resolve remaining inconsistencies that we would face should the Scottish Parliament’s assisted dying Bill pass—for example, the regulation of medical professions, and employment and industrial relations. There are significant concerns over the mechanisms that might be invoked to remedy the remaining competency challenges, namely through the section 104 order. The legislation poses a question that goes to the heart of issues surrounding devolution and Scottish Parliament competence. While we have consensus across the House that the issue of conscience regarding assisted dying in Scotland is now one for the MSPs in Holyrood to decide on, I cannot help but reflect on the truly disjointed situation the United Kingdom may land in if the Bill is passed in Scotland while defeated in England and Wales. What will the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues do in that situation? On that point, how does the Minister intend to preserve unity in the medical profession across the United Kingdom? How does she intend to preserve uniformity for those who conscientiously object within the medical profession more broadly? What was the reasoning behind selecting a section 30 order over a section 63 order? Does she have any concerns regarding the use of a section 104 order to resolve the remaining litany of inconsistencies that are not broached in this modification order? The Opposition will be voting against this mechanism today for the reasons I have set out. I must once again put on record my dissatisfaction—and that of the official Opposition—that this incredibly sensitive and significant debate is taking place with very little interest or representation from Scottish Labour MPs, and is not being given time on the Floor of the House.
I also put on the record my thanks to the Committee and the role that it played in providing scrutiny to the draft statutory instrument before us today. The Minister has not explained why there are so few Scottish Labour MPs in the room this afternoon—the question I asked at the very beginning and thrice in my comments. It cannot be that, aside from the hon. Member for Glasgow West and the Minister, there is a lack of interest in this SI, given the important implications of the Bill and how law is delivered in Scotland—so might the Minister provide an explanation?
The Minister is being very generous with her time. As she referenced, I have been through numerous Committees with Conservative and Labour Ministers. It has never been the case that all but one of the Members on the Government Benches have been from outside Scotland. We are considering amendments to the Scotland Act 1998. Surely she does not expect us to believe that the 35 Scottish Labour MPs are so busy that they could not find time to come along to debate this important issue before us today.
It is unusual—indeed, unheard of, in recent months anyway—for the Secretary of State and I to agree on anything on energy policy, but it is probably not the first time this week that he secretly agrees with a Scottish politician. I know he agrees that new nuclear, particularly SMRs, offer huge potential for the UK and for Scotland. This week, Trade Unionists for Safe Nuclear Energy launched a petition addressed to the First Minister of Scotland, calling on him to lift the ban on new nuclear development in Scotland. Can that group expect the Department’s support?
The difference is that this Secretary of State’s ambition for nuclear pales in comparison with our ambition when we were in government. When I served as the Minister for nuclear, it was a source of the greatest frustration that, despite the many countless—indeed, huge—strides we took to kick-start the new nuclear age in the UK, none of the investment or the jobs would be seen north of the border. The Scottish National party is most at home refighting the battles of the past—they tend to be the battles of the 14th century—but in this age of nuclear revolution across the world, the aversion to nuclear is inexplicable. It is a luddite approach. The SNP is anti-science, anti-progress and anti-jobs. There can and should be a future for nuclear in Scotland. Does the Secretary State not agree that this is the time for the SNP Government to drag themselves into, and to move Scotland into, the 20th century—let alone the 21st century—change course and lift this ridiculous ban?