Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentBlake Stephenson

    Independent Water Commission: Final Report

    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.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty

    Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts

    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?

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty

    Local Power Plan

    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?

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentAphra Brandreth

    Household Energy Bills

    23. What steps he is taking to reduce energy bills.

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentAphra Brandreth

    Household Energy Bills

    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?

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentAndrew Bowie

    Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026

    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.

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentAndrew Bowie

    Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026

    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.

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentAndrew Bowie

    Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentAndrew Bowie

    Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026

    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?

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentAndrew Bowie

    Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026

    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.

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentAndrew Bowie

    Small Modular Nuclear Reactors: Jobs

    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?

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentAndrew Bowie

    Small Modular Nuclear Reactors: Jobs

    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?

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentAlison Griffiths

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fifth sitting)

    New clauses 6 and 7 sit together and are linked by the same practical concern regarding clarity and workability when an incident is unfolding. I will start with new clause 6. Ransomware is no longer an occasional or unusual cyber-event; it is now one of the most common and disruptive threats facing essential services, digital providers and their supply chains. Written evidence to this Committee was clear that ransomware incidents are now routine, high-impact events, and that uncertainty at the outset of an attack often makes the consequences worse. The Bill rightly broadens the definition of an incident to capture events that are capable of causing harm, not just those that already have. That is the right direction of travel, but when organisations are under pressure, particularly in the first 24 hours of an incident, uncertainty slows action. Time is lost debating definitions rather than focusing on containment, escalation and reporting. New clause 6 addresses that problem directly. It makes it explicit that a ransomware attack is an incident for the purposes of the NIS regulations, and sets out clearly what is meant by ransomware attack. It would not create a new duty; it would remove doubt from an existing one. Clear definitions support better behaviour when organisations are operating under real pressure. New clause 7 follows naturally from that point. If we want faster and clearer reporting, the system into which organisations are reporting has to work in practice, not just on paper. The Bill expands reporting requirements and introduces new notification duties. That is understandable, but UK Finance told the Committee that many firms already support cyber-incidents under multiple regulatory regimes and that additional reporting layers risk duplication rather than resilience. When an incident is live, that duplication causes friction, slows the response and increases costs. It can reduce the quality of information being shared because teams are stretched across parallel processes rather than focused on managing the incident itself. We do not seek in new clause 7 to reopen the policy intent of the Bill; the new clause would require a review, once these changes are in force, of how the reporting requirements are working in practice. That review would consider costs and interactions with other reporting frameworks. The new clause would also require that proposals for a single cyber-incident reporting channel be published. That is not a bureaucratic exercise; it reflects concerns raised in evidence that resilience is undermined, not strengthened, when reporting becomes fragmented at moments of stress. Taken together, new clauses 6 and 7 are about making the system clearer at the front end and more usable overall. Clear definitions encourage timely reporting and coherent reporting channels make that reporting effective. I hope that the Committee will give serious consideration to both new clauses.

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentAlison Griffiths

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I want to use new clause 1 as a lens to view a wider question that sits underneath clause 24, rather than as a verdict on the clause itself. That question is how we decide, in a disciplined and credible way, which activities are sufficiently critical to be brought into the scope of the regime, and how that judgment is applied consistently over time. New clause 1 would bring much of the food supply chain directly into scope through primary legislation. I understand the instinct behind that. Food supply is fundamental to public confidence, and disruption would be felt very quickly. However, if the underlying test for inclusion is systemic impact, food is not the only sector that raises these questions. I am vice-Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and over the past year we have taken evidence on economic security from major UK firms that have experienced serious cyber-incidents. One example everyone here will be familiar with is Jaguar Land Rover. Evidence to our Committee indicated that the cyber-incident there contributed to UK GDP being around 0.1% lower than expected in the third quarter last year, which was not a marginal effect. That reflected disruption to tightly integrated manufacturing systems, with production lines brought to a halt and knock-on impacts across just-in-time supply chains and regional economies. I make that point to underline something simple: cyber-risk presents simultaneously as operational, financial and reputational risk, and in combination those effects can be felt economy-wide. If that is the rationale for bringing food into scope early, it inevitably raises questions about other high-value sectors where a single incident can have national economic consequences. That brings us back to clause 24 and the role of the Secretary of State. The Bill is clearly designed to allow scope for provisions to evolve through secondary legislation as risks change. That flexibility is sensible, but flexibility works only if the criteria for widening scope are clear, predictable and capable of being explained to industry, regulators and Parliament. If decisions appear to be reactive or driven by the most recent or most visible incident, confidence in the regime will suffer rather than strengthen. That concern is reflected in the written evidence we have received. The Association of British Insurers, for example, supports higher standards of cyber-resilience, but it also emphasises the importance of clear definitions and coherence between regimes, particularly where firms are already subject to overlapping regulatory requirements. Its point is not about resisting regulation, but about avoiding uncertainty and duplication, which do not improve resilience. My questions are ones of principle rather than position. First, what is the settled test that the Secretary of State will apply when deciding to bring a sector into scope under the clause 24 powers, and how will that judgment be made transparent to Parliament? Secondly, if Parliament were to require rapid expansion of scope, how confident are the Government that regulators would have the capacity to supervise a much larger and more diverse population without diluting oversight elsewhere? I am not seeking to land a conclusion on new clause 1 today—I understand why it has been tabled and I recognise the seriousness of the issues that it highlights—but if we are going to widen scope, to food or otherwise, the Committee is entitled to press the Government on the discipline and guardrails that will sit behind those decisions. This needs to remain a targeted and credible regime, rather than one that expands without a clear and consistent logic.

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentAlison Griffiths

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    As we heard in written evidence from the ABI, clarity about roles really matters. Can the Minister confirm that the statement of strategic priorities is not intended to operate as indirect instruction, and that regulators will retain clear discretion where sector evidence points in a different direction?

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentAlison Griffiths

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    As the Minister is saying, clause 28 is meant to help Parliament understand how regulators are responding to the statement of strategic priorities. Can he say a little about how substantive that reporting will be, and whether it will genuinely allow Parliament to assess how those duties are being exercised in practice?

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentAlison Griffiths

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Having worked in business, I know that the words we use to ensure that the capabilities are there are easy to say but not always easy to deliver. How will the Minister ensure that when we have a multi-sector issue, which could easily come up—particularly, as we have already discussed, around OT and the use of IEDs across multiple sectors—the National Cyber Security Centre and other regulators will have access to the skills, people and resources necessary to manage what could be a catastrophic incident? We already know that cyber-skills are in short supply as it is, even in the commercial sector.

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentAlison Griffiths

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I thank the Minister for his patience. He mentions a specific example of where he will ensure that the NCSC is resourced up. Do we have specific examples that have happened already of those powers having been put in place successfully? From conversations with the NCSC, I understand that it is reliant on its accredited bodies across the country, but we have not yet—I am touching the wood of my desk, as I speak—had to respond to a complex multi-sector issue. I challenge the Minister on whether he is confident about our capability to respond to one.

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentAlison Griffiths

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    My question relates to clause 29 but also clause 30. As the Minister says, the powers are deliberately wide. The Institution of Engineering and Technology noted in evidence that predictability matters more than compliance. Will the Minister explain exactly how the Government will judge when risks require new statutory duties rather than updated guidance, so that businesses are not left guessing?

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentAlison Griffiths

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    As the Association of British Insurers has highlighted in its written evidence, the way cost recovery operates will shape behaviour on the ground. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that changes made under clause 34 will be transparent and proportionate and will not inadvertently discourage investment in cyber-resilience, particularly for smaller firms in supply chains? On a personal point, could I ask him to speak more slowly? I am really struggling to hear him.

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentAlison Griffiths

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Could the Minister repeat that?

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentAlison Griffiths

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Further to that point of order, Mr Stringer. Genuinely, I simply need the Minister to speak slowly and clearly. Yes, I am wearing hearing aids; I am sure that others wear them too. I am doing my very best to make sure that I can lip-read, but that is almost impossible given the speed the Minister is speaking at. One cannot lip read when he is looking down all the time either.

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentAlison Griffiths

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    We heard from the Information Systems Audit and Control Association that codes work best when they reflect operational reality. Given their evidential status, can the Minister reassure the Committee that codes will remain practical and iterative and not quietly harden into rigid compliance rules?

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentAlison Griffiths

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Sixth sitting)

    These procedures are standard, but the powers they apply to are significant. Where regulations under part 3 would materially expand duties or bring new actors into scope, have the Government considered whether those should receive deeper scrutiny in practice, even if the formal procedure remains the usual one?

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentAlan Mak

    Oak Park Community Clinic

    On behalf of Havant residents and NHS patients, I welcome this opportunity to raise urgently in Parliament the sudden and distressing removal of diagnostic services at Oak Park clinic in Havant. Oak Park is a vital community asset that has long played an important role in local healthcare provision, providing a range of services including therapies, out-patient clinics and diagnostic checks. For residents, the clinic represents local, familiar and accessible care, particularly for sick, elderly and vulnerable people who struggle to travel. Some of the services remain, but the loss of diagnostics is a huge concern for my constituents in Havant, Langstone, Bedhampton, Emsworth, Hayling Island, Leigh Park, Purbrook, Stakes and Widley. The withdrawal of diagnostic services at Oak Park took place suddenly, immediately before Christmas and came with no warning. In fact, there was no consultation with patients, local GPs, community groups or care providers. The local reaction to this removal of services has been both outrage and fear. This is the time of year when the NHS and its patients feel the most pressure; frankly, the timing of the withdrawal could not have been worse. My thoughts are also with the staff who provided diagnostic services at Oak Park, who, I understand, received only a month’s notice themselves that this work would be ending. I was not notified before or even immediately after the withdrawal of services by any of the local NHS bodies or service providers. In particular, I heard nothing from the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board, which commissions and oversees the services at Oak Park. In fact, the first contact I had from the ICB was yesterday morning, once this debate had been confirmed. I now look forward to learning from the ICB how it intends to replace the services lost at Oak Park. I welcome the commitment it gave me yesterday to provide what it calls “a strong neighbourhood model” for delivering diagnostics services to my constituency. I hope it delivers on that commitment, and I would welcome the Minister’s support in holding the ICB accountable for delivering it. The ICB has told me that the decision to end diagnostic services at Oak Park was taken by the NHS provider; that it was not an ICB decision. The general failure to communicate with people affected by the closure has caused widespread confusion, anger and fear. It is disappointing that, nearly two months on from the removal of diagnostic services at Oak Park, there is still no clear information in the public domain about the background behind the removal, no agreement about a way forward, and no news about whether temporary provision, for example through a mobile diagnostic unit, is feasible. The importance of diagnostic provision in Havant cannot be overstated. Havant War Memorial hospital closed in September 2011 and, at the time, local people were assured that replacement facilities would maintain accessible healthcare in the community. It was Oak Park Community Clinic that provided the reassurance that healthcare would indeed remain close to home. The message from residents, patients, GPs and the whole community is clear: diagnostic services must be restored locally by the NHS and the ICB to a central location in the Havant constituency—either at Oak Park or at another suitable site. In the meantime, there must be interim provision in the constituency—for example, via a mobile unit or temporary facilities. Local people deserve nothing less, and my campaign to get the Government, the ICB and the NHS to deliver will continue. As the Minister knows, diagnostics are the gateway to treatment. Oak Park offered X-ray, ultrasound and echocardiogram services. These are basic but vital services that inform clinicians quickly about the health of a patient, and allow them to decide what further tests or treatment are necessary. If these checks are delayed or unavailable, the consequences for patients can be appalling, slowing their access to treatment or even cutting it off altogether. The cumulative effect is to increase referrals into already pressured acute settings, such as the Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth, and to undermine the cohesion of local NHS services. The alternative to the facilities at Oak Park is to divert my constituents to St Mary’s community health campus in Portsmouth. This is hugely inconvenient for them, because travel into Portsmouth from communities in the Havant constituency is difficult at the best of times. St Mary’s is located on Portsea Island in the city, and there are only three roads on and off the island. The road most likely to be used by people travelling from my constituency—the Eastern Road—has been closed in one direction for several weeks for sewer repair works. It will remain closed until next month at the earliest. Traffic disruption has been appalling for anybody travelling to Portsmouth on any route, and my constituents tell me that they have been affected when travelling to and from St Mary’s Setting aside the temporary issues caused by the closure of the Eastern Road, St Mary’s is, in any event, poorly served by public transport from any of the communities in the constituency: there is no direct bus link between my constituency and the campus; St Mary’s is more than a mile and a half from the nearest railway station; and there is no bus service from the railway station to the campus. Residents from Hayling Island in my constituency who have to go to St Mary’s instead of Oak Park face an especially arduous journey, consisting of a minimum of three bus journeys, taking at least an hour and a half in each direction. During peak periods, given the terrible traffic conditions in Portsmouth, this is likely to take much longer and risks appointments being missed. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that I have been contacted by GP surgeries in my constituency expressing in the strongest terms their dismay at the Oak Park situation. The Elms Practice on Hayling Island has highlighted the length and difficulty of the journey to St Mary’s, as well as the additional cost of the longer journey, which many patients simply cannot absorb. The practice highlights the risk of missed appointments and diagnoses, particularly for patients with chronic conditions. The additional stress of the longer journey for patients with already limited mobility or who are living with disabilities is intolerable. I have heard similar concerns from the Homewell Curlew GP practice in Havant, close to the Oak Park site, whose patients now face much longer journeys. The problem was also raised with me last week in person by the manager of a care home in Havant. She told me that their patients are having to spend £50 or more on a round trip in a taxi to Portsmouth. This is an unacceptable state of affairs. This is not just an issue for my constituents; the additional burden of more patients arriving at St Mary’s will affect people living in neighbouring constituencies who would normally use St Mary’s for diagnostic checks. The loss of capacity at Oak Park is having a considerable regional impact, and it appears the sudden withdrawal of services is not an isolated example. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) cannot speak in this debate as she also serves as Deputy Speaker, but we have discussed the loss of phlebotomy services from Romsey hospital because of a decision by the ICB. I understand that my right hon. Friend’s constituents now have to travel to Southampton or even Lymington for appointments. My right hon. Friend has characteristically spoken up for her constituents very effectively, and I know that she will continue to do so. On wider NHS engagement, I have a good relationship with all my local NHS bodies, and I want to continue that constructive approach to improve patient outcomes. The loss of these services at Oak Park came shortly after I had a positive meeting with the new chair of Portsmouth hospitals university NHS trust, which manages Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth—the general hospital that serves my constituency and people across much of south-east Hampshire. We had a good discussion about the importance of local provision of basic services. While the trust does not manage the Oak Park facility, when things go wrong with diagnosis, it is on Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth that the burden mostly falls. I successfully lobbied the previous Conservative Government to secure funding for the new emergency department at Queen Alexandra hospital, which serves my constituency. However, it is already clear that even with a new emergency department, the hospital is facing capacity challenges. Anything that gets patients into the right care pathway the first time, at the earliest opportunity, helps to ease that pressure, and diagnostic services play a key part in that. The public see the NHS as a monolithic structure, and when things go wrong in one part, as has happened with Oak Park, constituents can find it confusing and disempowering. The NHS and the ICB must put that right. Following this debate, I hope that as well as securing the return of diagnostic facilities, we can have a broader conversation about wider health provision for my constituents. An urgent treatment centre in the constituency would further ease the pressure on both QA hospital and St Mary’s hospital. I have always been clear that empowering patients helps them to lead healthier, longer lives, whether that is through digital transformation or being able to access basic timely care locally and in a convenient way. For that reason, I successfully campaigned for the Emsworth Victoria Cottage hospital’s building to be retained by the NHS, so that it could become the new home for the Emsworth medical practice, which is now a superb resource for all its patients. We all lead busy lives, and proximity to high-quality local healthcare services is vital. I know that the GP practices on Hayling Island need better facilities, and I have been working with them, the ICB and other NHS bodies to bring that about. But first we have to fix the Oak Park issue and bring those diagnostic services back. In closing, I have three requests for the Minister. First, will he commit the NHS to restoring diagnostic services to a permanent setting as quickly as possible in the Havant constituency, whether at Oak Park or another site? Secondly, while the permanent restoration process continues, will he support the provision of temporary diagnostic services in the Havant constituency, for example through a mobile unit or at a temporary site? Thirdly, will he meet me to discuss how the ICB and NHS bodies can move quickly to restore these diagnostic services in Havant and learn lessons from the Oak Park situation? I want to thank the hard-working NHS staff who provide such fantastic support for my constituents all year round. I call on the Minister to ensure that my constituents have their access to local diagnostic services in the Havant constituency restored as quickly as possible.

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Standards in Public Life

    Today’s statement is little more than a smokescreen, and a chance to distract from the key issue, which is about Peter Mandelson and our Prime Minister. More questions are being asked, but there are still no answers, so may I take the Minister back to the central point? How much was the golden goodbye for Peter Mandelson?

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentTom Tugendhat

    Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

    Many of us in this House were sanctioned by China, and the Prime Minister went over and somehow managed to sell the partial un-sanctioning of a few of us as a victory. I would have welcomed a victory that was the release of Jimmy Lai, but sadly the Prime Minister conceded all his cards before getting on the plane, leaving himself nothing to negotiate with. Can the Minister find anything else that China wants that the Prime Minister could negotiate with? Maybe he could offer them the Isle of Wight or the Outer Hebrides—he is trying to give away everything else anyway. At least the job of the Prime Minister would then be to protect a British citizen—one who, as we all recognise, has been given a death sentence by the Chinese, not the Hong Kong authorities.

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentSir Julian Smith

    Policing: Rural Areas

    2. What steps she is taking to help ensure effective policing in rural areas.

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentSir Julian Smith

    Policing: Rural Areas

    The reorganisation of policing proposed by the Government risks a double whammy for areas with already under-resourced policing, as they face further distance between themselves and decision makers. May I urge the Minister to look carefully at how the reorganisation will impact the sparsest areas of our country, such as North Yorkshire?

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

    Does the Minister accept that the IRGC is responsible for many acts of terrorism? While we appreciate the difficulty that arises from its being a state organisation and the reluctance to proscribe a state organisation, is it not a fact that Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has come up with a formula to allow that to happen? If so, why do the Government not bring it forward with the maximum speed?

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

    I am sorry, but this is really hopeless. I mean no disrespect to this particular Minister, but I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, have noticed, as I have, that whenever something indefensible comes up, the Government always put middle-ranking or junior Ministers on the frontline. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary is abroad or perhaps she is in her sick bed, but otherwise, why is she not voluntarily making a statement, rather than sending someone else to take the flak? This is really not fitting for the outrage that hon. Members—there are hon. Members on both sides of the House—feel about the fate of Jimmy Lai.

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Standards in Public Life

    It is notable that despite the Government’s huge majority, they have run out of people to stand up and defend their position. The Minister is—I am not being patronising—a very intelligent man. I therefore ask that he does not insult the intelligence of the rest of us by talking about the Prime Minister having believed Mandelson’s lies after he asked him questions. We now know from the forensic questioning by the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein carried on—“ongoing” was the word—after Epstein was jailed for offences related to paedophilia and prostitution. The Prime Minister apparently chose to ask more questions after that, and was lied to. What more did he need to know to realise that that man should never have been allowed within a mile of the post of ambassador to America?

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Procedure committee

    It is very rare—in fact, I cannot think of a previous occasion over what is approaching 29 or 30 years in this House—that I have heard a statement from a Select Committee, every word of which I entirely agree with. This is one of those occasions, and I congratulate the Committee and the Members who were involved in the preparation of this excellent contribution.

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    UK-India Free Trade Agreement

    I hope I am not stretching the boundaries of the debate excessively, but I would be interested to know whether the agreement has any implications for defence exports to India and, if it does, what safeguards would be in place, given the unhealthily close relationship between India and Russia.

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentSir John Whittingdale

    Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

    In December, I asked the Prime Minister to make it clear that his visit to Beijing could go ahead only if Jimmy Lai was released. He responded: “It is important that we continue to engage, so that we can raise this issue”.—[Official Report, 17 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 910.] That clearly achieved nothing. Will the Minister also bear in mind the fact that, alongside Jimmy Lai, six other senior members of Apple Daily received lengthy prison sentences in what Reporters Sans Frontières has described as “the complete collapse of press freedom in Hong Kong”? What action will the Government take during the two-week period in which an appeal has to be lodged to ensure the release of not just Jimmy Lai but all of them?

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentSir John Whittingdale

    Standards in Public Life

    May I tell the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, in relation to his previous answer, that the Foreign Affairs Committee repeatedly asked for Lord Mandelson to appear, but he refused to come, and that what the Committee did hear, from the permanent under-secretary, was that Lord Mandelson would be entitled to a payoff in relation to the terms of his contract? Can the Chief Secretary say how much Lord Mandelson received and whether he will be asked to repay it?

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Brain Tumour Survival Rates

    I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for intervening despite not being here for the beginning of the debate. My hon. Friend will know that I chair the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, and I am also president of the Lincolnshire Brain Tumour Support Group—she is right about the connection between the two. Does she think it would be advisable for those who have suffered a brain injury to be screened routinely, given the correlation between an earlier brain injury and the later advent of cancer?

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Brain Tumour Survival Rates

    As the Minister is now referring to my specialist subject, I thought that I had better intervene. Although I defer, of course, to the immense experience of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) in these matters, I think that this is associated with lesions and scarring, and that is why, as the Minister said, there is a mild association. As the hon. Member said, there is a much more profound association with other neurological conditions, particularly dementia. While I am on my feet, may I ask the Minister to address the issue of research? The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket is right: diagnostics are terribly difficult, but 1% of the expenditure on cancer research currently goes towards brain tumour research. Can we increase that?

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentSir Iain Duncan Smith

    Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the 20-year sentence imposed on our brave British citizen, Jimmy Lai.

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentSir Iain Duncan Smith

    Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

    I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. Today, as the Minister said, Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, has been sentenced to a further 20 years in prison. Given his poor health and the fact that he sat for five years in solitary confinement, that is not a sentence; it is a death sentence for that brave man. The authorities have trashed everything that we would consider reasonable in law. For example, like others, I was named—nine times—in the prosecution case, and I have never even met Mr Lai, or spoken to him, sadly. I simply ask the Minister why the statement that the UK Government released today refers to Jimmy Lai as a “British National”. Lord Cameron finally changed that, and made it clear that Mr Lai was a British citizen. Will the Minister change the statement and refer to him as a British citizen, which is what he is? Why do the Government constantly refer to Hong Kong and the national security law? The reality is that the British Government have sanctioned absolutely nobody in the Chinese Government for trashing the Sino-British agreement and installing the Chinese national security law, which is the reason why Jimmy Lai was arrested. He has been convicted and sentenced for nothing more than standing up for freedom of speech and peaceful protest for democracy. The Government went on a visit to China recently. Before doing so, they granted full planning permission for the huge and ghastly Chinese embassy in London. Why did they not at least hold back on planning permission, so that they could say to the Chinese Government, “You must release Jimmy Lai now and cancel the prosecution altogether, or you will not get your embassy”? Instead, we have given them the embassy for nothing, and the Prime Minister was treated like dirt while he was out there. Sebastien and Claire Lai, Jimmy Lai’s children, have fought for him. I feel sorry for them, and my thoughts go to them. Surely, this is a sad day for anybody who believes in freedom, justice, and the legitimate rule of democratically made law. Will the Government now call for a humanitarian parole?

    Hansard source