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

1. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

   To understand the impact of what we are discussing, we obviously look at the impact assessment. We in this place are often accused of simply making rules and passing laws with no real sense of the impact downstream, particularly on small businesses. Having worked in the tech sector for 10 years, with data centres and managed service providers, and worked to try to grow many small and medium-sized enterprises, I am acutely conscious of the need not to overburden them. It is clearly hugely important that the Government take account of the impact of the measures they are taking and the burdens they are imposing on small and medium-sized enterprises. To understand the impact of this measure, it is important to know two things: first, how many companies will be impacted and, secondly, how much it is going to cost. While I am sure that the Minister will say that this provision on critical suppliers is great, and all very clear, it cannot really be that clear. Page 110 of the impact assessment states: “DSIT is not able to estimate at this stage the number of SMEs or SME DSPs that will be designated as critical suppliers”; so we cannot tell how many there are. The same page also states: “Specific duties will be set through secondary legislation so the exact cost of security measures is not possible to estimate.” We do not know how many there are or how much the measure is going to cost, but Government Members will be whipped to say, “That’s okay—that can be done by someone else at another time.” We do not really have a strong sense of the impact on real-world businesses of what we are doing here. We also talked about the legal costs in an earlier sitting. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reassuring words about how very clear the clause is and how it is not just a blank cheque, even though we do not know how many people it will affect or how much it will cost them.

   Hansard source
2. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

   I do not want to add spurious hypotheticals, so I will talk about the real world. I visited the Maypole special school in my constituency the other day. It has 20 members of staff and 18 pupils. It has people coming from as far away as Wandsworth. It books the transport, and the transport is paid for by the local education authority in which the pupil lives. It is clearly critical that children get to the school—just as it would be for a hospital. Would it be up to members of staff at the Maypole school to find out whether Addison Lee used a managed service provider or a data centre? That seems quite a tricky thing to know about and then to fulfil.

   Hansard source
3. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

   Will the Minister give way?

   Hansard source
4. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

   The Minister came back with an answer on proportionality, saying that it is not for Government to decide what is essential. He missed out the next bit, which is, “We’re just going to regulate critical suppliers and pass laws about them, but we don’t know how many there are, and we don’t know how much the policy is going to cost.” Would he accept that characterisation as the logical conclusion of what he said? The Minister also said that schools were not covered by the Bill. As far as I am aware, patient data and children’s data are two of the most precious things that we have, so I would like to know why schools are not covered by the Bill.

   Hansard source
5. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Water Infrastructure: Inspections

   It is lovely to see the Secretary of State; the last time I saw her was in the Strangers Bar, when she was pulling a pint of Rebellion Overthrow—I can’t imagine why that stuck in my mind! The River Thames scheme has been in abeyance, essentially—in mid-project review—since May last year. Will the Secretary of State please knock some heads together at both the Environment Agency and Surrey county council, and get them to say something about what is happening at the River Thames scheme?

   Hansard source
6. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Business of the House

   Pride in Place funding is about £5 billion directed at our most deprived areas. I think it is worked out on a constituency basis, and that constituencies have to hit a point on two indices of deprivation to qualify, and must therefore be what the Government call “double deprived”. I have significant pockets of deprivation in my constituency, particularly in parts of Stanwell, yet they do not qualify for Pride in Place funding because it is calculated on a constituency basis, which seems pretty unfair to me. Will the Leader of the House allow Government time for us to debate the Pride in Place funding formula, so that we can understand it, and bring such anomalies to the attention of the Government?

   Hansard source
7. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

   Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

   All of us are here in this Chamber because of the horror we have at the events of 7 October, and the atrocities that have taken place thereafter and that continue to take place. Many of us are also here because of a profound sense of shame—shame at the way the last Government and this Government have conducted themselves throughout this entire affair. Among the many shames that we will all have to bear is the Government’s reluctance to vigorously and assertively participate in the international rules-based order which we built to prevent exactly this kind of eventuality. As other Members have said, I do not understand what the Government think the ICJ was doing when it ruled that there was a plausible case for genocide. Did they not think that it was triggering exactly the obligations that other Members have mentioned? Those obligations are not rhetorical; they are operational, real, obligatory. We have to act to prevent; we cannot facilitate. Yet time and again, the British Government have done absolutely nothing. From arms to intelligence sharing and diplomatic cover, we have continued as normal. I am left wondering what it is this country stands for, because it is not just on this obligation that there has been nothing. On the torture convention, even when the reputable Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem has just published a report saying that Israel is running “a network of torture camps”, there has been nothing from the British Government, notwithstanding their international obligations. On the settlements in the west bank, a hundred parliamentarians wrote to the Government and the ICJ has ruled, yet the Government have done the bare minimum they could get away with to enforce those obligations. There are even the individual cases we have seen on our telephones and on social media: Dr Adnan al-Bursh tortured to death; Hind Rajab, who the world heard as she lay dying in a car, left alone at the age of six; the ambulances ambushed; the hospitals flattened; the schools crushed. Even when British citizens are slaughtered—surely we have an obligation to them if we do not feel that we have one to anybody else—the Government have done nothing. This is a monstrous abdication of duty. In this regard, the law is not unclear. The facts are not hidden. Daily, we hear Israeli Ministers boasting about what is being done in Gaza. What is missing is political will. It is about time that the Minister and his superiors realised that history does not just judge what Governments do; it judges what they allow.

   Hansard source
8. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

   Grooming Gangs

   1. What steps she is taking to increase prosecution rates for grooming gang perpetrators.

   Hansard source
9. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

   Grooming Gangs

   Baroness Casey’s audit of group-based child sexual exploitation found “a collective failure to properly deter and prosecute offenders or to protect children from harm.” These crimes happen across borders and in every part of the United Kingdom, so what more can be done to ensure that prosecution services, including the CPS and Scotland’s Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, take a joined-up approach to bringing these vile offenders to justice?

   Hansard source
10. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Business of the House

    The Leader of the House will be aware of the Countryside Alliance’s annual “Rural Oscars” awards. I am delighted that eight of the finalists come from my constituency: Briggsy’s Butcher, the Allanton Inn, the Buccleuch Arms, the Blackadder in Greenlaw, the Gordon Arms, Fine Feathers, the Ancrum Pantry and the Oxton Community shop. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating those businesses and in wishing them well in the public vote?

    Hansard source
11. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Glen

    Business of the House

    Several of my constituents in Salisbury have recently retired from the civil service. When they have contacted Capita, they have not been able to obtain their lump sums, so are getting into debt and have lost out on interest. Others have been cut off and ignored. Could we have a statement or a debate on this matter? It is only right, if people have worked so hard for so many years, that they should be able to access their pension as they anticipated.

    Hansard source
12. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    This question is possibly better directed at the Minister, but does my hon. Friend think that the clause might be so restrictive because, in truth, the Government do not really want open access, despite what they say?

    Hansard source
13. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I note the Minister’s assertion that there is no intention to squeeze out other operators, but given the way in which the Bill and the clause are drafted, that surely is an inevitability regardless of whether he intends for that to happen. It is the outcome that matters. If it will not enable open access and competition, that is in itself a problem, notwithstanding he might not intend that to be the case.

    Hansard source
14. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I have a short point to make. The Minister seems to be saying that it is important to restrict an appeals process to the judicial review principles, which is a more restrictive set of criteria by which a body or company can appeal. Otherwise, that might lead to “incoherent decision making”—I think those were his words. That sentiment and assertion undermines the entire court system of the United Kingdom—save for judicial review applications—which is based on disputes being had in, for example, the county court or the High Court, or another court making a decision, and the possibility of an appeal going upwards all the way to the Supreme Court, depending on the issue. However, nobody would suggest that that leads to an incoherent society or to incoherent contracts, family law, employment law, decision making or anything else. For some reason, Great British Railways has this special carve-out, such that it can be challenged only through judicial review, because of some notion of incoherence. It seems to me that the entire purpose of that restriction is to prop up Great British Railways and allow it to act in a way that is not really comparable to anything else in the way we deliver public transport in this country. It gives me considerable concern.

    Hansard source
15. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    Channel your inner Jerome!

    Hansard source
16. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

    Hansard source
17. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    I do not think that this is a moment for normal business. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House and all Members, will join me in taking this moment to remember the victims of Jeffrey Epstein: the young women and girls who were systematically trafficked and abused by him and his associates over many years—both those who have come forward and those who have not felt able to do so. Today, I will talk about Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House and colleagues across this Chamber feel the same way that I do. He and they will understand that this is a matter that far transcends party politics. Peter Mandelson, when Business Secretary, advised Jeffrey Epstein that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of J. P. Morgan, should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor at the time—his colleague, Alistair Darling—over the planned tax on bankers’ bonuses, as Jamie Dimon, still the chief executive of J. P. Morgan, duly did. Mandelson forwarded market-sensitive information to Epstein that related to the 2009 sale of up to £20 billion in state assets, describing the internal Downing Street memo—internal, I stress—as an “Interesting note that’s gone to the PM.” Mandelson gave Epstein advance notice of the EU’s 2010 €500 billion bail-out the night before the official announcement, and he warned him in advance of the departure of Gordon Brown from No. 10 Downing Street —a further highly market-sensitive piece of information. In 2008, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in Florida under a state plea bargain on two sample felony counts: solicitation of prostitution from a minor and procurement of a minor for prostitution. The Prime Minister was specifically asked at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday whether he knew that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction. He said: “when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security”.—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.] Unfortunately, that is plainly untrue—it must be inadvertent. When the Labour party presented its Humble Address for impact assessments on Brexit to be released on 1 November 2017, that address did not mention national security at all. The second name on that motion was that of the Prime Minister. I hope the Leader of the House will encourage the Prime Minister to correct the record when he next appears at the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister also said yesterday: “we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.] Let us think about that for a moment. The Prime Minister is saying that if only he had known about the depth and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein as it continued after 2008, he would have rejected the appointment. It was not enough that he knew Mandelson had a continuing relationship with this convicted paedophile and sex trafficker. He knew it—indeed, the fact that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s mansion had been reported to him by public sources, and he ignored it. Not only that, but the Prime Minister had the public information further confirmed and reinforced by the security vetting that was done after the appointment but before Mandelson had signed his contract of employment. That was a further chance for the Prime Minister to reject the appointment, and he ignored that too. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), asked the Prime Minister yesterday: “can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 262.] Those victims are the many dozens—perhaps hundreds—of girls and young women who were trafficked and abused by and through Jeffrey Epstein. It is clear that the Prime Minister did not consider them at all, or he could not have possibly taken the decision he did. So why did he choose Mandelson? Why did he take that decision? He did so because Morgan McSweeney told him to. McSweeney was Mandelson’s protégé, and McSweeney was paying back his long-time mentor and political sponsor for all those good works with his appointment. This whole episode has done incredible damage to the already fragile nature of trust in politics. Every Labour Prime Minister since 1997 has given Peter Mandelson a senior job and been betrayed by him. The present Prime Minister will be seen to have had his own reputation destroyed by this scandal. But let us be clear: every Member of this House and our entire political system have been harmed by it and will continue to be until effective measures are taken to clean it up. I ask two questions. Can the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the documents to be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee will not be redacted? In order to reassure the House, can he ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the appointment procedure undertaken in this case—both the public due diligence and the developed vetting process—and set out in writing why those failed so badly in this case and how they will be improved?

    Hansard source
18. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Jury Trials

    8. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials on the rule of law.

    Hansard source
19. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Jury Trials

    Yesterday, a jury failed to reach a verdict on charges against Palestine Action activists involved in a violent incident in which a police sergeant’s spine was broken when she was struck by a sledge hammer. Does the Solicitor General agree with me and law abiding people across the country—

    Hansard source
20. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Jury Trials

    Does the Solicitor General agree that, as the Crown Prosecution Service considers whether to bring a retrial, it should bring a retrial on these serious charges, including assault occasioning grievous bodily harm?

    Hansard source
21. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Business of the House

    The Leader of the House referred earlier to mental health and Time to Talk Day; I will be running the London marathon in April for the 8:56 Foundation in North West Norfolk, which does important work on men’s mental health. Will he join me in paying tribute to charities across the country that are doing so much to improve people’s wellbeing?

    Hansard source
22. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Road Safety

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), who made a powerful speech, particularly in relation to the impact of dangerous driving on her family. As the hon. Member said, more than 1,600 people tragically lost their lives on our roads in 2024, and 60% of those fatalities happened on rural roads such as those in North West Norfolk. Indeed, there has been a worrying rise in road casualties in Norfolk: in 2024, a 17% increase took the number of people killed or seriously injured to 555. I welcome the publication of the Government’s road safety strategy, and the ambition to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by 65% by 2035. However, a few things are worth highlighting. Awareness of the highway code remains far too low, and people do not refresh themselves on what is in the code—that must be improved.

    Hansard source
23. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Road Safety

    I agree. In the context of the debate, and following contact from constituents, I have been refreshing myself on the highway code, which I admit I had not done before even though I should have done. Awareness is important. Speeding continues to be a major cause of accidents. However, many residents, Speedwatch groups and parish councils tell me that the process for reviewing or reducing speed limits on dangerous roads is too slow and too expensive, so I look forward to the Government’s new guidance on setting local speed limits, which I hope leads to genuine improvement. Change needs to be driven by evidence, and in that context I refer to the proposal to reduce the drink-driving limit. Offences are typically caused by people who have greatly exceeded the limit, not by people who have had just a pint, so we must consider that proposal very carefully. Young people are already waiting too long for driving tests, so I am concerned about the proposal to put in place a minimum six-month learning period. People who take intensive courses can be good drivers. The proposal could make the situation worse.

    Hansard source
24. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Road Safety

    I will not, given the time available. A number of constituents who ride horses have contacted me with concerns about a lack of driver awareness and the prevalence of speeding and dangerous driving. They face heightened risk, particularly given the limited number of bridleways. The roads connecting bridleways have become more dangerous, too, with over 3,000 incidents in 2024, 80% of which were attributed to drivers passing unsafely. That is unacceptable, and it is why I support the proposals introduced by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), which include setting a required speed and distance for passing horses, and teaching equestrian safety in driving education. I hope that the Government will look favourably on those proposals. I turn now to a topic that I have raised repeatedly in the House: sentences for driving offences, which must be tougher. In 2022, Parliament legislated for a maximum sentence of life in prison for death by dangerous driving, but sentences remain far too short, as was demonstrated in a case in which three members of a constituent’s family were killed. Dangerous driving should also result in longer disqualification. Less than 1% of those convicted of dangerous driving were banned from driving for life. Will the Government commit to a review of the sentencing guidelines for all dangerous driving offences, and consider how the Sentencing Council is applying those guidelines to reflect what we in this House consider necessary? I am grateful to have had this opportunity briefly to speak about this important topic, and I hope that the Minister will respond to some of my points.

    Hansard source
25. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Helen Grant

    Jury Trials

    There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Government. The Minister for Courts and Legal Services says that she would scrap jury trials even if there was not a crisis in the courts. The Lord Chancellor says that he is open to a conversation about alternatives and wants the backlog to come down. Which is it? Is it about the backlog, in which case what alternatives to scrapping jury trials are actually being considered, or is this just an unworkable attack on our civil liberties wrapped up in ideology?

    Hansard source
26. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Helen Grant

    Jury Trials

    That was a very disappointing answer. There is another contradiction too, this time on retro- spectivity. The Courts Minister says that cases already committed for trial at Crown court could be pushed back to swift courts. The Lord Chancellor suggests that the changes would only apply to new cases. That is not a minor discrepancy; it is about people’s lives. The Government cannot champion legal certainty on the one hand and flirt with retrospective decision making on the other. It is absurd. Which version are we meant to believe: the Lord Chancellor’s or the Minister’s?

    Hansard source
27. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Sudan

    The Foreign Secretary rightly spoke of the need to halt arms flows, and I listened very carefully to her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). May I focus on one specific country? There is significant evidence of the use of Chinese-manufactured arms, such as the FH-95 strategic drone, in Sudan. How much time was dedicated to raising that matter with the Chinese during the Prime Minister’s recent visit to China? Has the Foreign Secretary spoken to her Chinese counterparts about it? What reassurance can she give the House that it has not become an inconvenient truth in the Government’s attempt to reset the relationship with China?

    Hansard source
28. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    National Cancer Plan

    I very much welcome the plan. I see the Minister’s commitment to it, and in the interests of all our constituents, I absolutely hope that it works and comes through. In the last Parliament, I did a lot of work on the all-party parliamentary group on minimally invasive cancer therapies—the group no longer exists—which, notwithstanding the commitment to innovation and technology that the Minister has outlined, is one area I have not heard much about. Could she outline to the House how this plan will bring through faster, and on a less of a postcode lottery basis, the new minimally invasive therapies?

    Hansard source
29. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Economic Security

    The right hon. Gentleman, with his Committee, has given a thoughtful series of recommendations. On his specific point about trade remedies and countries that are over-subsidising, such as China, and the electric vehicles flooding our and European markets, how much of that is being led, in terms of joined-up Government, by a foreign policy that just does not recognise economic security and which prioritised, as in the Prime Minister’s recent trip to China, trying to reset relations with some countries while regarding economic security as an inconvenient truth?

    Hansard source
30. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Road Safety

    First and foremost, I thank Members from across the House for taking part in this debate, and I particularly pay tribute to all those mentioned who tragically lost their lives or faced life changing injuries in road accidents. It is right that we do all we can to stop such terrible incidents occurring again in the future. The ability to travel in our cars and on the roads is integral to the vast majority of people’s everyday lives. Not only is it the most popular form of transport, but it is a lifeline for many people, so all motorists and every other road user, whether they are lorry drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders or others, deserve safe journeys. In considering the Government’s road safety announcements, the Opposition support and welcome some elements of the strategy, while the effectiveness of other measures remains in question. We strongly support measures such as stronger fines for those who commit egregious offences and action to combat ghost number plates. However, the overwhelming sentiment, which I hope the Minister adopts when putting into practice the policies set out in the strategy, is about enforcement. One of the worst things to hear when there has been an accident is that it involved people breaking existing laws, putting themselves and others in danger. Unfortunately, since the Government released the strategy, we have seen further decreases in police officer numbers, with a decrease of more than 1,300 officers between September 2024 and September 2025 and further decreases occurring before that date. How can we expect the Government to enforce our wide range of existing road laws, let alone new ones, if there are insufficient police officers? It would be useful to know what discussions the Department has had with the Home Office to ensure that sufficient officers will be allocated to police our existing road laws and any additional ones the Government might bring forward. Also, I understand that the Government’s police performance framework says that there is a target to “decrease” the number of “People killed or seriously injured in road traffic collision”, but does not actually say what that target will be. To improve enforcement, we must have a targeted response to problem drivers, who put everyone on the road at risk. One issue that demands an even greater focus is drug driving. The Government’s consultation acknowledges that some police forces are arresting more drug drivers than drink drivers, and that there has been a steady increase in the number of people convicted. Although that represents some progress, I would call on the Government to go further. Data shows that, in 2023, 22% of deceased drivers tested positive for impairment drugs, an increase from 11% in 2014. Among the youngest cohort of drivers—those most likely to get into terrible accidents—the vast majority of cases involved illegal drugs only. While there are sensible proposals within this strategy about testing and looking at further fines, the Minister must work with the police to ensure they are doing more to target drug driving and not relying on tests after the fact. In addition, I hope the Government strongly consider any further measures that stop those committing these terrible crimes on our roads from being able to avoid punishment, whether that be due to testing or statutory limits, which, in particular cases, have enabled those who have committed the worst crimes on our roads to avoid the full weight of the law. To conclude, for road safety measures, I believe that the Government must bring drivers with them in any changes and measures that they take. Where drivers do not feel that those road safety measures actually help them—such as with 20 mph limits—they will not take them seriously. This is a strategy that must be delivered, and delivered well, but with drivers, not just against them.

    Hansard source
31. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Jury Trials

    4. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials on the rule of law.

    Hansard source
32. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Jury Trials

    The president of the Law Society has described the proposals as “an extreme measure that goes too far”. The chair of the Criminal Bar Association has described them as “a wrecking ball to a system that is fundamentally sound and has been in place for generations”. He pointed out that the juries are not the cause of the backlogs. The Government’s own Back-Bench MPs have described the proposals as a “dereliction of duty”, “a ludicrous proposal that will not work”, and “a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates”, which “goes too far” and the consequence of which would be “to destroy justice as we know it.” Why do the Government think that they are all wrong?

    Hansard source
33. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    On a point of order, Mr Western. We have just dealt with a couple of amendments that the selection list described as tabled by the Opposition but were actually been tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which I suspect is where some of the confusion came from. Will it be possible during the lunch break for the Clerks to check the list and update it if necessary, or confirm that there is no further mislabelling, just for clarity?

    Hansard source
34. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I will not get into whether a peacock or a pheasant is a large or small bird—it takes me back to my days as a Health Minister, when we had a debate about whether a scotch egg is a substantial meal in the context of the regulations. However, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon made a very valid point: even if the money is going back to GBR, there needs to be some degree of transparency so that it can be seen where the attribution is, whether it is GBR that has caused the problem, and whether it is improving or going backwards. Does the hon. Member agree that, even if actual cash is not transferred in and out, a notional payment or a schedule of payments that would have been paid should be published to give the travelling public transparency as to where the challenges lie and give GBR an incentive to improve its game?

    Hansard source
35. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    The Minister says that GBR will be able to design a bespoke performance regime, but does that not go to the heart of what my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon highlighted, which is essentially that it will be designing a performance regime against which its own performance will be managed? It gets to set the rules, determine what the parameters are, and then decide whether it meets those criteria. Subsection (7) says: “A person aggrieved by provision contained in a scheme…may appeal to the ORR.” Will the ORR have binding powers to make an adjudication, and will GBR be compelled to follow it?

    Hansard source
36. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    Does the Minister not see the challenge that if GBR is the single directing mind, we need to ask how it is held to account for individual decisions that it makes? Where is its accountability to the public, be it through this place or others? Secondly, the Minister talks about judicial review principles. As constituency Members of Parliament, we all know just how high that judicial review bar is when people wish to challenge a planning decision, or something else. It cannot consider the individual merits of the decision, merely how it has been reached and whether due process has been followed. It is also incredibly costly. Is the Minister not concerned that in setting these principles, he is setting that bar at an unattainably high level, rather than striking the appropriate balance between being able to appeal and challenge something, but not unduly burdening the day-to-day decision making of the railways?

    Hansard source
37. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966

    I declare a professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I welcome the fact that the Government have launched a consultation to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. This necessary and long-overdue reform can deliver significant benefits for animal health and welfare, biosecurity and public health. However, I have serious concerns about DEFRA’s communications, which conflated reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act with the Competition and Markets Authority inquiry, resulting in a media narrative focused entirely on veterinary pricing. That has caused real distress across the sector among frontline vets, nurses and reception staff, impacting on morale and mental health. I have been contacted by voices from across the profession expressing their extreme alarm at this approach. Will the Government reassure us that they will work closely with key stakeholders to get this vital, much-needed legislation right? Can they guarantee that they will prioritise the parliamentary time it requires?

    Hansard source
38. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

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

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for taking part, and the officials for their work on the Committee stage of this important Bill. The Bill will significantly update and expand the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 by bringing new services within scope of regulation, giving sector regulators the power to designate critical suppliers, updating and expanding the reporting regime for cyber-security incidents and making significant changes to the regulatory funding model and regulators’ information-gathering and sharing powers. The Bill will also grant extensive powers to the Secretary of State to respond to emerging cyber-threats, including the power to bring further sectors within the scope of regulation, giving directions to regulated entities and issuing a code of practice that sets out measures for compliance with duties under the NIS regulations. Recognising the increasing role of malicious cyber-activity as a threat to our national security, part 4 will give the Secretary of State far-reaching powers to issue directions to regulated entities for reasons of national security. Covid turbocharged the digitalisation of all aspects of the economy and our daily lives, bringing new opportunities but at the same time heightening the exposure of digital systems to exploitation by malicious actors. The previous Government recognised that in their post-implementation reviews of the NIS regulations and in a subsequent series of consultations on proposals to improve the cyber-resilience of the entities that are most important to the UK economy. Those consultations included a review of information security risks relating to outsourced IT provision, data centres and organisations controlling large amounts of electrical load. The last Government’s work assessing those threats has informed this Government’s decision to bring data centres, managed service providers and large load controllers within the scope of the NIS regulations. Industry stakeholders have welcomed the Bill as essential for bringing the cyber rules governing critical infrastructure in line with modern threats, economic realities and technological developments, and for moving our cyber-security regulatory framework into closer alignment with international partners to ease cross-border operations for businesses that provide services overseas. In some respects, at least, the Bill identifies the right problems, but, crucially, it falls short of providing workable solutions. In embarking on our scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee should be acutely aware of the raft of digital legislation with which businesses and regulators have been asked to grapple in recent years. Many of those new regulations are necessary, but as lawmakers we should be conscious of the burden that we are placing on industries and particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the lifeblood of the UK economy and which have fewer resources to navigate complex layers of regulation. It is therefore incumbent on all of us to enact laws that are clear and capable of practical implementation.

    Hansard source
39. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

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

    I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am reminded of the Committee’s evidence session earlier this week, in which expert after expert lined up to raise concerns around the scope of the definition. Although they acknowledged the importance of and appreciated the reasons for leaving some things to secondary legislation in a climate as fast-moving as the IT and digital sector’s, they raised concerns about the uncertainty that is coming for business and the need for extensive consultation so that businesses can feed into and have some degree of influence over the regulations that they will have to abide by.

    Hansard source
40. 5 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

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

    I thank the hon. Member for his point about balance. I am confident that this is an area to which the Committee will return quite a few times in our line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, particularly clause 12, which relates to the designation of critical suppliers. Clearly the regulations need to be proportionate, but to make that judgment we will need to know exactly what the regulations are. A lot of the detail is not in the Bill and has instead been left to secondary legislation. As we heard from the experts, it is very difficult to scrutinise legislation that is mostly being left to future regulations rather than being set out in the Bill. These definitions will be critical if businesses are to have clarity as to whether they will fall within scope. I do not want to go too deeply into clause 12 now, but I see it as an exemplar. How are businesses that could fall within the critical supplier designation to know what they need to do? How is the operator of an essential service to know what information it needs to pass to the regulator on businesses that it may end up regulating? It would be very helpful if the Minister could comment, even at this introductory stage, on how he envisages that balance playing out in the Bill, particularly given that so much of the detail has been left to secondary legislation. Anyway, I digress—I will get back on topic. Businesses are struggling with legal uncertainty and the increased costs of regulatory burden. Regulators in the sector lack the resources, the teeth and sometimes even the will to carry out effective oversight and enforcement of existing cyber regulation. Uncertainty about which incidents should be reported will dramatically increase the burden on regulated entities and on regulators. All the while, institutional barriers to effective oversight and enforcement remain. The Bill fails to give the legal certainty and the proportionate framework that businesses need if we are to achieve widespread adoption and hardened cyber-resilience across the sectors that are most critical to the economy and our society. Perhaps most critically, there is little point in granting the Secretary of State extensive powers to make directions to regulated entities for national security purposes if the Government remain wilfully blind to the greatest threats to our national security. In the past few weeks, reports have circulated that a Chinese state-affiliated group hacked the communications of top Downing Street officials between 2021 and 2024, yet the vital organs of our state, central Government Departments and agencies carrying out the most critical functions, are left unprotected and unaccountable for their cyber-resilience under the Bill. If we do not address these problems, we risk the Bill becoming yet another missed opportunity for the Government. These are opportunities that we can ill afford to miss if we are to safeguard our economy and our national security.

    Hansard source