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

1. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

   This is all pretty uncontroversial, but there is one concern with clause 246, which states that the commencement date will be May this year. Although they have pushed this back by a month, are the Government not concerned that this is an insufficient length of time for tax advisers to register? From representations we have had from the industry, they are very concerned that the timeframe is too short. Indeed, is HMRC fully equipped to take on this extra workload? I expect that the Minister will say that advisers can do it all online, but I am slightly worried that things like that do not always work. There is a real concern in the advice industry of the widespread unintended effect that may come out of these measures. It is important that we get this right and that people have time to prepare. Would the Minister take that on board and have a think about how we can make sure that the process is efficient and works well?

   Hansard source
2. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

   Could I ask for a little clarity on that? Does that mean that there will be a list, and that an adviser will get three months from the point at which they are published on the list? Can they elect when to go on to that list? I am not quite clear what the Minister meant.

   Hansard source
3. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

   These clauses are wide and important, but they have also drawn significant criticism. The Government have decided to amend “dishonest conduct” rules to “sanctionable conduct” rules in schedule 21. That may seem like a minor change, but it changes the current high threshold of dishonesty to one that is lower and potentially ambiguous. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has described the definition of “sanctionable conduct” as “exceptionally broad;…based on inferred intention; and…not limited to unethical, unprofessional or deliberately incorrect behaviour.” Couple that with significant increases in penalties for conduct in scope, and it is unsurprising that the change causes a fair amount of concern in the industry. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation points out, the objective of the Government’s policy is to target deliberate behaviour. This change seems inadvertently to miss that objective entirely. Frankly, it seems to be the wrong move, and there is significant strength of feeling in the industry that the terminology should revert to its original wording. Can the Minister provide more detail on the decision to change the wording? What representations have the Government received from the industry about it? Will he also please commit to engaging further with industry stakeholders before Report stage, and to making the necessary changes to accomplish the well-intentioned aim of the policy? I have had other representations from groups such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales about related issues. There are a number of other issues about the way this is working. I will not trouble the Committee with them now, but we may follow up with a letter to the to the Minister about where parts of the Bill seem to be spreading into slightly negative territory.

   Hansard source
4. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

   That was sterling support for a terrible idea. The Office for Budget Responsibility was brought in back in 2010 to try to keep an eye on what had been going on through the financial crisis, the big problems as a result of the financial crash and, interestingly, the austerity measures brought in by Chancellor Alistair Darling before the 2010 general election, which were necessary to carry on and to sort out the public finances. It is really important that the Government are held to account, that Members of this House do so, and that they do so with as much information as they can possibly have. The Office for Budget Responsibility is there to mark the homework of the Government. To reduce that homework marking to just once a year—I appreciate that there are two events, but only measuring fiscal ability once a year—is not a good idea. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came along about a year ago and proudly said that she had managed to repair the public finances, only for us to discover a year later that in fact the public finances had not been sorted out and we had to see huge amounts more taxation come in. To remove the opportunity for the OBR to have a look at the public finances is a bad idea and we do not support it.

   Hansard source
5. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

   The broad thrust of the measure is perfectly reasonable. As we go into a more digital world, it is perfectly acceptable that people should be required to interact with HMRC online. The only problem is that not everybody is as computer literate, so what measures will be in place to support people if they are genuinely struggling? That aside, we are in favour of the measure.

   Hansard source
6. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

   This is all fairly straightforward. We are delighted that, since coming to power 18 months ago, the Government have decided that they are going to follow on with the great initiatives of the last Government, and I thank the Minister for so enthusiastically celebrating our achievements. However, there is one bit that we are slightly worried about. Clause 258 will require individual users of HMRC online services to provide and keep up to date their digital contact details. That is a perfectly reasonable request, but to enforce it, people can be subject to financial penalties of up to £1,000. As the Association of Taxation Technicians has said, the proposed £1,000 penalty is “unprecedented and disproportionate”. Much more importantly, there is no comparable HMRC penalty for failing to update a postal address or traditional form of contact. Are the Government not going a bit too far? I remind them that this is about regular taxpayers, and this penalty could catch out people who are more vulnerable or less financially literate. Can the Minister commit to reviewing whether this £1,000 fine is too high and, indeed, whether we should be bringing it in? We are completely behind the thrust of the clauses, but this penalty seems disproportionate. There is no fine for not updating a postal address, so why would there be one for not updating an email address?

   Hansard source
7. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

   The clauses follow a recent Delegated Legislation Committee debate that the Minister and I had, as a result of which we are going to get together with some members of the industry to talk about the confusion on this issue. One thing that worries me about the clauses is that they fail to differentiate between a cryptoasset and a stablecoin or tokenised currency. It is important to recognise that those are two different things. As I understand it, HMRC will take reporting on interest paid on deposit accounts, for example, so that it can understand what is going on in the economy and in individuals’ accounts. However, a bitcoin is not a currency; it is a tradeable asset. It can behave like a currency, or it can behave like a share, whereby it has its own intrinsic value and people can buy it with a view to selling it when it goes up in price. Similarly, people can use it, as we saw in the case of Tesla: Elon Musk was prepared to take bitcoin as payment for Tesla cars, although not for very long. However, it is not the same as a fiat currency and is not the same as a tokenised pound or stablecoin; those so-called cryptoassets act as part of a payment system. This is where we find ourselves getting into a potentially complicated area. We may be making legislation without necessarily understanding the difference between bitcoin, dogecoin and ethereum, which are tradeable assets, and a mechanism that enhances the payment system. It would be helpful if the Minister explained a more detail what, specifically, the clauses mean by “cryptoasset”. Standing back from the minute detail of what a cryptoasset is, as opposed to what a stablecoin is, the general thrust—participation in the wider reporting of what is going on with this stuff—is probably a good idea. We need to understand how it works, get things proportionate and not become over-regulated, because if we become over-regulated we become uncompetitive. There are a number of issues that cause me concern, so I will be grateful if the Minister can offer some explanations now, and then we can have more discussions when we meet in a week or two. If we go down the wrong track, it could put us a long way behind our international competitors.

   Hansard source
8. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

   We did have a war and a pandemic.

   Hansard source
9. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

   Q On the question of closer alignment, can you give us a sense from the international picture of whether certain regulatory regimes raise the barrier to terrorists or criminals so high that they are left alone? Is that a national thing or a company-based thing? Where are the flow lines of attack and threat? Is it on a national or a corporate basis? Stuart McKean: I do not think the cyber-criminal really cares, to be blunt. They will attack anywhere. You can, of course—

   Hansard source
10. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

    Q I appreciate that. My question was about where that leads them to attack, on the basis that they will take the route of least resistance. Where is that? Is that an international thing, a national thing or a corporate thing? Stuart McKean: It is probably across all three, to be quite honest with you. It is very dependent on what they want to achieve, whether it be an economic attack or a targeted attack on a corporate entity. I do not think it has those boundaries—I genuinely think it is across the whole industry and the whole globe. The reality is that cyber-attacks everybody. We are being attacked every day. I do not see it as an international boundary, or a UK thing or a US thing. It is generally across the globe.

    Hansard source
11. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

    Do either of the other witnesses have anything to say on that? Jill Broom indicated dissent. Dr Sanjana Mehta indicated dissent.

    Hansard source
12. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

    Q One of my favourite aphorisms is, “Institutions get the behaviours they reward.” We had a cry from Amazon Web Services this morning about how, when a regulator deals with a company in the event of a cyber-security attack, please remember you are dealing with a victim. I have dealt with the ICO before. Maybe it was the company that I worked in and led, but there was a culture there that, if you had a data breach, you told the ICO. There was no question about it. How are you going to develop your reactions and the behaviours you reward in order to encourage a set of behaviours and cultures of openness within the corporate sector, bearing in mind that, as was said this morning, by opening that door, companies could be opening themselves up to a hefty fine? Stuart Okin: In the energy sector, we have that culture. It is one of safety and security, and the chief executives and the heads of security really lean into it and understand that particular space. There are many different forums where they communicate and share that type of information with each other and with us. Incident response is really the purview of DESNZ rather than us, but they will speak to us about that from a regulatory perspective. Ian Hulme: From the ICO’s perspective, we receive hundreds of data-breach reports. The vast majority of those are dealt with through information and guidance to the impacted organisation. It is only a very small number that go through to enforcement activity, and it is in only the most egregious cases—where failures are so egregious that, from a regulatory perspective, it would be a failure on our part not to take action. I anticipate that is the approach we will take in the future when dealing with the instant reporting regime that the Bill sets out. Our first instinct would be to collaborate with organisations. Only in the most egregious cases would I imagine that we would look to exercise the full range of our powers. Natalie Black: From Ofcom’s point of view, we have a long history, particularly in the telecoms sector, of dealing with a whole range of incidents, but I certainly hear your point about the victim. When I have personally dealt with some of these incidents, often you are dealing with a chief executive who has woken up that morning to the fact that they might lose their job and they have very stressed-out teams around them. It is always hard to trust the initial information that is coming out because no one really knows what is going on, certainly for the first few hours, so it is the maturity and experience that we would want to bring to this expanded role when it comes to data centres. Ultimately the best regulatory relationships I have seen is where there is a lot of trust and openness that a regulator is not going to overreact. They are really going to understand what is going on and are very purposeful about what they are trying to achieve. From Ofcom’s point of view it is always about protecting consumers and citizens, particularly with one eye on security, resilience and economic growth. The experience we have had over the years means that we can come to those conversations with a lot of history, a lot of perspective, and, to be honest, a bit of sympathy because sometimes those moments are very difficult for everyone involved.

    Hansard source
13. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

    Q To come back to Dr Spencer’s original question about the scope of the legislation, the current situation, as I understand it, is that there is a carve-out for small and medium-sized enterprises because we do not want to put too much regulatory burden on them, but, under the new proposed legislation, operators of essential services that are SMEs will be designated by their regulator. That brings us back to the question of which regulator that would be. Do you currently use that designation for operators of essential services, or would you have to do a piece of work, presumably looking at a number of different regulators’ points of view, to designate the operators of essential services? Brian Miller: We would work with the Scottish Health Competent Authority as our regulator; I cannot speak for other regulators and what that might look like. We are doing work on what assurance for critical suppliers outside the Bill looks like just now, and we are working across the boards in Scotland on identifying critical suppliers. Outside of that, for any suppliers or any new services, we will assess the risk individually, based on the services they are providing. The Bill is really valuable for me, particularly when it comes to managed service provision. One of the questions I was looking at is: what has changed since 2018? The biggest change for me is that identity has went to the cloud, because of video conferencing and stuff like that. When identity went to the cloud, it then involved managed service providers and data centres. We have put additional controls around that, because the network perimeter extended out into the cloud. We might want to take advantage of those controls for new things that come online, integrating with national identity, but we need to be assured that the companies integrating with national identity are safe. For me, the Bill will be a terrific bit of legislation that will help me with that—if that makes sense.

    Hansard source
14. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

    Q I want to make sure I have understood exactly. Is the regulator going to tell you who your operators of essential services are, or are you going to tell the regulator? Brian Miller: I think we would work with the regulator, but we are looking for more detail in any secondary legislation that comes along. We have read what the designation of critical suppliers would be. I would look to work with the Scottish Health Competent Authority and colleagues in National Services Scotland on what that would look like. Stewart Whyte: On how we would make that decision, from our perspective we are looking at what the supplier is providing and what sort of data they are processing on our behalf. From the NHS perspective, 90% of the data that we process will be special category, very sensitive information. It could be that, from our side, a lot of the people in the supply chain would fall into that designation, but for some other sectors it might not be so critical. We have a unique challenge in the NHS because of the service we provide, the effect that cyber-crime would have on our organisations, and the sensitivity of the data we process.

    Hansard source
15. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

    Q Brian, from your side, what about, say, PPE, gloves or blood? There must be other things that are non-data that are, nevertheless, essential services. Brian Miller: I do not want to step out of my lane. There will be clinical stuff that absolutely would be essential. I would not be able to speak in any depth on that part of it; I purely look at the cyber element of it. As an organisation, we would be identifying those kinds of aspects. In terms of suppliers, you are absolutely right. We have suppliers that supply some sort of IT services to us. If we are procuring anything, we will do a risk assessment—that might be a basic risk assessment because it is relatively low risk, it might be a rapid risk assessment, or it may be a really in-depth assessment for someone that would be a critical supplier or we could deem essential—but there are absolutely suppliers that would not fall under any of that criteria for the board. The board is large in scale, with 40,000 users. It is the largest health board in the country.

    Hansard source
16. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

    Q I want to come back to that point. Chris, you said something like, “SMEs find it very difficult, if not impossible, to bear the regulatory burden, so we have to be very careful when designating SMEs as operators of essential services.” To me, that says that you think the Bill, as currently drafted, will place too much of a regulatory burden on SMEs. Is that correct? Chris Parker: I was referring to strategic and critical suppliers, which is a list of Government suppliers. We are advocating that the level of governance and regulatory requirement inside an organisation is difficult, and it really is. It requires quite a lot of work and resource, and if we are putting that on to too small a supplier, on the basis that we think it is on the critical path, I would advocate a different system for risk management of that organisation, rather than it being in the regulatory scope of a cyber-resilience Bill. The critical suppliers should be the larger companies. If we start that way in legislation and then work down—the Bill is designed to be flexible, which is excellent—we can try to get that way. As a last point on flexibility—this is perhaps very obvious to us but less so to people who are less aware of the Bill—there is a huge dynamic going on here where you have a continuum, a line, at one end of which you have the need for clarity, which comes from business. At the other you have a need for flexibility, which quite rightly comes from the Government, who want to adjust and adapt quite quickly to secure the population, society and the economy against a changing threat. That continuum has an opposing dynamic, so the CRB has a big challenge. We must therefore not be too hard on ourselves in finding exactly where to be on that line. Some things will go well, and some will just need to be looked at after a few years of practice—I really believe that. We are not going to get it all right, because of the complexities and different dynamics along that line. Carla Baker: This debate about whether SMEs should be involved or regulated in this space has been around since we were discussing GDPR back in 2018. It comes down to the systemic nature of the supplier. You can look at the designation of critical dependencies. I am sure you have talked about this, but for example, an SME software company selling to an energy company could be deemed a critical supplier by a regulator, and it is then brought into scope. However, I think it should be the SMEs that are relevant to the whole sector, not just to one organisation. If they are systemic and integral to a number of different sectors, or a number of different organisations within a sector, it is fair enough that they are potentially brought into scope. It is that risk-based approach again. But if it is just one supplier, one SME, that is selling to one energy company up in the north of England, is it risk-based and proportionate that they are brought into scope? I think that is debatable.

    Hansard source
17. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

    Q Going back to our conversation with the head of IT security and compliance at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what could be designated an operator of essential services, and our subsequent conversation with Palo Alto, how do you envision that bit of the Bill working? Taking Glasgow as an example, while neither of us are doctors, we both broadly know what happens in hospitals—and there is also a doctor sitting to my right on the Committee, should we need one. On the example that I gave, given what is written in the Bill, how do you think it should work? Kanishka Narayan: Do you mean operators of essential services, or critical suppliers, as in the third party element?

    Hansard source
18. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

    I meant operators of essential services. Kanishka Narayan: The Bill effectively specifies operators of essential services as large participants in the essential services sectors. I think that that definition is very straightforward. The hospital in this question would be an operator of an essential service. If the question extends to critical third party suppliers—

    Hansard source
19. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

    Q Sorry, I misspoke. I mean an SME that is deemed a critical supplier. Who is going to deem them so? Which of the many regulators at play in that hospital is going to decide who is a critical supplier? Kanishka Narayan: There are two things to say on this. There is at least a four-step test on the face of the Bill for what would qualify as a critical supplier. First, a critical supplier has to supply to an operator of an essential service, in this case the hospital. Secondly, the supplier itself must engage with important network and information systems. Thirdly, the disruption to that third party supplier would have to cause a material disruption to the operator in question—in this case, if the third party supplier falls over from a cyber-security point of view, there would be material and business continuity disruption to the hospital. Fourthly, not only that, but that disruption would have to be sufficiently severe in its impact to be in scope. That is one set of things. Underlying that is a further test in the Bill, whereby alternative provision of that third party supply could not be secured in a practicable way. The combination of those tests means that the scope set out for the critical third party suppliers is extremely tight and robust. Then there is still the question, having gone through that five-step test, of the particular burden placed on relevant suppliers in scope. My expectation and hope would be that regulators take a much more proportionate approach there than to set the precise same conditions on those suppliers as they do on the operator in question; in particular, that the burden on them is placed specifically in sight of the directional risk that they pose to the operator, rather than the risk in sum for that third party supplier. The first thing is therefore that the Bill clearly specifies a very tight scope. The second is that it does not seem to me, as a relative novice to both the medical world and cyber-security, unusual to have a specification of this nature in a Bill. Given my professional context, I am particularly conscious of the very clear and critical third party comparable requirement in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which focuses on both cyber-security and supply chain risks. That has worked relatively proficiently in that context, so I hope that there are some good lessons to learn from that.

    Hansard source
20. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

    Q That is a very clear answer on the steps that have to be followed. Do you envisage that each regulator in, for example, the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde will follow the steps from their perspective? The first one might produce 20 SMEs that need to be in scope, and the next one might produce another 20, and so on. There might be a bit of overlap. Is that the way it is meant to work, or are all the regulators meant to get together and say that they have looked at it holistically, done the step test, and now have the answer? Kanishka Narayan: The way in which I would envisage it is that each individual regulator assesses the critical nature of the risk posed to its regulated operators. If a hospital has a third party supplier, and the presence and nature of its supply means that there is a critical risk exposure for the hospital, that would be in scope for some degree of regulation in the Bill. To your question, if there is a comparable but separate hospital in a part of England that is separately regulated, but has the same third party supplier, there is obviously a question of whether that third party supplier would end up being regulated twice if the criticality threshold is met. In that instance, and in other similar instances of multiple regulators covering the same third party supplier, I would expect a high degree of co-ordination. In fact, the provisions in the Bill, as well as my hopes for subsequent guidance, are focused on our efficiency and proportionality when there are multiple regulators. However, I think the assessment has to be undertaken by each regulator on a separate basis, because the question being assessed is not the nature, the sum risk, of the third party supplier in itself, but the risk posed by its relationship to the operator it is providing to—if that makes sense.

    Hansard source
21. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

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

    Q To be very clear, the three regulators we had here today were the Information Commissioner, Ofgem and Ofcom. If they thought that they had a locus because of something that that hospital did, all three would do the step test, they would come up with their bucket of SMEs that they wanted to bring into scope, and those would be added together and that would be the impact. Kanishka Narayan: Yes, I guess, added together in the sense that they would be separately regulated, but they would all come within the scope of the regulations. Where there is an overlap in the party being regulated, my hope is that the Bill provides for individual regulation, but is very much open to the prospect of a lead regulator engaging in a softer way with the other regulators, as long as each regulator feels that that has assured them of the risk.

    Hansard source
22. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    Iran

    I join others in expressing horror at the stories coming out of Iran and the enormous death toll. I hope the Minister will take advantage of those international institutions, in which he has previously expressed confidence at the Dispatch Box, to bring a case to the International Criminal Court, particularly against the leaders in Iran. My secondary question is that, if the Iranian people, through their courage, are able to throw off their oppressors, are we able to say that there is a plan to support whatever may emerge after that event?

    Hansard source
23. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said, no one in this House doubts the importance of supporting children. Labour Back Benchers are feeling good about the fact that they have organised themselves to deliver what they see as a simple moral good, but as they know and we know, things are much more complicated than that. I know they think they have delivered a simple moral good because not a single one of them has mentioned the rate. None of them has questioned why the additional rate is set at £17.25, rising to £17.90. They have not asked whether that is enough to address poverty. They have not sought to get under the skin of whether this is a more complicated and nuanced argument than it might at first appear. Just the simple act is enough, without contemplating the unintended consequences. I am concerned that the Government are stumbling into a “Careful what you wish for” measure. First, a number of Opposition Members—and, indeed, the Secretary of State—mentioned the demographic time bomb that we face. There has been no discussion of this measure in the context of the overall fiscal problem that our children will face. At the moment, we have about 3.6 workers per pensioner in this country. By 2050, that will have fallen to two. How will we pay for all of this in the future? How will we fund it all without enormous debt? We have only to look across the channel at France to see what a fiscal eruption can look like, with civic disruption and unrest on the streets, when the necessary correction is made to a welfare state that is running out of control. I am afraid that that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in. No one is pretending that decisions about welfare are easy—they are not easy. Having worked briefly as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, I know that these are difficult decisions, yet no one is questioning the micro-decisions that are made. It is simply enough to say to people, “We’re pumping money out there. Let’s hope for the best.” Why is the standard rate for the mobility section of the personal independence payment set at £30.30? I do not know. Does anybody else know? Is there an argument for it? These are the decisions that Ministers have to make on a daily basis, not just about whether we pay welfare but how much we pay. One of my concerns about this measure is that none of that is part of a wider conversation about the massive demographic steam train that is coming down the tunnel towards us. The second issue I have is that this legislation treats children as a burden to be somehow mitigated, necessarily because it includes them in the welfare bill, rather than as a bonus to be encouraged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, we on the Conservative Benches would much rather there were work incentives that came alongside children. When I was briefly the Secretary of State for Education, I was inundated with correspondence and approaches from lots of highly productive and ambitious women who wanted assistance in work. They wanted some kind of bonus, relief or package to encourage them to have children, rather than a safety net that rescued women if they had children. For a country that needs more children, we need a tilt in our mentality and approach to move from mitigation towards encouragement; that is my concern about embedding the notion that people should have more children in the welfare system. The final issue I will raise is the legitimacy of the system, which has been raised by a number of Members. We often pretend that we do things for the first time in this country, whereas we can in fact look overseas for lessons, and we do not have to look very far. In France, where successive Governments increased family-related welfare with weak links towards work or contribution, it has created a wider resentment in society. Any successful welfare system must have an eye to legitimacy and consent from the wider population for it to exist.

    Hansard source
24. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but, as he will know, I have not been forced out to get a job. I founded my business 30 years ago; I am one of the few people in this House who has created jobs by the sweat of my own hands, rather than just talking about it. Frankly, I pay the Sainsbury’s bill, the mortgages and all the rest of it for all my employees every single month, and I am proud to do so. Maybe he could learn some lessons, by spending time with some businesspeople, about what it is to make true fiscal and economic decisions. Let me return to my third point, which is about legitimacy. One thing that was found in France was a rise in resentment, which resulted in President Macron taking specific steps to means-test the access to family welfare. French political scientists will point to the rise of the National Rally in France directly stemming from a mishandling of the welfare system and a growth in resentment in those who did not participate in it. I am afraid that today we see that writ large in the Order Paper in the Reform party’s reasoned amendment, which was not selected. It calls for open discrimination in our welfare system against those who do not have parents born entirely in this country. I must declare an interest as I am afraid that includes two of my children, who were not born to a British citizen. It also includes the children of Members of Parliament who sit for the Reform party. There is something grotesque about seeking legislation that would downgrade the citizenship of one’s own children.

    Hansard source
25. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an issue of fairness for the taxpayer if people are working hard in a job but being rewarded less than someone else getting benefits? That is why we need to keep the two-child benefit cap.

    Hansard source
26. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

    It is an issue of fairness. The people of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages have seen their taxes go up and they are seeing those taxes being given to people who are not working. It is unfair.

    Hansard source
27. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)

    The Minister talks about people being better off, but my farmers are very concerned about the fertiliser impact. Four or five years ago, fertiliser was around £180 a tonne; today it is about £400 a tonne, and the introduction of CBAM might put another £100 on top of that. Farmers’ margins are so narrow that they simply have to pass that on, which will have a direct effect on food prices in this country. The Minister says that there will be talks about that. Farmers should be front and centre of those talks, because this is really worrying.

    Hansard source
28. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Fish and Chip Sector

    It is good to see so many right hon. and hon. Members in their plaice as we skate through the choppy waters that are the fish and chip sector. The chips are down for fish suppers. While the word “iconic” is overused, surely fish and chips warrant that label. At Heathrow airport, visitors are greeted with signs extolling the virtues of what is, or was, our national dish. Welcome to Britain: land of drizzle, warm beer, warm welcomes and fabulous fish suppers.

    Hansard source
29. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Fish and Chip Sector

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—a fascinating history lesson. Staying with history, during the war fish and chips were deemed so vital to the nation’s morale that Prime Minister Winston Churchill insisted they be exempt from rationing. If the ingredients were available, fish suppers were on the menu and chip shops got extra cooking fat to keep the home friers burning.

    Hansard source
30. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Fish and Chip Sector

    I thank my near neighbour for his intervention. He presages some of what I am going to touch on now. Today all is not well. Romano Petrucci, proprietor of the Central Café in my home town of Stranraer, is just one of many business people warning that this staple is fast becoming an unaffordable luxury. Data from the Office for National Statistics indicates that the average price of a portion of takeaway fish and chips was £10.96 in December, up from £9.99 the year before—an increase of 10%. That was higher than average price increases for other takeaway meals or carry-outs, as we call them in Scotland. Over the same period, the average price of a Chinese takeaway main course increased by 4% and an Indian takeaway main course by 3%, while a takeaway pizza increased by just 2%. That £10 barrier is hugely significant, for customers generally have a ceiling on what they regard as reasonable—perhaps £6 for a coffee or £7 for a pint of beer. Above that, sales dip, and no wonder at £40 or more for a fish dinner for a family of four, and so, sadly, it has proved: the ONS says that sales of fish and chips fell by 21% in 2024 compared with the previous year.

    Hansard source
31. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Fish and Chip Sector

    I certainly would not pay £6 myself for a coffee. If I can find a pint cheaper than £7, I think I will be there.

    Hansard source
32. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Fish and Chip Sector

    I thank the hon. Lady for her interesting intervention. Her chip challenge sounds like a lot of fun, and I defer to Madam Deputy Speaker about the question of proper parliamentary language—I am sure what she said is perfectly acceptable. Fish and chip shops accounted for 60% of the fall in sales, with 36 million fewer portions of fish and chips sold in fish and chip shops in 2024 compared with 2023. Something has gone drastically wrong. Worse, it is not just one thing but a series of issues. I have some sympathy with the Minister because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not directly responsible for all these matters, but of all Departments, it should realise that government must not work in silos and instead should work across Whitehall.

    Hansard source
33. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Fish and Chip Sector

    I feel like I am swimming upstream here, but I am happy to give way.

    Hansard source
34. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Fish and Chip Sector

    The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I will touch on the question of skills in a few moments. A key reason for prices leaping like a salmon is an increase in the price of fish itself. Incredibly for an island nation, we are a net importer of fish. Previously, a high proportion of fish used in the UK was imported from Russia, though in March 2022 the Government rightly imposed a 35% tariff on Russian seafood imports following the illegal invasion of Ukraine. That invasion also hit the price of flour and sunflower oil—both major Ukrainian exports. There was also a reduction in the North sea cod quota, mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place.

    Hansard source
35. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Fish and Chip Sector

    The hon. Lady makes an important point. We should of course support businesses of all kinds, and pedestrianisation can be a double-edged sword. One of the difficulties is the weather in this country, and there is nothing better than pulling up right outside the shop that you want to go to, so decisions have to be balanced. The reduction in the North sea cod quota for 2025 reduced supply, and, of course, increased prices. I am more a haddock man myself, but cod is one of the top five imported and consumed species in the UK. Labour’s failed “mackerel for missiles” deal gave the EU further rights in our waters, but did not give us access to Europe’s multibillion-pound Security Action for Europe defence fund. The EU now takes seven times more fish, by value, from our waters than we take from its waters. Fish and chip shops have also faced challenges from increased electricity prices due to the use of energy-intensive cooking appliances. Increased energy costs have also contributed to higher potato prices, with more to come as the carbon border adjustment mechanism is effectively a fertiliser tax, adding perhaps an extra £100 per tonne. Even changes to reliefs on double-cab pick-ups—the farmers’ workhorse—have increased potato prices. Let us hear no nonsense about the people behind the counter being low-skilled; today’s fish-frier could be tomorrow’s FTSE 100 chief executive officer, or the founder of a €1 billion unicorn start-up. They work with cash and high-value stock, and, crucially, learn communication skills through dealing with the public. Increases to the minimum wage, which is paid not by the Government—although Labour likes to pretend that it is—but by hard-pressed businesses, are also an issue. Add the increase in employer national insurance, which puts a bounty of about £900 on the head of each employee: no wonder youth unemployment is rising.

    Hansard source
36. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Fish and Chip Sector

    The hon. Member makes a very good point. Many industries are not actually treated as an industry. For example, agriculture is treated as a series of small individual businesses, and its totality is not taken into account. That is a very fair point. The truth is that Labour’s Employment Rights Act 2025 is about the clipboard class—the trade union apparatchiks —and not really about actual hard-working people. What is the point of workers’ rights if that all-important first job eludes people? Will the fish supper go the way of the red telephone box—much loved, but a relic of the past? Will the Labour party’s indifference turn a British staple into a luxury for the elite? Whether you call it a fish supper, a one-and-one, or just regular fish and chips, this Government risk frittering away a classic.

    Hansard source
37. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Fish and Chip Sector

    So we have a load of pollocks, yes?

    Hansard source
38. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I associate myself with all the wide-ranging arguments made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about this piece of legislation, but I wish to focus on something more specific: the impact on ferries and the cost of travelling to UK islands. The Government know that this legislation will increase the cost of travel to islands. They know it will have an adverse impact on UK islands, which is why they exempted travel to Scottish islands from this punitive levy. What they have not done is extend that exemption to all UK islands, which means my constituents on the Isle of Wight now face additional cost in getting to and from home. There is no way to travel to the Isle of Wight other than by ferry. There is no other way of getting goods to the Isle of Wight, and when I say goods, I do not just mean things like building materials. I mean bread, butter, eggs—our supermarkets are stocked with produce that comes across only by ferry because there is noother way to get anything to or from the Isle of Wight. Just last year, in response to a question from me, the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box that he knows that Isle of Wight ferries have not been good enough—that is in the context of price and frequency. Indeed, the maritime Minister has set up a series of meetings, led by an independent chair, to explore ways to improve travel to the Isle of Wight, including its cost. Yet at the same time the Government are increasing the cost of travel to the island. We start from a position of disadvantage compared with Scottish islands. Our ferries are already more expensive than those that serve the Scottish islands. Our ferries do not have public subsidy, unlike those to the Scottish islands, and they are not ultimately publicly owned. In fact, they are owned by private equity interests, which fill the coffers of pension funds overseas. They are entirely unregulated, and Isle of Wight residents are entirely at their mercy, but while we seek support from the Government to ensure that the companies give us a fairer deal, the Government make our travel more expensive. I am not asking for anything special, or a special Isle of Wight exemption; I am asking for the exemption that the Government already give dozens of islands to include the island of which I represent a part. No impact assessment had been done on the effects on the economy of my constituency, or of other islands that are not covered by the exemption, but the Government do accept that this measure will increase costs. They have access to a report by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, which is general and not in direct relation to this order, and which ranked my constituency the second in England for having the most people in left-behind neighbourhoods—that is, second bottom on the pile. That ICON report is not some unusual or niche interest piece that has been put together; the Government themselves said they would base the delivery of their five missions on it. How has the ETS legislation fallen out of their five missions? Surely, the entire delivery of the Government’s programme is based on their five missions, yet they have set aside and ignored the report that they said they would rely on. Again, I am not making a parochial argument, representing some small, faraway place in the United Kingdom. I am basing my argument on the Independent Commission on Neighbour-hoods report that the Government say they are using and relying on to deliver a fair programme of government. The UK Chamber of Shipping has said that, given what has happened in Europe, the cost of tickets could go up by around 15%. Ultimately, global warming will not be solved by making it more expensive to travel to the Isle of Wight, or to any other island in the United Kingdom. I urge the Government to think again, and extend their exemption to all UK islands.

    Hansard source
39. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026

    I welcome the offer to meet, and I wish to take the Minister up on it. As he will know, the hybrid vessel he refers to that travels across the Solent has electric capability, but it cannot be used because there is no grid capacity at Portsmouth. The Solent is one of the busiest shipping areas in Europe and the vast majority of pollution will be from large container ships going in and out of Southampton—and, of course, the Royal Navy operates out of Portsmouth. Putting any cost on a boat travelling to the Isle of Wight to allow to people to go to and from home fails to meet any sort of reasonableness test, but I thank the Minister for the offer of a meeting.

    Hansard source
40. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Transport in the South-East

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on introducing this important debate. I have a direct solution to her problem of traffic queueing up to access the wonderful beaches at the Witterings. There is an alternative: those road users could stay on the road to Southsea, jump on the hovercraft and visit the wonderful beaches in Ryde, Bembridge and Sandown on the Isle of Wight. She is welcome to put my offer to her constituents in her next newsletter. The south-east is a great economic engine of the UK. It is home to 7.6 million people and 368,000 businesses, and contributes £228 billion in gross added value to the UK economy. If the south-east slows down, Britain slows down. Its connectivity is therefore essential to supporting the economic growth that the country needs, which has been so lacking in recent months. As we have heard, the region hosts some of the most strategically vital transport infrastructure in the country: Heathrow, Gatwick, Southend, the M25, the M4, the Eurostar, the channel tunnel and the ports of Dover and Southampton. The Dover strait alone is the busiest shipping lane in the world, with more than 500 vessels passing through every single day. Responsible for more than 60% of the UK’s trade with Europe, the south-east’s geography makes it fundamental to the success of British trade, too. To ensure that we can maintain connectivity, the Government must reverse their approach of imposing ever increasing costs on our transport infrastructure. Those costs are inevitably passed on to passengers, like national insurance increases and business rates. Earlier today, a Delegated Legislation Committee approved the emissions trading scheme for the maritime sector, which will add costs to domestic ferry services to the Isle of Wight. Scottish islands will be exempted, but not our own island in the south-east of England. As we have heard, there has been a long-standing assumption that, because the south-east is perceived to be prosperous, it can somehow cope with less spending or, at least, tolerate greater disruption. That approach is misguided. As many Members from the south-east would acknowledge, that is often London-focused, ignoring the areas around Greater London. We know that east-west connectivity across the south-east remains weak. Productivity suffers when journeys are slower, freight is delayed and supply chains are less reliable. Spending decisions should not be judged on crude, per-capita formulas but on whether they reduce congestion, cut journey times, increase productivity, support net zero and strengthen economic resilience. Nowhere is that clearer than on our roads, yet our road network is being allowed to deteriorate. The one-off cost to clear the national road maintenance backlog is estimated to be £16.8 billion, and would take 12 years to complete. In 2024, the Department for Transport reported that 4% of local A roads, 7% of B and C roads, and 17% of unclassified roads that should have been maintained were not. New Road in Brading in my constituency is closed for one month, and buses will not visit the town, notwithstanding the fact that there is another road and viable route into it. That raises another issue many of our constituents experience: the frustration that when roads do get upgraded, closures are often badly planned and key transport, such as buses, which constituents, particularly those who need to access healthcare or have mobility issues, rely on, is not adequately catered for. Instead of fixing the roads we already have, the Government’s instinct appears to be to make driving more difficult. Only recently, plans were quietly published on the Government website that encourage narrower roads, under guidance from Active Travel England. Narrower roads risk slowing traffic, increasing congestion, making overtaking more dangerous, delaying emergency services and inflaming tensions between motorists and cyclists. That is not pragmatic transport policy, and it risks costing the economy billions of pounds. As Edmund King of the AA rightly said, UK roads “have evolved since Roman times” and they “require…give and take which can’t just be ironed out by regulations.” Those plans come on top of decisions such as the introduction of charges at the Blackwall tunnel after nearly 130 years of free use, which is yet another example of the Mayor of London making it more expensive and difficult to drive, particularly affecting those with no realistic alternative. Motorists already feel heavily taxed, heavily restricted and increasingly ignored. Turning to rail, East West Rail is a project that both Labour and the Conservative party have supported and funded in principle, but delivery has been painfully slow and deeply disappointing. Despite being completed in late 2024, services remain unused; East West Rail has admitted to the most basic of design failures. The Government have set out their support for East West Rail, but prospective passengers understandably want the service now. In October 2025, the answer the Department for Transport gave to a parliamentary question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) offered no clear timetable. Passenger services to Bedford are now not expected until 2030, with Oxford to Cambridge services delayed until the mid-2030s. That is not the progress that our constituents want and deserve. I will again touch briefly on maritime transport. The Government have proposed that they support my constituents to access cheaper, more reliable ferry travel by setting up a local group with an independent chair appointed by the Department for Transport, which is progress, and which I welcome. However, at the same time, the Government are putting cost on to the Isle of Wight through their emissions trading scheme. That is not an example of the mission-led Government they claim to be, nor an example of joined-up Government. They have exempted ferries to Scottish islands from the scheme, and that is an example of the pervasive view that the south-east will somehow cope, where other parts of the United Kingdom should have a special exemption. Ports and ferry routes in the south-east are critical national assets, yet ferry services remain uniquely under-regulated and expensive. Rail and bus operators face obligations on pricing, performance and transparency, but ferry operators do not. Cross-Solent ferry operators are unregulated and controlled by private equity interests that fund overseas pension funds. That would not be acceptable in any other form of public transport, and it should not acceptable in ferry transport. That imbalance harms communities and undermines connectivity. Integration across road, rail and maritime transport is essential if we are serious about resilience and fairness, and I urge the Government to give the maximum possible powers to new mayoral combined authorities to ensure joined-up, integrated transport, regardless of whether that transport is currently regulated or not. The south-east does not need grand gestures or experiments in public transport. It needs practical spending and proper maintenance directed towards how people actually travel—fix the roads, stop penalising motorists, and deliver infrastructure properly, effectively and efficiently. That is how we will keep the south-east and the UK moving.

    Hansard source