Energy Bills Reduction
Socialists do have a habit of taking money from people and then asking them to be grateful for getting some of it back, so could the Secretary of State tell us how much the £150 reduction in fees will actually cost taxpayers?
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill
The cyber Bill should be one of the most fundamentally important pieces of legislation the House will consider in this Parliament, because the UK’s cyber-resilience is a cornerstone of the foremost duty of Government: the protection of the people. The shadow Secretary of State has already made clear that His Majesty’s official Opposition appreciate the urgent need to act to protect our society, our economy and our security in the face of growing and evolving cyber-security risks. The cyber Bill, however, is a Bill of missed opportunities. It would not have stopped the JLR or Marks & Spencer cyber-attacks. It is silent on the threats from hostile state actors, and it does not answer the fundamental question of: if NIS1 was not enforced, what difference will further regulations make? Cyber-security is key to our national security. It is too important an issue to play partisan politics with. As a responsible Opposition, we will work with the Government to get the approach to this legislation correct. Many Members have made insightful contributions today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), who has great experience in this regard, raised the issue of hostile state actors and gave the Ministers some practical advice on which I hope they will reflect. My hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke about his professional experience and about the need for proportionate regulations and modification of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which was mentioned by several other Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) made an important point about physical technology and the risk of threats from cellular modules. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) also spoke about her own experience and, in particular, about the importance of the Government’s ensuring that the Bill has an impact. The hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) mentioned digital sovereignty, another important issue which we have discussed on many occasions in this place. We also heard from the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), the Chair of the Select Committee; from the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) and for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd); from the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds); and from the hon. Members for Congleton (Sarah Russell), for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), and for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper). The gravest and the most pernicious risks to UK cyber-security go completely unaddressed by this Bill. Cyber is the emerging battlefield of state security, with hostile state actors ramping up their efforts to disrupt our society, our economy and our democracy apace. Time and again in this Parliament, the Government have baulked at acknowledging the elephant—or, in this case, the dragon—in the room when it comes to matters of national security. Last year the director of GCHQ, the UK’s intelligence and cyber-security agency, confirmed that it devotes more resource to China than any other single mission. The evidence is clear: the Chinese Communist party is one of the greatest national security threats that our country faces. In November last year, Mr Speaker took the exceptional step of circulating a briefing from MI5 warning of the widespread efforts of individuals and organisations working on behalf of the Chinese Ministry of State Security to target Parliament for intelligence gathering. In the intervening weeks we have learned that Home Office systems were accessed, apparently by a Chinese state-affiliate group. Reports have circulated that the attack is linked to the Chinese gang Storm 1849, previously connected with cyber-attacks on MPs and the Electoral Commission. Furthermore, in December 2025 the Government confirmed that they had sanctioned two Chinese companies for perpetrating what they described as indiscriminate cyber-attacks on the UK public and private sector IT systems. These are not isolated incidents. They are evidence of a concerted and intensifying campaign on the part of the Chinese Communist party and its affiliates to undermine vital public services and UK businesses. How our country, and how our democratic allies and partners, face the threat of hostile state actors, working in concert, is an epoch-defining challenge. It is a challenge that we must meet, or we will live to regret it. It is no coincidence that several recent cyber-incidents have targeted organs of Government, with malicious actors rightly perceiving that many of our Departments are the weakest links in the cyber-security ecosystem. The National Audit Office’s 2025 report on Government cyber-resilience laid bare the inconsistent, and in some cases glacial, progress of the Government in making effective improvements in cyber-resilience. Last month’s attack on Home Office IT systems is a stark reminder of the urgency of improving Government cyber-security. His Majesty’s official Opposition have received a clear message from cyber-industry stakeholders: the Government should be leading from the front and setting the standard for effective cyber-resilience. I am pleased that the Government managed, at the last moment, to push out the cyber action plan today. It acknowledges the challenge, but how it will ensure that change is delivered is unclear. Attacks on household names such as Jaguar Land Rover, Marks & Spencer and the Co-op have raised public awareness of the risks we face, with consumer supply chains interrupted and jobs put in peril. However, the Bill would not have prevented those attacks had it been in force when they took place. Given the constraints on public finances as a result of the Chancellor’s reckless Budget decisions, the Government need to ask themselves how many cyber-attacks of the magnitude of that on JLR we can afford to bankroll. The Government must undertake an urgent review to identify companies whose failure as the result of a cyber-attack would present a comparable risk to the UK economy to that on JLR. Failing to address all the urgent problems will leave an open goal for malicious cyber-actors to undermine the UK’s security and prosperity. The House is unlikely to revisit cyber-security legislation for some time. The threat to our economy and national security from malicious cyber-actors is one of the most serious we face as a country. In the parliamentary debate after MI5’s China espionage briefing, the Minister for Security pledged to strengthen the legislative tools available to disrupt the threat. Why not use the opportunity presented by the Bill to address that head-on? We stand ready to work with the Government to stand up for and protect our country, and to prevent the Bill from becoming yet another missed opportunity.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill
We have talked about the regulators having new powers to designate critical national infrastructure in regard to cyber-security threats, but who actually has accountability? The Bill refers to “regulations made by the Secretary of State.” Which Secretary of State is that, given that this is a cross-departmental and cross-Government approach?
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill
I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on Second Reading. The Bill addresses one of the most defining national security challenges of our age and we have heard many valuable contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the House. Before entering Parliament, I spent several years working to protect our country from cyber-risks. My background in software engineering gave me a rare view under the bonnet of the systems that now underpin almost every aspect of our daily lives. I saw first-hand how our digital infrastructure works and just how vulnerable much of it remains. I really loved that work, and I am proud to say that as a country we are genuine world leaders, but I would be dishonest if I said that it did not leave me deeply worried at times. That is not because of any single threat or actor, but because of the sheer scale, complexity and relentlessness of the cyber-risks we face. Those risks are only accelerating with advances in artificial intelligence, automation and the advent of quantum computing. Those technologies will, as we have heard today, revolutionise our lives in ways that we are only just beginning to understand. We must adapt alongside them if we are to remain a serious technological and economic power. Our lives are now dependent on digital systems at every level. From water treatment plants and electricity networks, to transport, financial markets, healthcare and the wider economy, it is fair to say that we are no longer merely supported by digital infrastructure, but built upon it. And when those systems fail, the consequences are not abstract. They are immediate, they are human and they can be devastating. We have already seen that reality play out in this country. If we cast our minds back to May 2017, the WannaCry ransomware attack tore through the national health service. Tens of thousands of computers were infected, and staff were locked out of patient records, diagnostic systems and telephony. Ambulances were diverted, and thousands of appointments and operations were cancelled, including urgent cancer referrals. The estimated cost to the NHS was £92 million, but the human cost—the stress, disruption and loss of confidence—cannot be measured in pounds and pence. The crucial point, which we have heard made in contributions today, is that while the attack was not targeted at the NHS, it was particularly vulnerable, because it was reliant on outdated and unpatched systems, and on the fragmented digital assets it owned. It was a warning shot that should never be forgotten. More recently, the private sector has faced similarly sobering lessons. Capita was recently fined £14 million following a cyber-attack that compromised the data of more than 6 million people. British Airways and Marriott International suffered major breaches affecting hundreds of thousands of customers, resulting in substantial penalties and lasting reputational damage. These are not small firms, but sophisticated organisations with scale, expertise and resources, yet still they were exposed. That is why the Bill matters and why I want to work constructively with the Government to ensure that we get it right first time. Crucially, we must build the ability to adapt and update the framework as technology and threats continue to evolve, while—I refer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden)—not making that burdensome on businesses and organisations. As the UK’s first piece of legislation to include the words “Cyber Security” in its title, the Bill represents an important step forward. It modernises the network and information systems framework; brings new sectors into scope, including data centres, managed service providers and critical suppliers; strengthens incident reporting requirements; enhances enforcement powers; and allows Government to act decisively—I hope—where national security is at risk. I welcome those objectives and, in particular, the recognition that managed service providers and supply chains are now critical attack vectors. That is absolutely correct. Cyber-threats do not respect organisational boundaries, and our regulatory framework must reflect that reality. However, the Bill must not be treated as some sort of elixir. Cyber-security is not solved by regulation alone. The Bill strengthens protections for critical national infrastructure but leaves significant questions unanswered—questions that we must address if we are serious about national resilience. One of the most pressing concerns raised by industry is the growing complexity of incident reporting. Organisations already face overlapping obligations under data protection law, sector-specific regulation and, soon, economy-wide ransomware reporting requirements. Add to that multiple voluntary reporting channels, and the landscape becomes fragmented and very confusing. Having been a small business owner, I know that, when dealing with marketing, advertising and payments to staff, having extra layers of complexity, with reporting added on, is a difficult position to be in. The first hours of a cyber-incident are chaotic: systems are down, decisions are time-critical and staff are under immense pressure. Forcing organisations to navigate multiple reporting regimes in that moment risks distracting them from the most important task, which, as we all know, is containing the attack and restoring services. A unified reporting framework with a single point of contact and aligned timelines would reduce burdens on businesses, while improving the quality of information available to Government. The Bill should move us closer to that outcome, not further away from it. I look forward to working with the Government at the next stage of the Bill to ensure that happens. We must be honest about the limits of sector-based regulation—the Minister referred to this in his opening remarks. The Bill focuses, rightly, on critical national infrastructure, but many of the most damaging attacks in recent years have occurred outside its scope. Manufacturing, retail and consumer services have been heavily targeted. The attack on Jaguar Land Rover, which many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to today, is estimated to have caused up to £2 billion in economic damage across the company and its supply chain. That is a stark example. I want to put on the record my deep concern about the precedent being set: the British taxpayer is effectively being required to act as insurer of last resort for major companies that have failed to adequately defend themselves. For large firms that are critical to our economy, the expectation that the public will step in cannot become the norm. Responsibility must sit squarely with the boards and executives to invest properly in cyber-security resilience or face the consequences. I am glad to see that the Government have taken the initial steps to have that conversation with industry. At the same time, small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up the vast majority of our economy, are particularly exposed. They often lack the skills, budgets and capacity to implement proportionate cyber-defences, yet they sit deep within critical supply chains. A single weak link can have cascading consequences far beyond the organisation directly attacked. If cyber-security is economic security—I think we all agree that it is—we need a whole-of-economy approach. That means combining regulation with incentives, and support and standards that uplift resilience across UK plc, not just at the very top. That should include stronger, secure-by-design requirements for technology products, embedded through procurement and standards, and practical, accessible support for smaller businesses, potentially including consideration of a national first responder model to help small firms recover quickly from cyber-attacks. We must also address the skills challenge head-on, as cyber skills shortages are already undermining resilience and compliance. If we are to give them more investigatory powers, the regulators themselves will need additional technical and enforcement capacity to deliver the expanded responsibilities set out in the Bill. That capacity cannot be assumed; it must be planned for, funded and developed far in advance. Finally, I want to raise the issue of cyber-crime law. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 dates from a time when fewer than 1% of the population had access to the internet. Its blanket prohibition on unauthorised access fails to distinguish between malicious attackers and legitimate cyber-security professionals acting in the public interest. That matters: vulnerability research and threat intelligence are essential to defending our systems, yet many professionals in the industry operate in a legal grey area when carrying out work that ultimately strengthens our national security. Updating that framework, including by introducing protections for reasonable research, would modernise the law without weakening it. In conclusion, the Bill is an important foundation. It strengthens protections for critical services and sends a clear signal that cyber-security is a core responsibility of the modern state. However, legislation alone will not deliver that resilience; it requires co-ordination, clarity, capability and sustained investment, as well as an honest understanding of where the Bill must be strengthened as it moves through Parliament. Cyber-threats do not stand still, and neither can we. I support the direction of travel set out in the Bill and urge the Government to engage constructively as it progresses so that we can deliver a framework that provides real, lasting protections for our country, our economy and the British citizens.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill
We talk about sovereign capability, but how can we have fully sovereign capability when we do not own the means of production of most advanced chips?
- Hansard source
BBC Charter Renewal
Thank you, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing the debate. I cannot think of anyone more qualified to kick off this conversation. The Select Committee will almost certainly look closely at the charter review, but today I will pull out a couple of topics for discussion. The Government have set out a number of lofty ambitions for the BBC in the Green Paper, but it is clear that it all hinges on a charter review that finds a long-term, sustainable funding future for the BBC. As we have seen, there are a number of challenges. The BBC provides so many different TV channels and radio stations, as we heard from my right hon. Friend. It does all that and more in an incredibly and more and more challenging commercial environment in which the licence fee looks increasingly like an anachronism. The extent to which the public no longer see live TV as the cornerstone of their viewing habits is reflected in the number of households not renewing their TV licence. We have heard that evasion is rising and is now at 12.5%. In real terms, the BBC lost over £1 billion of revenue in the decade from 2013. I was disappointed to read that certain options regarding the BBC’s size, scale and funding are not even on the table in the charter review. On the licence fee, the Green Paper says the Government “are not considering replacing it with alternative forms of public funding, such as a new tax on households”. I would be interested to hear why the Government are not even considering some options, some of which are employed across Europe to fund public service media. There are obvious challenges around some of the options that are under consideration. We have already heard about the issue of advertising. The BBC chair told my Committee that “we are absolutely clear that advertising and subscription is not the right approach. It goes back to universality and back to that old phrase, ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’ If subscribers are paying, they will call the tune on what we make. If it is advertising, it is advertisers.” Will the Minister say more about why the Government have chosen to explore some funding models and take others off the table at this vital stage? The BBC is the most trusted broadcaster both at home and abroad, but there is no doubt that, as our national broadcaster, we hold it to a higher standard. There has been a significant loss of confidence in the BBC over recent years. The Reuters Institute suggests that between 2018 and 2025, the proportion of people in the UK who trusted “most news most of the time” fell by 7%, but that over the same period trust in BBC news fell by 15%. We should therefore welcome the Green Paper’s commitment to discuss the provision of trusted news. Finally, the Government said they want to consider how to uphold the BBC’s independence, which includes its being transparent when it gets things wrong, how it changes its services, how it is governed and what its board looks like. There are fundamental questions for the Green Paper to address: what is the Government’s future vision for the BBC? What role should a public service broadcaster play in the current age? How can we continue to ensure that our national broadcaster remains independent, trusted and valued in this increasingly unstable and divided world?
- Hansard source
Gas-fired Power Stations
Happy new year, Mr Speaker. This is just nonsense on stilts from the Secretary of State, and we know this because the biggest AI company in the world has said that it will need gas power to succeed in Britain. If a company wants to build its own gas plant here, at no cost to the British taxpayer, the warped green ideology of this Secretary of State, who is obsessed with domestic emissions above everything else, will block it. Those emissions will still exist, as that company will start somewhere, just not here in Britain. Does he agree that that is a completely mad reason to block the growth we need in Britain?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
It is freezing cold outside, and people are worried about their energy bills, yet on top of all the other costs the Secretary of State has lumped on to people’s bills, it is reported that he is about to tax people with gas boilers to pay for people having heat pumps. Can he definitively rule this out for the rest of this Parliament: no new taxes on people heating their homes?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The rumours are that the Secretary of State is pitching himself to be the next Chancellor. He did not rule out taxes on people heating their homes for this Parliament, he is shutting down the North sea, there is a disastrous EU energy deal and a secret deal with China, the industry is fleeing in its droves and energy bills have risen five times on his watch. Does this not show that he has to be the only person in the country who could do a worse job than the current Chancellor?
- Hansard source
Energy Bills Reduction
This Government’s promise to cut energy bills by £300 is dead in the water, as bills are now £190 higher than when they took office. Now their big idea is to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public by moving some of the costs of net zero from people’s energy bill to their tax bill. Can the Secretary of State answer a very simple question: after the Government’s supposed bill cut takes place in April, will the average energy bill be higher or lower than when Labour came to power?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to my question about whether bills in April 2026 will be lower than in July 2024, the Secretary of State claimed that they would be. However, the price cap would suggest otherwise: it was £1,568 in July 2024 and is projected to be £1,620 in April 2026. Can you advise on how the House can seek a correction of the record?
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill
I start by putting on the record my broad support for the principles in the Bill. Cyber-threats are among the biggest threats that our country faces. We are living in the grey zone right now—every day, thousands of cyber-attacks take place on private companies, publicly owned companies and infrastructure. This is probably the most profound wave of attacks and hostility that we face; they are in plain sight, but the vast majority of the country and our constituents are unaware of them. That is for good reason: there are many good people working at the National Cyber Security Centre, in the intelligence agencies and the military, across Government and across private industry who do so much to keep us safe. However, that does not mitigate the fact that the threat is real, present and only ever increasing. It is only ever increasing not just because of criminality in a cyber form, but because of the threats that come from nefarious states, particularly Russia, China, Iran and others that have been mentioned. The Jaguar Land Rover attack is particularly prominent in everyone’s minds. It affected the whole country and affected global supply chains, but it had a particularly profound effect in my constituency, where many of the JLR workforce are based. We have seen what happens if we fail to invest sufficiently in our cyber-defences—such a deficiency in investment only enables those who seek to do us harm. The point has been made that our lives are not somewhat digital; they are fundamentally digital in almost every facet of life. I would like to emphasise a couple of points in particular. One that I have not heard spoken about much, which I think is both within the scope of the Bill and, at the same time, somewhat adjacent to it, is the role of foreign technology in our supply chains, particularly kill switches. We are seeing increasing numbers of news articles about these switches, particularly relating to energy installations. Questions have been raised on numerous occasions on the Floor of the House about the prevalence of kill switches in Chinese technology in particular and the risk of exposure to an adversarial state abroad that could destabilise our energy systems. I would particularly like to see a joined-up, whole-of-Government approach to tackling the broader threat, instead of it being viewed through a single lens. I know that Ministers will be looking at it across the board, but I would appreciate if the Minister could address how it is being looked at across Government. Another case is the rise of Chinese-made cars. It struck me that around 12 months ago I rarely saw a Jaecoo or Omoda car on our streets, but now they seem to be everywhere. I cannot help but suspect, given the links that those manufacturers have to the Chinese Communist party, that there are potentially kill switches within those vehicles and, more importantly, that the vehicles are sending data on users’ mobility habits to a foreign adversarial state. The implications of that are profound. My final point is about the reporting regime. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill a couple of months ago that touched on the broad principles within reporting, calling on the Government to have a pragmatic approach with regard to the reporting obligations on particularly small companies. I suggested a threshold of £25 million of turnover before a company would be within the scope of my proposed Bill. I chose that threshold because it would omit the vast majority of small or family-owned businesses unless they are designated within one of the 13 critical industries. The reason for that was simply a fear that reporting obligations on small businesses are ever-growing, and for many businesses additional cyber-security obligations could result in significant additional head count that they may not be able to afford. I encourage the Minister to engage as much as possible with representatives of small business to ensure that the reporting obligations are as minimal as possible while capturing the broad principle of the Bill. I support the broad principle of the Bill; I think it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Government will adopt a cross-Government approach. This is a wider societal issue that all of us have an obligation and duty to fulfil. I look forward to seeing the Bill’s progress and contributing as it makes its way through Parliament.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for their excellent speeches. I particularly associate myself with their comments on the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the need for an extension to our cyber-skills in this country. Before entering this place, I worked professionally in cyber-security and operational resilience, advising businesses of all sizes on how to reduce the risk of cyber-attacks and helping them to understand how far-reaching the consequences of a cyber-breach can be from a commercial perspective, and not just a technical one. I am vice-Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and we have heard direct evidence for our report on economic security from Marks & Spencer, Co-op and Jaguar Land Rover, all of which suffered catastrophic breaches last year. Although the attacks were different in form and impact, as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), said, they shared a common feature: they were driven by social engineering, not technical failure. Human access was exploited, trust was abused, and controls failed further up the chain. The outcomes, however, were very different. At Co-op, a more modern, secure-by-design IT infrastructure enabled an early containment strategy, limiting the impact on customers, stores and the bottom line. Marks & Spencer, which had not prioritised early replacement of legacy infrastructure, suffered months of major disruption to customer-facing services and retail logistics. The financial impact alone for M&S is in the region of £300 million, or 45% of its prior year pre-tax profits. Jaguar Land Rover was in a different category altogether. There, the attack cut into operational technology systems tightly integrated with manufacturing operations, bringing production lines to a standstill and disrupting just-in-time supply chains. That shutdown cascaded far beyond a single company, directly impacting numerous suppliers in the midlands regional economy, as many Members have already mentioned, as well as contributing to a measurable fall in UK GDP, estimated to be in the region of £2 billion. Those cases demonstrate that cyber-risk manifests in three ways: operational risk, financial risk and reputational risk. Too often, even at FTSE level, businesses and boards fail to grasp that this is a potentially devastating combination. I hear the same message repeatedly from industry, including at the Financial Times Cyber Resilience Summit in London, where I spoke at the end of last year. There is frustration from CISOs—chief information security officers—and security vendors that it can be difficult to develop conversations with boards and audit chairs to assign the appropriate resources and strategic prioritisation. Businesses accept that standards must rise, but they want regulation that is targeted, proportionate and focused on prevention, rather than paperwork. The Bill does some things well. Updating the 2018 NIS framework, expanding coverage where it is genuinely needed and strengthening enforcement powers are all sensible in principle. Faster incident reporting has value, but reporting alone is not resilience. There are gaps that matter. First, the Bill does not go far enough on governance. Cyber failures are governance failures. Responsibility sits not only at board level, but clearly and specifically with chairs and audit and risk committees, yet the Bill stops short of driving meaningful accountability there. Without that pressure, cyber will continue to be delegated downward to IT and operations teams, rather than being owned at the top. Secondly, there is a risk of confusing activity with preparedness. Increasing reporting obligations after an incident does nothing to prevent the incident from occurring. Prevention is always better than cure, and this legislation needs a stronger emphasis on baseline capability, risk maturity and early intervention. Thirdly, we must be careful about cost, capacity and particularly enforcement. The implications for SMEs are significant, particularly those that are pulled into scope through supply chains. At the same time, regulators cannot enforce what they are not resourced to oversee. Without credible enforcement, the Bill risks becoming a paper exercise and boards will respond accordingly. Fourthly, the Bill needs to recognise the connection between, and draw a clear distinction between, IT and operational technology. What works for enterprise IT systems may be inappropriate or even dangerous in OT environments such as manufacturing, critical national infrastructure, energy and logistics. Segregation, architecture and the configuration of security devices must be assessed. Risk profiles differ; controls differ. That nuance matters. I want to be clear that the Opposition support the aims of this Bill in principle. Cyber-resilience requires a whole-of-society approach involving Government, regulators, businesses and boards working together, but if this legislation is to drive real change, it must be enforceable, proportionate and grounded in how organisations actually operate. Boards and audit committees must feel the weight of responsibility, regulators must have the tools and resources to act, and prevention must be prioritised over post-incident form filling. The National Cyber Security Centre has produced clear, practical guidance for boards, and that should sit at the heart of our approach. We need smarter regulation, properly enforced, not just more of it.
- Hansard source
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief
Despite many opportunities to do so, the Minister simply refuses to apologise. Despite warnings from so many organisations that this tax would do real harm, farmers, including those in my constituency, have been forced to live with fear and uncertainty for more than 14 months. Can the Minister explain what support his Department will give to the families who have shelled out money for advice and whose businesses have suffered irrevocable damage as a result of this Government?
- Hansard source
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief.
- Hansard source
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this first urgent question of 2026—and what a way to open the new year, with yet another Government U-turn. But where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? This is her tax and her U-turn, and she should explain why she did not announce this at the Budget. Over the past 14 months, farmers, rural communities and the Conservatives have campaigned relentlessly in and out of Westminster against these vindictive taxes. This U-turn acknowledges what farmers have been telling the Government from day one: Ministers have got their maths badly wrong, and many more farms and family businesses will be broken up as a result of Labour’s higher taxes. Does the Minister accept that? Why have the Government U-turned? Does it have anything to do with the recent Labour Back-Bench rebellion? Can the Minister tell the House how many family farms and non-farming family businesses will still have to pay this death tax? Are tenant farmers included, given that the now Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted at the time that 14,000 tenant farmers were missed out of the Government’s original calculations? Can the Minister also confirm whether he signed the tax information and impact note for this U-turn before the Budget? This partial U-turn does not save every family farm and family business. Indeed, for many the U-turn simply comes too late; we have seen record farm closures under this Government, and it has taken a great personal toll on many families. Given the pain, anguish, distress and, in some cases, sorrow that this cruel tax has caused families up and down the country, will the Minister now have the good grace to apologise on behalf of the Government to farmers and family business owners?
- Hansard source
Venezuela
Surely the real story coming out today and over the past few days is the revelation—one we should all have known—that this country has opted out of protecting the international rules-based system. We have not significantly invested in defence, and even the commitment the Foreign Secretary speaks of does not keep pace with defence inflation. As the Prime Minister revealed on Sunday, he has not even spoken to the American President. Does this not reveal the simple truth that the Americans did this without us because they do not give a damn what this House thinks?
- Hansard source
Middle East and North Africa
First, I welcome the Minister’s statement. I certainly agree with him on the strikes in Syria, and with the view that he has taken towards the Houthis in Yemen, who have murdered so many people over recent years. May I ask him about a separate aspect of the Iranian situation? We see extraordinarily courageous protestors on streets across Iran, in various cities and towns. We also see Russian cargo aircraft landing in Tehran, presumably carrying weapons and ammunition. We hear reports of large amounts of gold leaving Iran. Could he update the House on any of those reports, which suggest that the regime is preparing for life after the fall?
- Hansard source
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief
I thank all the South Shropshire farmers and businesses for their tireless campaign. They were continually told by the Government that they were wrong, but they have now been proved right. They are still telling me that this tax is wrong. The family farm tax is not right. Will the Minister apologise for the heartache, pain and suffering that he has caused South Shropshire farmers and businesses, and scrap the tax completely?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention
On a serious note, on this work towards retention and recruitment, I have not found one person in my entire military network—those I served with during the troubles and after—who supports the Bill. I welcome the rise in recruitment—one of those recruits is my son, which is great to see—but can the Minister confirm whether anyone serving in the senior chain of command has said that the Bill is a potential obstacle to operational capability or future retention and recruitment?
- Hansard source
Venezuela
Thirty per cent of the US naval fleet is positioned off the coast of Venezuela, those vessels having been redeployed from many locations. They include the fifth fleet from the joint UK-US deployment in Bahrain. We will be left exposed in certain areas—90% of data cables between Europe and Asia are in that region—if this goes on beyond the middle of January. What risk assessments have been undertaken to ensure that our troops are not more exposed than they need to be?
- Hansard source
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief
This policy has caused huge stress for rural communities across North Yorkshire. What discussions is the Minister having inside government about other policies, such as the policy on rates for public houses in rural areas, to ensure that this error is not made again?
- Hansard source
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief
Although I welcome this announcement, which directly contradicts what the Secretary of State told me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) on the day that the House rose for Christmas, is the Minister aware that a significant number of my constituents who farm in the Dengie peninsula and elsewhere will still face a significant inheritance tax bill that may prevent them from passing on their farm, as they inherited it, to their children? If the Minister is anxious about the scheme being used for tax avoidance, will he reconsider the NFU’s suggestion that there be a clawback mechanism, which would allow the Government to take back the exemption if a farm was sold within a certain period after inheritance?
- Hansard source
Venezuela
The Maduro and Chávez regime was characterised by widespread human rights abuse, criminality and economic destitution, and many Venezuelans are rightly and understandably celebrating its end. However, I have to say to the Foreign Secretary that after more than half an hour, it is still not clear whether the UK Government actually agree with what has been done. She referred to the discussion taking place at the UN Security Council at the moment—can she say what the UK’s position will be at that meeting?
- Hansard source
Venezuela
Most people’s thoughts on Maduro’s capture will be, “Good riddance”, and I would have liked the Government to have been more categorical in supporting US action to remove an illegitimate and evil dictator, but if the new US approach extends to the annexation of Greenland, the sovereign territory of a NATO member, it could mean the end of the alliance, with disastrous consequences. How much planning is going on at the Foreign Office to make sure that such a disaster does not happen? We understand that discussions between allies have to be private, but from the outside, it looks like Europe is weak and divided. Can the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that the right conversations are happening, and that we are not just hoping for the best?
- Hansard source
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a happy new year to you and your staff. Farmers in my constituency will welcome this change to the thresholds for APR and BPR. However, it took 14 months to achieve it and rural communities really do feel discriminated against by some of the measures that this Government are taking against them. I ask the Minister to convey to his colleague, the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, that the Government should not enact any changes to shooting or trail hunting, because to do so would really damage and annoy rural communities?
- Hansard source
Venezuela
The Foreign Secretary has repeated time after time today that she believes in the rules-based system. Therefore, will she argue for that vociferously at the United Nations so that the world knows what British values are? Will she also discuss with the American Administration a realistic plan to make Venezuela a democracy and make it clear, as she has just said, that the oil should benefit the Venezuelan people and no one else?
- Hansard source
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief
I cannot adequately put into words the fear, concern and stress that farmers in my constituency and right across the country have felt as a result of the policy announced at the Government’s first Budget. That same fear is now being felt in rural pubs up and down the country due to the changes to business rates. Will the Minister apologise to those farmers for the fear, stress and cost that he has put them all through? Will he indicate to many publicans across Staffordshire that the Government are going to U-turn on business rates so that they do not close rural pubs?
- Hansard source
Migrants: Safe and Legal Routes
Of course we are all proud of our historic record in welcoming genuine political refugees who apply in the proper way, but I am sure that the Home Secretary would agree that this humane policy is being entirely negated by illegal boat crossings, which are driving people mad and putting people at risk. Will she do the humane thing and seek an urgent derogation from the refugee convention and the convention on human rights so that we can arrest, detain and deport these people? By the way, if she announced that now, Labour would shoot up five points in the polls and the Prime Minister’s position would be safe. Does she support all that?
- Hansard source
Venezuela
At the end of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, I am no wiser on whether the Government approve this action, or on whether they believe that it breaks international law. The Prime Minister is such a devotee of international law that he is not prepared to defend our borders from the small boats, and to take the necessary action there. Why is there one law for the American President, when he is doing what is right for his country and defending it, but a different law for us? My simple question is this: do the Government believe that this breaks international law, and do they approve this action?
- Hansard source
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief
The Minister referred to the importance of manifesto commitments. Where in the Labour manifesto did it say that there would be any tax restrictions on inheritance for farmers? In fact, when they were in opposition, did Ministers not go around promising not to impose such a tax? They then did precisely the opposite. When he talks about manifesto commitments, will he have a slightly less selective memory and avoid misconstruing the position of the NFU, which is still in favour of the abolition of the tax altogether? Tom Bradshaw is my constituent. I hope that the Minister will send him his best wishes and congratulate him on exposing the Government’s hypocrisy.
- Hansard source
Venezuela
To those who still harbour illusions about an idealised world of international rules that will be abided by all, should we not just say, “Welcome to the real world, where might often proves to be right and we have to face the circumstances that we are in”? May I therefore give my support to the Government’s ambivalence, as supported by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who also rightly criticised—it was all she disagreed with the Government about—the slow pace of rearmament? Will the Foreign Secretary avoid blowing up the bridges we have with the United States and use that influence? Does she not agree it really would be stupid to slag off President Trump now when we want to have influence over what he does next?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention
Have there not already been numerous investigations and inquiries, and while old wounds are being reopened, is it not the case that little new evidence is emerging? The Minister, who is my parliamentary neighbour, is a most distinguished soldier. Surely he must be concerned that the circumstantial evidence about the impact on the health and wellbeing of veterans is clearly impacting morale, retention and recruitment elsewhere.
- Hansard source
Venezuela
Of course quite a lot depends on what now happens, but Mr Maduro stole the elections in Venezuela in plain sight, is a narco-terrorist and has destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of American citizens and of those more widely and made huge amounts of money out of it. Is not the world a better place with him before the courts in New York, and in this case do not the ends justify the means?
- Hansard source
Venezuela
The essay question is not whether Mr Maduro was a good man, which is a clear no-brainer, but whether, as others have asked, the actions of the US President were legal. America cannot be expected to mark her own homework, so I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, what body or bodies would she identify as being responsible to adjudicate on the legality of the American action? Secondly, as the vice-president of Venezuela, whose hands are as tainted with the previous regime as Maduro’s, has this afternoon been sworn in as the new President, what read-across should this House have from that incident?
- Hansard source
HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the implications for public safety following the admission that two dangerous offenders, including a convicted murderer, absconded from HMP Leyhill on new year’s day.
- Hansard source
HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments
So a murderer is on the loose—a murderer and a violent offender. Once again, the Justice Secretary’s strongest ever checks have been a resounding failure, and once again there is a manhunt under way. Precious police resources are being wasted to fix Calamity’s latest cock-up. And where is the Justice Secretary? The Ministry of Justice seems to lose its Secretary of State as much as it does its prisoners. Has his aunt taken him to the January sales to find him a new suit, just in case he gets let loose on Prime Minister’s questions again? Let me ask the Minister instead: why was someone who robbed and brutally killed a man by bashing him on the head with a brick—a man who led a prison riot and attacked prison officers repeatedly—deemed safe for open prison? Why, as we have just learned, did it take 48 hours for the police to raise the alarm? How many other murderers are there in open prisons? How many more mistaken releases have there been since the Justice Secretary last came clean? Once again, the safety of the public is being compromised by the breathtaking incompetence of his Department. What a Christmas it has been for the Justice Secretary. On Boxing day, he said he was delighted to welcome into Britain an extremist who hates our country. The following day, it was revealed that he had invited a disgraced ex-Labour politician convicted of spreading homophobic smears to his official swearing-in as Lord Chancellor. Days later, he paid an Islamist double murderer thousands in compensation, alongside hundreds of thousands in legal fees, much of it to the Justice Secretary’s own colleague’s spouse. Then the Prime Minister’s mentor, a leading KC who clapped him into Downing Street, slammed his shameful plan to slash jury trials. To top it all off, on new year’s day we learned that these prisoners had been let loose. Well, happy new year from the Justice Secretary. It is little wonder that in his first interview of 2026, he said that he was seeking divine retribution—sorry, he meant to say divine intervention. Well, with more of this, God help us all.
- Hansard source
Middle East and North Africa
Britain’s place in the world matters, and the Opposition are clear about the fact that our influence should be used to its fullest effect to support efforts to combat the complex and dangerous conflicts and tensions in the middle east about which we speak all too often in the House. From Israel to Gaza, Iran, Syria and Yemen, the UK can and should be able to make a difference. The Opposition stand with the brave Iranians in their fight for freedom against their terrorist-supporting, despotic and oppressive Government. Their fight for freedom must prevail. What discussions are taking place with our partners in the region about the actions that can be taken to stop the regime’s cruel and barbaric acts against those who are campaigning for freedom? Iran threatens our domestic security by continuing its nuclear weapons programme, supplying weapons and drones to Russia, and backing China and its repression in Hong Kong. Britain must send it a clear signal by imposing more sanctions on it, and take action to stop the sanctions-busting that is taking place through cryptocurrencies and other methods that facilitate and bankroll this tyrannical regime. Why have the Government, and the Minister in his statement today, been silent on those specific issues, and where is the plan to keep Britain safe from Iran? What is being done to secure the immediate release from Iran’s cruel captivity of Lindsay and Craig Foreman, the two British nationals who, tragically, are still in captivity? I appreciate that the Minister referred to the call that took place on 19 December, but what practical measures are being taken? In Gaza, Hamas continue to breach the ceasefire. They have refused to release the body of the remaining Israeli hostage, Ran Gvili, which has been in terrorist captivity for more than 820 days. What pressure has been put on Hamas to adhere to the terms of the ceasefire, to disarm and to bring Ran back to his family? The Minister mentioned aid. Will he confirm that 4,200 trucks are delivering aid to Gaza each week in accordance with the 20-point peace plan, and that that is being overseen by the Co-ordination of Government Activities in the Territories and the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre? Is he meeting representatives of the CMCC and COGAT to observe the operational delivery of this aid and the role that the United States is playing in securing aid delivery? As for the licensing of non-governmental organisations, can the Minister tell us how many agencies have undergone the licensing process and the contribution that they are making? We have heard a great deal in recent weeks and months about terrorists infiltrating aid agencies and diverting aid. What discussions has the Minister had with his Israeli counterparts about working with them to find practical solutions that will address the serious concerns that have been raised, so that more aid can get through and not be compromised by terrorists? On reforms to the Palestinian Authority, why are the Government still backing them with taxpayers’ money while they continue with the pay-to-slay programme? When will this practice stop? I agree with the Minister’s comments about Yemen, the conflict there, and the humanitarian suffering. Every single successive Government have worked tirelessly to secure more aid and to support global efforts to address the suffering in Yemen, but what direct discussions has the Minister had with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which are both long-standing partners and players, particularly on the recent dispute and tensions? Is there a bridging role that Britain can play? What planning is under way with our partners in the region to respond to further threats from the Houthis? On Syria, the actions targeted at Daesh were absolutely essential, but there are still many concerns about stability in Syria. When will progress be made on tackling sectarian violence, protecting minority rights and delivering democratic transition? What quantity of chemical weapons has been disposed of? What measures are being taken to stop the criminality, the gangs, the drugs and the weapons? Finally, on the el-Fattah case, I welcome the way in which the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has instigated its inquiry. When will the inquiry into what has happened be completed? Were the Government informed by any other Departments about the views that were expressed? I recognise what the Minister has said thus far. Will Ministers—probably now in the Home Office—pick up the case and work fast to strip Alaa Abd el-Fattah of his citizenship, as the Opposition have been requesting over the recess?
- Hansard source
Length of the School Week
I wish you, Mrs Hobhouse, all Members, Clerks and staff of Parliament, and our visitors today a happy new year. I am pleased to respond to the debate on the length of the school week. I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for leading the debate and I congratulate the young people behind the petition who have brought us together to discuss it here. I confess I have not told my own children what I am doing this evening; I hope they are not watching the Parliament channel for the first time in their lives, because my job tonight is to complete the party consensus and disappoint the signatories. While we have heard some valid arguments about teacher recruitment and retention and how the reality of school works for many children, the challenges that we have heard about are probably best met with solutions other than shortening the school week. Broadly speaking, we have more knowledge and data about what works in education that ever before, which gives us some confidence in saying we know how to make education work best for young people. Success obviously depends on rewarding excellence and raising standards, and the research shows that reducing the length of the school week would mean fewer opportunities to learn and improve. Less time spent with teachers in the classroom would lead to fewer activities and teaching hours, especially for the most deprived children, who might lack alternatives to those activities away from their schools. If anything, we need children to spend more time at school so they can enjoy the greatest possible benefit from full-time education. Of course, there should be a balance: schools create opportunities for children to learn social skills, make friends, explore new interests and be active, and no one here wants children to be constantly working without rest or support, especially when they are struggling. However, our schools would be unbalanced by the loss of an entire school day. It is not credible that five days of learning and activity could be realistically compressed into four. Cutting lesson times would harm children, especially those who are struggling the most and need more help. Not only children, but families would suffer. A four-day week would see more than a month’s worth of school time lost over a year. That is 39 days gone—much more than people’s total holiday entitlement. The loss of a whole day would force many working parents to find alternative childcare arrangements at huge personal expense. The cost of childcare, already incredibly high, would go up even further because of the spike in demand, while many other parents would simply work fewer hours or leave their jobs to look after children when they were not in school. Campaigners for a shorter week believe that those problems can be made up for by extending the length of the remaining four days. The petition we are debating today proposed that we add an extra hour to each school day, but that would still mean two and a half hours being lost every week. Even if we extended the school day to a full eight hours under a four-day week schedule, children would be left with fewer hours of education each week. Under the Conservatives, the minimum length of the school week was extended to 32 and a half hours, which helped children to master their subjects, discover new ones, get catch-up support, receive personalised tutoring and enjoy more extracurricular activities. Schools in Wales, where education is not run by the Conservatives, have also trialled longer school days. A four-day week would leave us a global outlier, with English children having less school time than their peers in other developed countries. We know that more time spent in school leads to better outcomes. The Education Policy Institute has reviewed a series of global studies, and found “a more pronounced impact on the academic outcomes of pupils from lower socio-economic backgrounds”. The Education Endowment Foundation has also reviewed studies from multiple countries, and concluded that extended school time can deliver an average gain of three months’ additional progress for children—four months for children in primary schools, and two months for children in secondary schools. There is significant evidence of this working in England. The DFE’s 2003 to 2010 extended schools and services programme, covering 1,500 schools, featured longer school days as part of its pilot scheme. That contributed towards 74% of schools seeing higher pupil engagement in learning and 82% higher pupil engagement in school, as well as a 54% reduction in discipline problems. Research shows that the most deprived schools benefited: nearly six in 10 children on free school meals thought the scheme made an impact on schools with more than 20% of pupils on free school meals, but that falls to four in 10 children for schools with less than 20% of children on free school meals. Parents also agreed: surveys showed that 35% of parents believed their child’s grades improved as a result, 56% observed their child enjoying learning more and 58% saw their child demonstrating better language skills and being better socialised. Longer school days are an important part of delivering more and better enrichment. Thanks to the academies and free schools revolution, that insight has been put into practice, with impressive results. Star Academies’ Eden Girls’ school delivers extra enrichment and learning through additional time between 3 pm and 3.45 pm. It is rated outstanding. Teachers play their part in that extra time, but the school has innovated by working with charities and community groups to give extra activities to its pupils, which means that teachers are enablers rather than being overburdened. Extended school days have been introduced at St Martin’s academy, from 8.30 am to 4 pm, alongside full wraparound care to help parents. The school was rated outstanding last year. All Saints Catholic college, another outstanding school, piloted two non-compulsory extended school days for year 7 and year 8 pupils. The summer term pilot saw a 12% drop in missed homework sanctions and a 16% increase in good behaviour. Academies at the Inspiration Trust in East Anglia have also proved that the approach works. They extended their school days for children in year 7 to year 11, providing an extra 500 days of teaching, or 20 more weeks of learning. Inspiration Trust has also ensured that teacher meetings are more efficiently organised, and that professional development opportunities are available. The results speak for themselves: 66% of pupils at Inspiration Trust primaries meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, which is higher than the 62% England average; 50% achieve grade 5 or above in English and maths GCSEs, compared with 45.9% across all state-funded schools; and 83% of all A-level results were between A* and C last year. Lengthening the school week creates the space for schools to decide how they can best use their time and improve outcomes. Many school reformers rightly believe that that can be done with strong discipline, a knowledge-rich curriculum and teacher-led instruction. That was the insight that shaped the Conservative education reform that made English children the best readers in the world and saw England rise through the programme for international student assessment rankings. However, education reform is never over; it is a constant fight to keep schools in good shape so that children can get the best education possible. I congratulate the young people who made this debate happen, and I recognise the good faith of all those who support the proposal. However, it is the position of my party, like that of the Government and the Liberal Democrats—the boring grown-ups that we are—that a shorter school week would weaken our schools and end up letting children down. Instead, we need to ensure that more time is spent at school and focus on giving every child the best chance to succeed in life.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
On 7 October the police told a private meeting that they planned to ban Israeli fans from Villa Park. That was, to quote the minutes, “in the absence of intelligence”. On 9 October they accepted that they needed to find a more clear rationale for the decision already made. On 16 October they said they suddenly found significant intelligence for a ban. That supposedly came from a conversation with the Dutch police on 1 October, before the first meeting held in the “absence of intelligence”. Does the Home Secretary believe West Midlands police—yes or no?