Alison Griffiths
MP for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I used to work at RAC. Steve Gooding: As somebody who worked there, I think there are two key things: one is independence, and the other is capability. We are talking specifically about growing and making sure that the ORR has the requisite capability to undertake the tricky and, in a way, very public task of setting that.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q I want to come back to the question of hydrotreated vegetable oil. Mr Palmer, you suggested that there was parity/comparability in costs between white diesel and HVO.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q I want to go back to comments that both of you have made. Andrew, you said that you can count on one hand the number of projects that finish on time and on budget, and that is despite the extensive experience that you both have. Roger, you said that cost overruns come from uncertainty. I had a 30-year private sector career.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q This is predominantly for Mr Whelan, but Ben and Declan, if you wish to weigh in, please do. For the M6, have the economic and operational outcomes that have been delivered over the last 20 years been what was envisaged? On the role of the ORR, does the regulation outlined in the Bill provide sufficient certainty for private investors?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In addition to my comments around the stakeholder group, the ORR has been heavily weighted towards rail regulation and currently has a much smaller role in highways monitoring.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q Should we put in greater stipulations on how costs are incurred? This goes back to some of what the shadow Minister was talking about, that the Bill should stipulate that the road is not overspecified—although safety should remain absolutely paramount—while things such as the use of sustainable diesel are not a necessary part of the Bil…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
424 held · 414 searchable for Alison Griffiths. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“However, there has been some local progress and I would like to recognise it. In Bognor Regis, mydentist is now delivering additional NHS dental activity and offering about 56 urgent appointments each week. That matters. Urgent appointments help people to get treatment when they need it the most, and stop problems becoming even more serious. The local ICB has also confirmed that new NHS dental contracts have been awarded for both Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, with services expected to open next year. That is welcome. But let us be honest: we are not where we need to be. My constituents should not have to become dental detectives simply to find treatment. They should not have to wait until pain becomes an emergency before the system responds. Urgent care is important, but must not become a substitute for routine access.”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Poor oral health affects confidence, nutrition, wellbeing and wider health outcomes, including in respect of heart disease and septicaemia. One constituent who contacted me, Andrew from Bognor Regis, was undergoing treatment for two separate cancers. Through no fault of his own, regular dental appointments had—understandably—fallen by the wayside while he focused on fighting those illnesses. When he later tried to access NHS dental care again, he found himself in effect locked out of the system—abandoned at precisely the moment he needed support the most. What struck me was not simply his concern about finding dental care, but the wider impact that poor access can have on a patient’s healthcare journey. A patient battling cancer should not also be worrying about whether they can access a dentist.”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clare in Bognor Regis did everything that patients are told to do. She remained with her NHS dentist and kept up with her appointments. Yet she was then told that NHS provision at her practice was being reduced and that she would be placed on a waiting list. Jill in Middleton-on-Sea is a pensioner who has spent years trying to navigate a system in which practices close, go private or stop taking NHS patients altogether. She is still trying to find care that she can afford. Those are not isolated cases. They show what happens when NHS dentistry becomes too difficult to access. People wait, put treatment off and make compromises that they should not have to make, and then routine problems become urgent ones. We too often talk about dental care as though it sits separately from the rest of the NHS. It does not.”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), my constituency neighbour, on securing this very important debate. Access to NHS dentistry is one of the issues that my constituents raise with me most often, and when they do, they are not talking about contract reform, commissioning arrangements or NHS structures. They are talking about pain, cost, worry and ringing practice after practice but still not being able to get an appointment. Anthony in Littlehampton contacted me after being told that he needed a crown. He is on personal independence payment and employment and support allowance. The treatment that he needs would cost hundreds of pounds. His question was simple: how is he meant to afford that?”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As this is a debate on dentistry in West Sussex, I invite the Minister to share the numbers that relate specifically to West Sussex rather than to the country.”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, and in significant parts of Chichester, we have coastal areas. In our manifesto, the Conservative party pledged golden handshakes to attract dentists to coastal constituencies, because we know that is one of the issues. Could you tell please me what specific proposals you have to attract dentists to coastal constituencies?”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My constituents deserve better. In Rustington, in East Preston and across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, pensioners want clarity, fairness and above all a Government who recognise the contribution that they have made throughout their working life. I am not here to write the Budget from Westminster Hall, but I am here to say very clearly that pensioners in my constituency should not find themselves paying more and more tax simply because thresholds remain frozen year after year. I hope that the Minister will provide some answers today.”
House of Commons15 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yet my constituents still do not know who will qualify, how the system will work, when the details will finally be published or how pensioners will be protected from unexpected tax demands. Those are reasonable questions, and people deserve answers. There is also a broader principle at stake. At the previous general election, the Conservatives set out a different approach: we argued that the tax-free allowance for pensioners should keep pace with the state pension, so that people could benefit from rises in the state pension without constantly worrying that frozen thresholds would erode those gains. Whether or not Members agree with that approach, at least it sought to address the underlying problem. The Government’s approach so far has been to extend the freeze, promise further details at some future point and ask pensioners to wait.”
House of Commons15 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government regularly tell people that they have not increased income tax rates. However, pensioners, who are a savvy bunch, can see exactly what is happening. They do not need a Treasury briefing to understand where more of their income is being taxed each year. The Chancellor chose to extend the freeze in the personal allowance until 2031. That was a political choice. It means that more pensioners will continue to be drawn into the tax system year after year. Ministers cannot make that decision and then act surprised when pensioners ask questions about fairness. What concerns me most is the uncertainty. Last year’s Budget included an announcement that pensioners whose sole income is the state pension should not have to deal with small tax bills through the simple assessment process from 2027.”
House of Commons15 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They are asking a simple question: why are more and more pensioners being drawn into paying tax? It is important to be clear about what sits behind that concern. The issue is not that pensioners have suddenly become wealthier; it is that frozen tax thresholds mean that the tax system reaches further into people’s incomes each year. That is why people feel so frustrated. They see their state pension increase on paper, only to find more of it being taken by the taxman. It affects more than pensioners—workers, families and businesses are feeling the effects of frozen thresholds, too, and across the country more people are paying more tax despite no change in the headline rates—but pensioners often feel it particularly acutely because many are living on fixed incomes and have less flexibility to absorb the additional costs.”
House of Commons15 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening this incredibly important debate, and I thank the Petitions Committee for scheduling it today. I represent the communities of Rustington and East Preston, often described as the state pension capital of Britain. For them and for thousands of others across my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency, this debate is not about Treasury spreadsheets or tax theory, but about their day-to-day finances and whether they feel the system is treating them fairly. They have worked hard and paid in throughout their life and are now looking at a situation in which the state pension continues to rise while tax thresholds remain frozen.”
House of Commons15 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am delighted to hear about the increase in pensions. The Minister can tell us what they increased by, but can he perhaps tell us what they were reduced by with the taxation that they were then dragged into?”
House of Commons15 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many businesses in my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency depend on contracts linked to the North sea energy sector. With this Labour Government driving disinvestment and deindustrialisation, skilled workers are fleeing the industry. Every Member in this House will have constituents whose employment relies on this wider supply chain. Does the Secretary of State understand the chilling effect that his Government’s policies are having on business confidence and investment in this vital industry?”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“West Sussex county council’s health and adult social care scrutiny committee has concluded that the closure of Zachary Merton hospital in Rustington “constituted a significant variation” in services. Given the statutory requirements for consultation—promised, but never delivered—when can residents expect a decision on my call-in request?”
House of Commons9 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“T7. Thousands of people in West Sussex are unable to access an NHS dentist and many constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tell me that they have been unable to secure an appointment for years. What specific steps is the Secretary of State taking to increase NHS dental capacity in coastal communities, and when does he expect patients to see a measurable improvement?”
House of Commons9 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q8. At 19, I was in a coma after contracting bacterial meningitis. I lost 70% of my hearing and needed open-heart surgery. The menB vaccine has saved lives since its introduction in 2015 for infants, but there remains a gap for the high-risk adolescents who were not vaccinated under the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation guidance. Following the devastating outbreaks within this cohort in Reading, Canterbury and Weymouth, the JCVI is finally reviewing the evidence base. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government’s next steps will be and when they will happen? Will he make tackling meningitis a priority for his new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and arrange a meeting with Meningitis Now and me?”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Businesses in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton need stable and affordable energy to grow and invest, so does my right hon. Friend agree that our “get Britain drilling” Bill is vital not just for energy security but for our future economic security?”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On Friday, I opened the new Premier Inn in my constituency—a project that was passed under the last Conservative Government—but many businesses in my constituency are failing because of increased costs and regulation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an absolute travesty for our country?”
House of Commons18 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for giving way and for his astounding shopping list of action that he is taking, but the Conservatives can make life easy for him: if he had not put 2% on national insurance, increased the national minimum wage and used the Employment Rights Act 2025 to remove the option of zero-hours contracts, businesses in my constituency and across the country would not have been forced to remove jobs focused specifically on young people. It is this Government who are responsible for the increase in youth unemployment.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Their clear view is that firms are becoming “more cautious on hiring and investment due to rising costs.” They are worried about rising employment costs, higher borrowing costs, growing compliance burdens and energy prices that remain far too high. That is the real-word impact of the Government’s decisions. When businesses stop hiring, young people pay the price first. The first job in a café, the apprenticeship, or the hospitality role in a pub or hotel all give young people the chance to get on the ladder and earn their own money. The Government talk constantly about growth, but businesses in constituencies such as mine are asking a very simple question: when will this Government stop making growth harder? If we really want to get Britain working again, we need to start backing the businesses that actually create the jobs.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They are businesses working hard to keep people employed, keep high streets going and keep our communities alive outside the summer season. James and Marcus Fenton, who run Meridian Medical in Littlehampton, employ around 130 people locally in skilled manufacturing jobs. It is a family-run business and a living wage employer. It should be exactly the kind of business the Government are backing. Meridian is a British success story, exporting highly specialised medical devices around the world, but it is now becoming one of the businesses that tells me the UK is becoming a harder place in which to invest and grow. I also heard recently from Mark and Liz Warom, the founders of TEMPLESPA, a science-led, Mediterranean-inspired premium skincare brand run by my constituents, whose products I highly recommend.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Businesses in my constituency are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for a Government who stop making it harder to employ people, harder to grow and harder to invest. Right now, too many feel that Labour is taking the country in the wrong direction. Through my business club and regular conversations with employers across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I keep hearing the same thing: costs are rising, confidence is falling and businesses are becoming more cautious about taking people on. In a coastal constituency, that really matters. Our local economy depends on innovation powered by fantastic small and medium-sized enterprises and on the entrepreneurs who pour everything into growing them. These are not massive corporations with endless room to absorb new costs.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think all of us on the Opposition Benches would be keen to understand why, if the Minister is so confident that pension funds will invest, he does not make it a choice rather than a mandate.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It said that high-performing schools delivering good outcomes and in demand from parents should not have their admission numbers reduced unless that decision is necessary and proportionate. The Government have rejected that safeguard. Instead, they offer softer language, asking the adjudicator to “have regard” to certain factors, but “have regard” is not a protection. It does not guarantee that parental preference will carry any weight. I ask the Minister directly: why remove a clear safeguard for high-performing schools and replace it with something that offers far less certainty? Why take out measures that provide clarity, certainty and protection, and replace them with looser powers and softer language? Once again, we see the same approach—sensible safeguards that have been put forward are being swept aside by this Government.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The House of Lords has identified clear gaps and proposed practical solutions, and has sent improvements back to us. The Lords has acted to put in place clear safeguards, and the Government respond by stripping them out and pressing ahead regardless. Let us take Lords amendment 38. The Lords were clear that they required action to protect children from harm online, including stronger age assurance and a clear expectation of progress within 12 months. The Government have chosen to strip that out, and replace it with a broad power to make regulations at some future point. If the Government agree that there is a problem, and Ministers clearly do, why remove the mechanism that would ensure something is actually done about it? Similarly, Lords amendment 102 was straightforward.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In Wick in my constituency, over 1,000 local residents have raised with me their concerns about unfair and confusing parking charges, which are deterring shoppers and damaging local businesses. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State on the delay to the revised private parking code of practice?”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They would protect savers from unnecessary interference, they would keep decision making where it belongs, and they would ask the Government to be transparent about the long-term picture. I do not think those are unreasonable tests, and the Government are wrong to strip them out.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Lords amendment 77 would require the Government to publish a full review of public service pension schemes within 12 months, and not just their cost, but their long-term affordability, their sustainability, and whether they are fair across generations—a point made so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). That is not a controversial ask. It is basic due diligence. People in my constituency are thinking about their own retirement, about what they can afford to save and about the pressures on public finances. They expect us to do the same at national level. Taken together, the Lords amendments would do something quite straightforward.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have, in effect, acknowledged the issue by proposing limits in lieu—caps on how far they might go—but that does not answer the underlying question. It just manages it. Because this is not about whether the number is 5% or 10%. It is about whether that power should exist at all. There is a broader point here: bigger schemes and consolidation can bring benefits, but only if they improve outcomes, not if they are driven by a single model applied from the top down and not if well-performing schemes are pushed into structures that do not suit them.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the Government believe in the strength of their growth agenda, they should make the case for it. They should create the conditions for investment, and they should not need a reserve power to lean on pension funds if that case does not land. The same concern sits at the heart of the Lords amendments to clause 40. Those amendments would strip out what is known as the “asset allocation requirement”. In plain terms, they would remove the mechanism in the Bill that would allow Ministers to set conditions on how pension schemes invest their assets as part of the approval framework. We are told those are only backstop powers that may never be used, but if that is true, why fight so hard to keep them? Why remove amendments that simply take that power off the table?”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a simple question running through what we are debating today: who is ultimately in control of people’s pension savings? When I speak to residents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, they assume that the answer is straightforward. They assume that their pension exists to deliver the best possible outcome for them, not to serve a wider policy aim and not to be steered from the centre. That is why Lords amendment 1 matters. It would do something very simple. It would remove the ability for Ministers, through regulations, to require schemes to invest in particular assets, particular sectors, or in particular places. It would set a clear boundary. It would say that those decisions sit with trustees, acting in the best interests of savers.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The situation at Zachary Merton hospital in my constituency is causing deep concern locally. Services there were closed on what residents were told was a temporary basis, but that closure has now been made permanent. The evidence behind that decision has not been clearly set out. Communities rightly expect candour when decisions are taken about the future of local healthcare provision. Does the Leader of the House agree that there is a wider issue here about transparency and accountability for NHS service decisions, and will he consider granting a debate in Government time on the future of community healthcare provision?”
House of Commons12 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking and celebrating the fantastic women of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, who do exactly what she has just described in businesses, in our local democracy, in our third sector and in shaping the futures of our girls in community groups and schools?”
House of Commons12 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Following International Women’s Day and with English Tourism Week approaching, I have been meeting female entrepreneurs across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, including Kathleen at the Navigator Hotel, who featured on “The Hotel Inspector” only last week, and many others through my business club. These businesses are vital to coastal economies, but many women say it remains difficult to scale and grow. What assessment has the Minister made of the barriers facing women entrepreneurs in sectors like tourism and hospitality?”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Businesses in my constituency have told me categorically that they are very concerned about this. Entrepreneurs who have taken all the risks to create jobs in their communities run the risk of the Fair Work Agency, which will be given these powers, coming into their businesses and riding roughshod over the work they are creating. How is that liberal and democratic?”
House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I recently launched my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton business club. Many who joined are independent hospitality and leisure businesses, and their No.1 concern is how difficult it is to take on new staff under this Government. What assessment has the Department made of the impact of the Treasury’s new jobs tax, and the Government’s new employment regulations, on job creation in coastal constituencies such as mine? What steps is the Secretary of State taking to mitigate those effects?”
House of Commons9 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 5 simply asks the Government to commit to reporting back on meeting the milestones they have set themselves for increasing cyber-security standards. Is the Minister confident in the Government’s ability to deliver on their cyber strategy, or is the document not worth the paper it is written on?”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The continued use of legacy IT equipment is a particular vulnerability across the Government estate. That will take some time to address entirely, but is there a strategy in place to prioritise the upgrading of this legacy equipment, given that it is one of the greatest areas of exposure?”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am delighted to hear the Minister’s response. Zachary Merton hospital in Rustington was closed temporarily, but that closure became permanent and the site is being progressed for disposal. More than half of residents in Rustington are elderly, and rely on intermediate and step-down care. They have not been consulted on the permanent closure, despite assurances from Sussex community NHS foundation trust and NHS Sussex integrated care board. Will the Minister confirm whether he considers that a substantial variation in NHS services? Will he consider exercising his call-in powers before the site is irreversibly sold?”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In my constituency and across West Sussex, the number of EHCPs has risen by 75% since 2019, but the funding to support them has risen by only 37%. Can the Secretary of State reassure parents that the correct funding—not just £24,000 per school—will be in place for support?”
House of Commons23 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The new clause would also require that proposals for a single cyber-incident reporting channel be published. That is not a bureaucratic exercise; it reflects concerns raised in evidence that resilience is undermined, not strengthened, when reporting becomes fragmented at moments of stress. Taken together, new clauses 6 and 7 are about making the system clearer at the front end and more usable overall. Clear definitions encourage timely reporting and coherent reporting channels make that reporting effective. I hope that the Committee will give serious consideration to both new clauses.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Bill expands reporting requirements and introduces new notification duties. That is understandable, but UK Finance told the Committee that many firms already support cyber-incidents under multiple regulatory regimes and that additional reporting layers risk duplication rather than resilience. When an incident is live, that duplication causes friction, slows the response and increases costs. It can reduce the quality of information being shared because teams are stretched across parallel processes rather than focused on managing the incident itself. We do not seek in new clause 7 to reopen the policy intent of the Bill; the new clause would require a review, once these changes are in force, of how the reporting requirements are working in practice. That review would consider costs and interactions with other reporting frameworks.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is the right direction of travel, but when organisations are under pressure, particularly in the first 24 hours of an incident, uncertainty slows action. Time is lost debating definitions rather than focusing on containment, escalation and reporting. New clause 6 addresses that problem directly. It makes it explicit that a ransomware attack is an incident for the purposes of the NIS regulations, and sets out clearly what is meant by ransomware attack. It would not create a new duty; it would remove doubt from an existing one. Clear definitions support better behaviour when organisations are operating under real pressure. New clause 7 follows naturally from that point. If we want faster and clearer reporting, the system into which organisations are reporting has to work in practice, not just on paper.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clauses 6 and 7 sit together and are linked by the same practical concern regarding clarity and workability when an incident is unfolding. I will start with new clause 6. Ransomware is no longer an occasional or unusual cyber-event; it is now one of the most common and disruptive threats facing essential services, digital providers and their supply chains. Written evidence to this Committee was clear that ransomware incidents are now routine, high-impact events, and that uncertainty at the outset of an attack often makes the consequences worse. The Bill rightly broadens the definition of an incident to capture events that are capable of causing harm, not just those that already have.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Secondly, if Parliament were to require rapid expansion of scope, how confident are the Government that regulators would have the capacity to supervise a much larger and more diverse population without diluting oversight elsewhere? I am not seeking to land a conclusion on new clause 1 today—I understand why it has been tabled and I recognise the seriousness of the issues that it highlights—but if we are going to widen scope, to food or otherwise, the Committee is entitled to press the Government on the discipline and guardrails that will sit behind those decisions. This needs to remain a targeted and credible regime, rather than one that expands without a clear and consistent logic.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Association of British Insurers, for example, supports higher standards of cyber-resilience, but it also emphasises the importance of clear definitions and coherence between regimes, particularly where firms are already subject to overlapping regulatory requirements. Its point is not about resisting regulation, but about avoiding uncertainty and duplication, which do not improve resilience. My questions are ones of principle rather than position. First, what is the settled test that the Secretary of State will apply when deciding to bring a sector into scope under the clause 24 powers, and how will that judgment be made transparent to Parliament?”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If that is the rationale for bringing food into scope early, it inevitably raises questions about other high-value sectors where a single incident can have national economic consequences. That brings us back to clause 24 and the role of the Secretary of State. The Bill is clearly designed to allow scope for provisions to evolve through secondary legislation as risks change. That flexibility is sensible, but flexibility works only if the criteria for widening scope are clear, predictable and capable of being explained to industry, regulators and Parliament. If decisions appear to be reactive or driven by the most recent or most visible incident, confidence in the regime will suffer rather than strengthen. That concern is reflected in the written evidence we have received.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am vice-Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and over the past year we have taken evidence on economic security from major UK firms that have experienced serious cyber-incidents. One example everyone here will be familiar with is Jaguar Land Rover. Evidence to our Committee indicated that the cyber-incident there contributed to UK GDP being around 0.1% lower than expected in the third quarter last year, which was not a marginal effect. That reflected disruption to tightly integrated manufacturing systems, with production lines brought to a halt and knock-on impacts across just-in-time supply chains and regional economies. I make that point to underline something simple: cyber-risk presents simultaneously as operational, financial and reputational risk, and in combination those effects can be felt economy-wide.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to use new clause 1 as a lens to view a wider question that sits underneath clause 24, rather than as a verdict on the clause itself. That question is how we decide, in a disciplined and credible way, which activities are sufficiently critical to be brought into the scope of the regime, and how that judgment is applied consistently over time. New clause 1 would bring much of the food supply chain directly into scope through primary legislation. I understand the instinct behind that. Food supply is fundamental to public confidence, and disruption would be felt very quickly. However, if the underlying test for inclusion is systemic impact, food is not the only sector that raises these questions.”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As we heard in written evidence from the ABI, clarity about roles really matters. Can the Minister confirm that the statement of strategic priorities is not intended to operate as indirect instruction, and that regulators will retain clear discretion where sector evidence points in a different direction?”
House of Commons10 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗