Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for opening the final day of Committee. For a Bill of such importance, I am surprised at the speed of our progress. However, if quantity has been low, quality has more than compensated.

I agree with the noble Lord that this Committee deserves rather more justification from the Government as to the need for the powers they are granting themselves. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee described the Clause 37(7) power as “unusual” and “novel”, capable of watering down requirements for consultation as it is not constrained by set criteria. The Government’s justification thus far for this power is that it allows them to

“prioritise the content of the code of practice, rather than arbitrary requirements”.

It sounds to me rather as if the Government’s position is that they see any set requirements for consultations and codes of practice as arbitrary. If that is the case—I would appreciate clarification from the Minister—I have to agree with the committee’s description that the position is “quite extraordinary”.

By the way, I noted this morning that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has demanded an end to the culture of consultation. I fear that that will be quite a wrench for the former DSIT and its functions, it having launched four new consultations on a single day in July without having responded to the more than 11,000 responses to the AI and copyright consultation. We are already unclear about the machinery of government for that former department. Can the Minister tell us whether its existing and planned consultations will continue or whether today’s announcement represents a fundamental change of approach?

It is not clear why the power conferred by Clause 40(5) has to be sufficiently broad to allow the Government to water down the contents of reports on network and information systems. Could it not be amended, as the committee has recommended, so that the power cannot be used to reduce the requirements to report? It is not unreasonable to question whether the Government really need these extensive powers. Your Lordships’ Committee deserves at least more justification than the Government describing set criteria as arbitrary. I appreciate the need for flexible and adaptive approaches to legislating for fast-moving technologies, but that must come with accountability and I am not sure that we have the balance right at this point. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his Amendments 92C and 95C, and note that these amendments were recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report of 17 July. Some noble Lords may be aware that, until very recently, I was the chair of that committee. I am wondering how best to describe myself: am I gamekeeper turned poacher or poacher turned gamekeeper? I had better let noble Lords decide at the end of my responses.

These delegated powers were included to prevent a scenario where procedure takes priority over the best possible products, whether that be a code of practice or a report on the legislation. The delegated powers will not allow Ministers to bypass Parliament. They are about ensuring that government can respond quickly and effectively to new threats and new technologies that could undermine our national security. The law has always been slower than innovation, and it is unlikely to catch up unless we change our approach. Ministers must provide clear justification and carry out assessments before regulations are laid before Parliament.

On the code of practice, we anticipate that any code will be updated from time to time to remain effective, in line with the latest recommended good practice, evolving threat information and emerging technologies. Any revisions and reissues of a code of practice must first be consulted on with relevant stakeholders before they are effective.

On consultations, it might be above my pay grade to comment so soon after the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has commented, but I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will have a further response to that at some point, possibly in writing.

I assure noble Lords that the Government are carefully considering the committee’s recommendations and the views of noble Lords today, and will reflect accordingly ahead of Report. My noble friend the Minister will respond formally to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the usual manner ahead of Report.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response, which was the reverse of the usual ministerial response—the sting was not in the tail but at the beginning. The end was much more conciliatory, given that she said the Government will consider taking on board the DPRRC’s recommendations before Report. I very much hope they do. At this stage in Committee, of course, nothing gets decided, but I assure the Minister that, if this continues, and the Government do not respond in some shape or form to both those pretty solid recommendations from the committee, we will bring this back on Report.

When I say that the sting was in the beginning of the response, I mean that it was a bit surprising, given that the Minister has been the chair of the committee and knows the seriousness with which we all take its recommendations. A huge amount of work goes into the detail, and she knows how much store we place on the recommendations. I hope that she will use all her influence to make sure that the Government introduce before Report something along the lines of what I have produced. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 92C.

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd September 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their amendments. Obviously, we miss the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who spoke to me this morning to emphasise his regret at not being able to be here. I think many noble Lords know the important reason why he cannot be, which he was keen to stress.

I thank all the noble Lords who spoke on this important amendment, which seeks to restrict overseas information sharing where there could be a risk to an individual’s right to a fair trial. I am sympathetic to noble Lords’ concerns. We must be rigorous in protecting fundamental liberties and the rule of law, both nationally and internationally. I understand that DCMS officials—there is a double D in DCMS; the first D is silent, so I hope that noble Lords been advised accordingly—have been working with teams across government to consider these concerns carefully. From this, I am confident that the risks identified by noble Lords are very low.

The information-sharing powers are discretionary. Regulators are under no obligation to share information overseas under the Bill. We work closely with all regulators and know that they are extremely cautious, sharing information internationally only when it is necessary to do so and after considering whether disclosing that information is in line with their public duties, including those under the Human Rights Act. I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Markham, my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who all have their particular areas of interest and expertise. I will turn to a couple of those points in a minute.

In addition, the Bill adds further explicit safeguards that information must be disclosed only if it is relevant and proportionate. This requires regulators to exercise judgment and limit information only to that which is necessary for the purposes of the sharing. Requiring the Secretary of State to convene panels of experts in order to judge every instance of information sharing internationally would add a significant layer of bureaucracy. Given the very low risk and the safeguards already in place, that would be disproportionate and would slow or even halt legitimate essential international regulatory co-operation.

International collaboration has long been central to the NIS framework, with information-sharing essential to ensuring that tackling cyber threats is a global effort. The Bill ensures that our regime reflects the UK’s post-Brexit position by enabling effective co-operation with trusted international partners including close allies such as the US and Australia.

On the Hong Kong point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, there is no uncertainty regarding UK-Hong Kong extradition. The UK suspended the treaty in 2020 and passed legislation to reflect the suspension in UK domestic law in 2025, completing the severing of ties between the Hong Kong and UK extradition systems. I hope that that addresses that point.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. My understanding was that, although the treaty had been suspended, there could be consideration on a case-by-case, ad hoc basis. Is that wrong? Is there a complete ban on extradition or, notwithstanding the suspension of the treaty, could there still be a case-by-case, ad hoc extradition?

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I will write to her on the case-by-case point.

Finally, I know that my noble friend the Minister will be very happy to meet noble Lords again to discuss this further, as she has done quite recently with the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response and noble Lords for their involvement. As suspected, the Committee is completely united in what we are trying to achieve, and I am pleased to hear that the Minister is sympathetic. I think we all agree that the devil will be in the detail. That is why I am grateful for the offer of a meeting, which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and many of us here will be delighted to take up.

I have a couple of concerns, and we will cover these in the meeting. As the Minister mentioned, there is no obligation for regulators. The question is: why leave it to their discretion? The Minister later said that there was concern about it being overburdensome on the Secretary of State’s officials to have to determine these cases. If it is too much of a burden for a group of experts, surely it is even less likely that regulators in all sorts of different fields are going to try to apply that same knowledge.

The concern about all of this is that, while the intentions are good, unless there are firm constraints in the Bill, it will just be something which, through no malcontent or wrong reason, is overlooked. That is why we feel it is very important that we have something in the Bill to add teeth to this. That is something that we would be delighted to explore further in meetings and on Report but at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.