Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath

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.

Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I also welcome the Minister to the Front Bench. I know that the first OQ is one of the most alarming experiences this House has to offer, but I am sure she will be brilliant and I look forward to hearing it.

On these Benches, we are pleased to support this instrument. As has been outlined, it is a technical measure that updates the wholesale mobile roaming charge caps applying between the United Kingdom, Norway and Iceland, in accordance with the review mechanism established under the UK-EEA EFTA free trade agreement. These arrangements originated in the agreement secured by the previous Government following our departure from the European Union. The agreement provided an important framework to facilitate surcharge-free roaming, while ensuring that wholesale charges between operators remain proportionate and subject to regular review. These regulations do not alter that policy; they simply give effect to revised wholesale caps, following the Joint Committee’s conclusion that the previous figures had diverged from international benchmarks. Indeed, the revised limits represent a reduction in the permitted wholesale charges for voice calls, text messages and, most significantly, mobile data.

It is reassuring that the Government do not anticipate any significant impact on businesses or consumers. As the Explanatory Memorandum notes, wholesale rates are already expected to be below the revised caps in most circumstances, meaning that these regulations are principally about ensuring that domestic legislation remains aligned with our international obligations.

I have one brief question for the Minister. While these regulations concern wholesale rather than retail charges, will the Government continue to monitor whether the benefits of these international agreements are being reflected in the experience of UK consumers travelling abroad? I thank her for her account of these surcharges in some circumstances by some operators, especially as future reviews of the roaming provisions are undertaken. This represents a sensible administrative update and demonstrates the importance of keeping our domestic legislation aligned with agreements negotiated in the national interest. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support across the Committee for the draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. I particularly offer my gratitude and thanks to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. I appreciate their comments. I do not think it has made me feel any more secure about next week, but I will hold on to those comments.

I appreciate that this is a somewhat technical amendment, but it is necessary to meet the international obligations we have made with our friends and neighbours —Norway and Iceland—although I take the point from my noble friend about our friendship in Norway following whatever the result is on Saturday. I further appreciate that surcharge-free roaming has not been delivered for all UK travellers to Norway and Iceland. However, keeping the free trade agreement’s wholesale rates up to date with this instrument is a necessary, though insufficient, step for allowing future developments to ensure surcharge-free roaming for UK travellers.

On the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the reduction of wholesale prices is welcome. He asked about benchmarking; why there is no equivalent with the EU; about the practical effect, which may be limited with Norway and Iceland; and whether any change will be felt by customers. I remind the noble Lord that this is entirely about wholesale; it is not about retail prices at all. I stress that the Government are continuing to review options for delivering surcharge-free roaming in line with the aspirations of the free trade agreement.

On the options around benefits for UK travellers, which I think the noble Lord was driving at, the Government are continuing to review options for delivering surcharge-free roaming. I can only repeat that. Also, surcharge-free roaming has not yet been ensured for all UK travellers to Norway and Iceland.

In answer to the question of whether the Government are reviewing the delivery of surcharge-free roaming to consumers travelling to Norway and Iceland, yes, that review is planned. Sorry to hop around, but Regulation 13 has not yet been fully examined but it remains under review.

I remind noble Lords that this is strictly about amending the wholesale rates contained in the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations and it has nothing directly to do with consumers, because it does not concern retail prices. It is primarily concerned with fulfilling the commitments that the UK has made under international treaty. I beg to move.