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

Alison Griffiths Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank the hon. Member for those two thoughtful points. On the first, in terms of retrospective regulatory action on the adequacy of notification, I expect that the regulators will set out—in their guidance and by working closely with the entities in scope—their expectations about the nature and timeliness of the notification. That will be one input into a regulator’s broader assessment of entities’ compliance with the regime. I expect that timely notification will be assessed on an ongoing basis by the regulator, but I would not expect it to be an exclusive or primary aspect.

On the question of customer notifications being proportionate, I share the hon. Member’s concern about ensuring that it is timely and efficient and at the same time meaningful for the relevant customers. I hope that exactly those principles are embodied in the guidance that regulators share about notification requirements.

Customers being notified is all the more important given that in many cases, those customers will themselves be operators of essential services and other critical national infrastructure. The Bill therefore places new transparency requirements on managed service providers, relevant digital service providers and operators of data centres. Similar requirements were introduced under the NIS2 regulations in the European Union.

Clause 16 requires those regulated entities to take steps to establish which of their customers, if any, are likely to be adversely affected by a reported incident. It then sets out the information that the entity must share with those identified customers. These new requirements will support the overall resilience of the UK’s essential services and economy, which depend so heavily on these services, and reduce the overall impact of disruptive cyber-attacks.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

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. 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. 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. 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.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and it is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. I will speak to clauses 15 and 16 and to new clauses 6 and 7, tabled in my name on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

The previous Government stated in their consultation covering the subject of cyber-incident reporting that security breaches that did not result in a successful attack could still leave organisations open to follow-up attacks. It was identified that reporting how the breach took place would also allow regulators and other organisations to prepare for similar attacks in the future. It is therefore a welcome development that clause 15 significantly increases the scope and speed of cyber-incident reporting by regulated entities to competent authorities and the NCSC.

That increase in scope is achieved by broadening the definition of reportable incidents from the current position, where only cyber-attacks having an actual adverse effect are reportable, to a position to where cyber-incidents that are capable of having an adverse effect on the operation or security of network and information systems must also be reported. The Government’s explanatory notes for the Bill state that this change in definition

“is designed to include incidents that have compromised the integrity or security of a system without causing significant disruption yet, but that could have potential significant impacts in the future.”

This has been broadly welcomed by industry stakeholders as a measure that should provide regulators with greater intelligence about emerging threats, leading to improved risk management and hardened resilience in their sectors.

On the importance of intelligence gathering, we heard evidence from David Cook of DLA Piper and Chung Ching Kwong of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, among others, about the increasing use of prepositioning and “live off the land” technologies deployed by malicious actors. Once systems are infiltrated, attackers remain in systems, sometimes harvesting data, waiting for the moment when they can cause maximum harm and disruption. Those serious risks should be flagged to regulators wherever they are identified.

Dr Sanjana Mehta of ISC2 described problems of underreporting in relation to the existing NIS regulations regime, and welcomed the principle of expanding reporting, as did Jill Broom of techUK. However, both cautioned that while some high-level factors have been provided as to the criteria indicating whether an attack should be reported, such as the number of users, impact, duration of interruption and geographical reach, what is not clear at present are the thresholds that are linked to those criteria. Those details are vital if reporting is to be successful in ensuring that regulators are kept appraised of the most serious threats.

Dr Mehta summarised that concern succinctly in her comment:

“In the absence of those thresholds, our concern is that regulated entities may be tempted to over-report rather than under-report, thereby creating more demand on the efforts of the regulators”. ––[Official Report, Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Public Bill Committee, 3 February 2026; c. 16, Q14.]

Likewise, techUK has stated in its written briefings on the Bill that

“technically any phishing email is ‘capable of’ having a significant impact if the organisation lacks adequate detection or response capabilities. This will lead to over-reporting of low-level incidents and potentially overwhelm regulators, thereby distracting attention from genuinely significant threats.”

As in many aspects of the Bill, the problem is not on the principle but in the detail. We heard in oral evidence about the concerns of industry and regulators regarding the availability of suitably qualified personnel to build capacity for effective regulatory oversight. We must be alive to that important consideration in ensuring that thresholds are proportionate and risk-based.

The Government have stated in their factsheets on the Bill that they intend

“to introduce thresholds through secondary legislation before this measure is brought into in force”

and after a period of consultation. They have also said that those thresholds will

“clarify the points at which we would consider the impact of an incident to be ‘significant’, and therefore reportable to regulators”.

What discussions has the Minister had to date with regulated entities and regulators about the approach to consultation on these thresholds? What is the feedback on what those organisations consider to be reporting priorities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kanishka Narayan]

Clause 24 defines key terms for this part of the Bill, and in doing so introduces two delegated powers. Those powers enable the Government to bring new sectors into the scope of the NIS regime and to designate regulators to oversee them. The power will be used only in relation to activities that are truly essential to our society and economy—in other words, where disruption could pose risks to life or the economic stability of the UK.

The powers are essential in the rapidly changing world we occupy. As we have seen with data centres and managed service providers, our society and economy can quickly become reliant on new services that are acutely vulnerable to cyber-attacks and system outages. Our legislation must be able to keep up with those changes and protect the services that matter most to our country.

[Alison Griffiths]

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. 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. 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. 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? 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.