Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Debate between Chris Vince and Jim McMahon

Report stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank all my hon. Friends and all hon. Members who have contributed to what has been a really good and well-meaning debate. People will be relieved to know that I intend to keep my contribution fairly brief. I say to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that I do not pretend to be an expert when it comes to cyber-security and resilience, although other Members across the House would say that that has never stopped me talking before.

It was a pleasure to be on the Bill Committee for this legislation; in part, I think that was because of the very constructive nature of conversations in Committee. As the shadow Minister in particular will know, I sat very passively throughout Committee and said very little, which is common for me. This is a really important piece of legislation. As Members across the House have rightly said, it is the first duty of any Government to protect their citizens. There are obviously huge benefits as we move forward into a more technologically advanced world, but there are also real challenges, and as a country we need to be ready for them.

It was also a pleasure in Committee to have the opportunity to mention my father-in-law, Professor Robin Bloomfield—not least because I need all the brownie points that I can get—who is a professor of cyber-security at City St George’s, University of London. Let me also reference the fact that I have a data centre in my constituency, the Kao data centre; it is named after Charlie Kao, who, along with George Hockham, created the fibre-optic cable in Harlow. It is fair to say that I have some skin in the game in terms of the importance of this legislation.

When I looked through the list of amendments, the first thing I thought was, “The Liberal Democrats have been busying themselves.” I say genuinely to them that I welcome conversations about the need to protect local government and electoral services. Although I do not think that necessarily has to be covered in this legislation, I hope the Minister has listened to the comments made by the Liberal Democrats. We can absolutely come back to that conversation in this House, because it is hugely important that our democratic services in particular are not eroded by bad state actors, as has been discussed previously.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

On local government, there are clearly hundreds of local authorities, many of which are busy upgrading their systems. However, one thing that is not spoken about enough is the human capacity to actually do the work. Many local authorities, like Government themselves, find a real difficulty in recruiting the talent that they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that central Government could provide a greater role and act almost as a centre of excellence for cyber-security for local government?

[Chris Vince]

As a former councillor in a district council bordering London, I know the particular challenges we had in recruiting really decent council officers. I should put it on record that we have had some fantastic officers in Harlow district council, but it was always more difficult to recruit them, because they were drawn particularly to London. I recognise the challenges that he highlights, and I obviously want more support to be given to those professionals to understand cyber-security risks. My father-in-law is very much retired, so I am not giving him a job, but I am sure he would be very keen to see that as well.

My hon. Friend’s intervention brings me nicely on to my next point. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) spoke very well and with a great deal of expertise on this topic. He referenced something that I referenced in Committee, which was that even if we think this legislation is perfect, it will not be enough. We need a culture shift when it comes to cyber-security, so I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and ask the Minister to reflect on them when he concludes the debate.

I did say that I would not give a very long speech, but I have been on my feet longer than I thought I would be, which is typical of me. I will finish by saying that over 11,000 NHS appointments and procedures were lost last year due to cyber-attacks. For too long, successive Governments have failed to properly address the growing threats from cyber criminals and hostile states. I am pleased that this Government are addressing those threats by giving regulators new powers to designate which suppliers are critical in the supply chain, and by investing £210 million to tackle threats and strengthen public services. For that reason, I strongly support the Bill.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill)

Debate between Chris Vince and Jim McMahon

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

The Bill provides a cash saving for exactly the types of business that the right hon. Member talks about. We all understand the importance of pubs to our towns, villages and estates, not just as businesses in the economy but as places for the community to convene, to meet and to build relationships and networks. That is exactly why the measures are being brought in, and in a permanent way, because pubs needs certainty. They know the rising costs of supplies, carbon dioxide and energy have put significant pressure on pub operations, and these measures provide long-term stability that bakes in the support the Government can offer into the system.

Many pubs will be free houses and they will be independent. However, a number of pubs will be part of a brewery chain with managers in place. The measures take away the cash cap of £110,000 per business, allowing, for the first time, multiple operators to benefit. That will benefit pub chains, as well as high street stores, such as Home Bargains, Boots and other retailers. Those businesses draw in footfall, which then supports independent retailers as well. The proposals are rounded and provide long-term stability that is properly funded in a responsible way. On that basis, the Government oppose the Lords amendments as laid out.

Lord’s amendments 3, 4, 9 and 10 are concerned with bringing manufacturing properties into scope of the lower multiplier. If we widen the scope of the lower multipliers in that way, it will dilute the support available to RHL properties or jeopardise the ability of the Government to sustainably fund the lower multipliers. We need to be clear that this is not a wide-ranging offer, but targeted deliberately at supporting our communities, high streets and town centres. That is why the Bill focuses on RHL support. The Government are supporting the manufacturing sector through other means. For those reasons, I urge the House to oppose the amendments.

Lord’s amendments 13 and 16 require the Government to undertake a review of how the provisions to introduce new multipliers may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to the £500,000 threshold for the higher multiplier. The review would need to be put before Parliament three months prior to 1 April 2026 in order for clauses 1 to 4 of this Bill to come into effect. These amendments probe around the way the multipliers in the business rates system currently operate. Those hereditaments on the standard multiplier, or in the future on the higher multipliers, pay rates on that multiplier calculated on all of their rateable value, and not just the rateable value above the threshold. That, of course, generates cliff edges in the rates bills for hereditaments as they move between thresholds, and we acknowledge the presence of those cliff edges—it is a matter of fact.

At the autumn Budget, the Treasury launched a discussion with business on the “Transforming Business Rates” paper. This specifically highlights these cliff edges in the system and considers whether they may act as a disincentive to expand, so I can assure the House that we are already looking at the precise issue identified in the amendment. Reforms are being taken forward through the transforming business rates work and will be phased in over the course of the Parliament. Therefore, we believe Lords amendments 13 and 16 are unnecessary.

Lords amendment 14 would require the Government to commence a review that examines the merits of creating, within three months of Royal Assent, a separate use class and associated multiplier within the non-domestic ratings for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses in England that do not have a material presence on high streets. The noble Lord Thurlow, who put forward the amendment, made it clear that this use class would apply only to business rates. As he explained in the other place, the key task is to identify those warehouses, as distinct from warehouses used by, say, high street retailers—warehouses that may otherwise look the same.

The Lords amendment would bring together the Government and professional bodies working on business rates to identify those warehouses. We are already exploring that objective through an existing project. The digitalising business rates project will allow us to match property-level data with business-level data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to improve the way in which we target business rates, and to identify property and businesses in the way that the Lords amendment envisages.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I did not intend to intervene, but I was looking through the amendments, and I see that a lot of them focus on exemptions from the business rates. Does the Minister agree that the way to look at supporting businesses in, for example, the manufacturing industry is through other means, not through changing the business rates?

Local Government Reorganisation

Debate between Chris Vince and Jim McMahon

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I feel that we have gone a long way to doing that, although we do accept that this is a bridging position to get us to the multi-year settlement. None the less, £3.7 billion of new money for adult social care in the settlement is a commitment laid out in pounds and pence in the way that local government has been asking for. We accept that there is a long way to go, and that councils need more support, but the Government are absolutely committed to rebuilding the foundations of local government and putting it on an even keel.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Many of us across the House will have campaigned in district elections, as I have in Harlow. The No.1 thing that comes up on the doorstep in district elections is potholes, even though they are not the responsibility of district councils. Does the Minister agree that this English devolution Bill will not just simplify local government but be more cost-effective and bring more value back to the taxpayer?

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend makes a very good case for reorganisation, and I agree with him.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Debate between Chris Vince and Jim McMahon

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

There is a legitimate question to ask the previous Government about why on earth some councils were allowed to borrow disproportionately to their revenue. In the end, some councils have found themselves on the wrong side of that. When we were designing the recovery grant, that was about deprivation and low tax bases, and dealing with the quantum was about directing money to particular services, but I will be honest: there will always be councils—Croydon will be one of them—which, because of their unique situations, are just outside that general allocation. We are ready to have one-to-one support conversations where needed.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, let me wish you a lovely Christmas break. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Don’t put me off. I welcome the Minister’s statement. As someone who worked for a homeless charity in Harlow, I welcome the additional at least £1.2 million of funding to support homelessness and rough sleeping in Harlow as well as the additional £1.6 million of funding to neighbouring districts, which partly overlap between me and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson). That is coupled with multi-year funding for councils, for which I achieved cross-party support in the Harlow district council chamber. Does the Minister agree that that shows a clear desire by the Government to support the most vulnerable people in my constituency, but that that must come with joined-up thinking on the planned 1.5 million new homes and investment in our NHS?

[Jim McMahon]

That was a cute way to get a long question in—merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the work that he does to represent the people of Harlow as well as the local authority. We stand ready to work on those long-term funding settlement issues to ensure that we genuinely rebuild the foundations.