Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Julia Lopez

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

As my right hon. Friend is aware, local government is outside of the scope of the Bill, but it is a very juicy target—much of the public sector remains a very juicy target. In acknowledgment of that, the Government whipped out a strategy very quickly this morning that is meant to give us assurances about the public sector’s cyber-resilience. I am not sure that that strategy will provide much reassurance, which is why it is important to understand that this Bill can only be one part of a much wider arsenal to tighten gaps where they exist, in both the private and public sectors.

[Ian Murray]

It is worth clarifying for the House that we brought forward the Government cyber-security strategy this morning because the 2022 consultation undertaken by the previous Conservative Government was not acted upon. This Government are acting on those threats, bringing forward a plan that we will subsequently see through, and I think the hon. Lady should acknowledge that.

[Julia Lopez]

I welcome the strategy, but I have not yet had a chance to have a good look at it, because the Government always seem to publish these sorts of documents right at the last minute. The only way to get any information out of this Government is to apply some pressure in this House, and then, remarkably, things come flying out of the cupboard.

I will be very interested to see what the strategy looks like and whether it is up to the challenge we now face. The problems and risks of cyber have increased markedly since we were in Government because of the advent of AI technology—that technology is changing the picture very rapidly, just as the defence picture is changing very rapidly. My concern is that this Government are not taking seriously enough the various defence and security challenges that this House faces; they are prioritising spending on welfare payments, union payments and all manner of other things. It is one thing to get a strategy out of the door; it is another to put in place the measures that will implement that strategy. Basically, all we have seen over the past 18 months is strategy documents, without a great deal of delivery. That is one of the reasons why the Government are so rapidly losing public confidence.

In conclusion, we support this cyber Bill in principle—the threat is real and growing, and it demands action. However, it is only a tool, not a cure-all. A Government who are trying to close down gaps in one place while wilfully opening up huge new risks in a different corner are being negligent in their approach. Furthermore, if this legislation is to command confidence, it must be practical, proportionate and genuinely effective. Without meaningful improvements, the Bill risks placing new burdens on business while delivering only marginal gains for our national resilience. Cyber-security is a shared responsibility between Government, regulators, industry and the public, but leadership must come from the top, and that is where this Bill currently falls short.

With the private sector taking the lion’s share of the load while gaping holes remain in public sector cyber-defences, the Bill begs obvious questions about the confidence that citizens should have in flagship Government projects such as the Prime Minister’s mandatory digital identity system. As it stands, the Bill would not have prevented high-profile cyber-shutdowns such as Jaguar Land Rover’s, it does little to address the chronic vulnerabilities in the public sector, and it certainly will not make Labour’s dodgy ID database any more secure. That is why, as the Bill progresses through Parliament, we will be pressing this Government to ensure that it delivers genuine security, proper accountability and raised cyber-defences across the board, while taking them to task on major mistakes such as mandatory ID. Cyber-security is no longer a niche compliance exercise; it is about protecting the fundamental economic and defence interests of our nation.

Life Sciences Investment

Debate between Ian Murray and Julia Lopez

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology if she will make a statement on the cancellation of life sciences investment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Ian Murray)]

I start by welcoming the hon. Member to her new role. I wanted to do that yesterday, but time ran away from us during questions. I am answering this question on behalf of the Secretary of State.

As a significant life sciences company that employs more than 1,600 people and plays a leading role in delivering new treatments for diseases such as cancer, Merck—known as MSD in the UK—is a valued partner to this Government, and a key player in the life sciences ecosystem. MSD’s decision to not progress its investment in King’s Cross—a commercial decision for MSD—is therefore deeply disappointing.

King’s Cross is a shining example of the strengths of UK life sciences clusters. It is one of the biggest in Europe, employing more than 60,000 people in the area. It has had investment from major life sciences companies, including Novo Nordisk, GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca. It houses world-leading institutions, such as the Francis Crick Institute and the Wellcome Trust, as well as some of the country’s leading biomedical research centres. University College London hospital, Great Ormond Street hospital and Moorfields eye hospital are also based there.

We are proud of this industry; it has delivered great things for our country in the past, does so today and will continue to do so in the future. That is why life sciences is one of the eight priority sectors in the industrial strategy, and is backed by £2 billion of public investment to enable it to grow, lead the world and make great discoveries, such as personalised cancer vaccines and the new test for Alzheimer’s disease. MSD’s investment in the area would have enhanced the sector’s status further, and the fundamentals of the UK market are actually more advantageous today than when it made the decision to invest in this project. What has changed are the US and international fundamentals.

The UK has become the most attractive place to invest in the world, but of course, there is still a lot more for this Government to do. The academic environment in the UK continues to produce innovative ideas, and the talent to run with those ideas, which attracts foreign investment. The environment for research is outstanding; we have great academics; and the NHS provides a research platform that is second to none.

The decision is in part due to a broader effort by MSD to ensure that the company is optimising its investment and focusing its resources on its key drivers of growth. As such, it is not continuing its job discovery operations in the UK. The company has recently announced in its quarterly report that it is to cut $3 billion a year from its operating costs, resulting in a significant impact on its share price. That is compounded by an ever more challenging and uncertain global economic situation as regards trade and tariffs.

The problem with NHS medicines goes back 15 years— I wonder who was in charge over that period. Spending on NHS medicines has fallen from 15% to 9% in that time, and the last joint agreement on medicine prices by the sector and the previous Government was in 2023. We are living with the consequences of under-investment by the previous Government, who took their eye off the ball when it comes to NHS medicine investment. My right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary made a £1 billion offer to the sector in the summer. However, the Government also recognise that we need to do more to support and grow our life sciences sector. We have already started delivering on the work of investing £600 million in the health data research service alongside the Wellcome Trust, and are committing up to £520 million for life sciences innovation and manufacturing, unlocking billions of pounds. We continue to work closely with the sector to unlock growth and ensure life-changing treatments and technologies for this innovative sector.

MSD will continue to be a key investor in the UK. I welcome its continued investment in clinical trials, and its significant partnerships with our institutions, such as Our Future Health. MSD will continue to employ 1,600 people. We remain closely engaged with MSD as we take forward the life sciences sector plan and the 10-year NHS plan.

[Ian Murray]

Thank you for your advice, Mr Speaker. I am on my last sentence. We will continue to explore opportunities to partner with MSD further and build on our long-standing relationship.

[Julia Lopez]

I hope you will give me the same flexibility if I go a little over my time, Mr Speaker.

[Julia Lopez]

Last night, US pharmaceutical giant Merck cancelled the construction of a £1 billion drug research centre in the Prime Minister’s constituency. Eight hundred jobs that were going to be provided have now evaporated; 125 scientists were to be employed—no longer. The message from Merck executives was unsparing: simply put, the UK is not internationally competitive. The Government must wake up now.

If AstraZeneca’s announcement on investment was the canary in the mine for UK life sciences, last night’s announcement should be a klaxon sounding across Whitehall. Will the Minister assure us that he is arranging urgent meetings with Health, Business and Treasury Ministers today?

The facility was going to specialise in diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis. It was going to feed into the work of a cluster of life sciences bodies, such as the Francis Crick Institute. Did the Government engage with Merck before its decision? What damage will this cause to research and medicine access for our constituents who are affected by those conditions?

The Government told UK taxpayers that their devastating national insurance hike would boost the NHS, but NHS leaders admit that the money has gone on national insurance, wage deals and drug price inflation, not better services, and there is no money left for negotiations with life sciences companies. In fact, life sciences have faced a £1.6 billion tax bill and a real-terms cut to research and development. What are Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology doing to push the Health Secretary for progress on health data, advanced therapies, price negotiations and regulatory reform of the kind that will improve our life sciences offer?

For the last year, Labour has dined out on deals secured by the last Conservative Government. We were promised that a US-UK trade deal would open doors for business. Instead, American firms are cancelling projects, and our ambassador, who should have been batting for Britain, was battling for survival. Now that Lord Mandelson has slinked away—again—who is speaking to the Americans about this collapsed deal? What will the Prime Minister be doing ahead of President Trump’s state visit to help UK life sciences?

I welcome the Minister to his place, but where is the Secretary of State? In her very first week, she has overseen a £1 billion investment collapse. If she does not understand that this is the most important thing in her brief right now, and if the Government do not change course, it will not be the last deal to collapse.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for bringing the urgent question to the Chamber, as this is an incredibly important issue. Let me answer some of the questions—I think there were some questions in there.

The shadow Secretary of State asked what message America has given to the Government, but the message was from Merck in its quarterly report just a few months ago, when it had to cut $3 billion a year from its operations. That is a significant amount of money, and the company’s share price reflected the significance of that announcement. There is no doubt that MSD makes the world’s most profitable and popular cancer drug, which goes out of patent in 2028. It said in the quarterly report that that is causing some pressure with its share- holders. The US trade deal, which the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, said that we would use best endeavours to improve the conditions for US pharmaceutical companies in the UK, and the tariff for pharmaceutical companies to the US remains at 0%. The EU has a 15% blanket tariff.

In terms of NHS medicines, it is a common theme that shadow Secretaries of State come to this Chamber and bemoan the state of the economy and what has happened in the NHS. Waiting lists are falling from the record levels they were at. Satisfaction with the NHS when we left government in 2010 was at its highest level ever. It is now at its lowest—