Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Matt Western Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

The point being made through those specific cases is made for a wider set of cases through amendment 3. I wish the Government would accept the amendment rather than our having to put it to a vote, but I think it is necessary for us to do so in order to make this point. Too often we co-operate, rather lazily at times, with Administrations in foreign countries that we know will never give a fair trial to a British citizen sitting in their courts—in fact, they do not have a fair trial for many of their own citizens. For example, the UAE has been brutal in its behaviour, fomenting violence and war in Sudan, but it gets away with it simply because it happens to be wealthy enough and we want its investment. But we should never turn our head away from the single greatest thing we have given to the world, and which we should constantly recognise that we should maintain for the rest of the world: habeas corpus—the right to a proper and fair trial. It is an inalienable right of every individual who is a British citizen, and we should defend that right. To defend that right, we should not give cause to those courts that will not give a fair trial by giving them information, support or help at any time. That is the amendment I have tabled and, if called, I will move it.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I concur with the points he made on Jimmy Lai and Jagtar Singh Johal and, more widely, about the internet of things. I think of Norway and Denmark, which suddenly realised that hundreds of buses they had imported from China had kill switches, meaning that their entire public transport networks could potentially have been disabled, just like that. That is the reality of these new technologies, and we need to face up to it and have our eyes wide open in the contracts and deals that we sign.

On Second Reading five months ago, I welcomed the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, but even in the short time since then, the world has become an ever more dangerous place, and the cyber-threat has only intensified. I commend the Government on their hard work in the intervening period, and in my remarks today I want to focus on the cyber-threat landscape, my two amendments—new clause 21 and amendment 28—and the need for a national conversation on national security, which of course includes cyber-security.

Let me start with the cyber-threat landscape. The UK is the most cyber-attacked nation in Europe and the third most cyber-attacked nation globally, with three in four businesses having suffered a cyber-attack in the past year. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) talked about the attacks on Jaguar Land Rover, Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and others. Having spoken with those businesses with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and individually, I know of the scale of the impact that was felt within their operation and how affected they were by these attacks. It is unimaginable, even for the most seasoned business and industry leaders, to suddenly find themselves under such attack, and the repercussions for the economy have been very significant.

In April, the CEO of the National Cyber Security Centre, Richard Horne, laid out the scale of cyber-attacks: on average, the NCSC deals with around four nationally significant incidents a week—that is not the hundreds of incidents that are occurring every day, but the really serious, significant ones. The threat of cyber-attacks will only intensify. Continued state-backed cyber-attacks from Russia, China and Iran, either directly or via proxies, are being fuelled by technological advancements in AI and quantum computing, increasing the complexity and sheer volume of such attacks. The reality is that major cyber-attacks are no longer rare one-offs but an operational reality facing every business and organisation—public and private—across the UK, as they are globally. It is important that we secure our systems to make them more robust and deter such attacks, so that those who wish to do us harm will go after others. It is in this context that the Bill has been introduced, and it takes serious, robust steps to increase the resilience of the UK.

However, given the escalating threat picture, I continue to have concerns about the scope and breadth of the Bill. That is why I have tabled new clause 21 and amendment 28, which I hope the Minister will reconsider. New clause 21 would bring those in the food supply chain within the scope of the NIS regulations and regulate them as “operators of essential services”, while excluding smaller businesses, to avoid an unnecessary administrative burden. I understand that the Minister addressed this on Second Reading, explaining that essential services would only include those sectors

“the failure of whose network and information systems poses imminent threat to life to the British public.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 225.]

I would gently suggest that the collapse or disruption of the food supply chain would pose an imminent threat to life. I say that in an honest and not patronising way. Those of us who have had conversations behind the scenes about what happened during the pandemic, and Opposition Members who were far closer to that when in government, will realise that the health threat was one element, but the collapse of society—not just the economy, but society—with the potential for civil unrest and rioting, due to the lack of food and toilet rolls on shelves and so on, would have been the most urgent and pressing issue. It is worth noting that the European Union’s NIS2 directive does include food distribution in its regulation, so it is feasible and recognised internationally as important. The Bill does grant the Secretary of State powers to bring in new sectors. Could the Minister reassure me that the Department will give this due consideration today and in the future?

Secondly, amendment 28 would ensure that relevant managed service providers do not provide services to manage the technology systems for a number of customers that exceeds a critical risk threshold within the same sector or subsector. The rationale behind this is simple: it is about building resilience and ensuring that if one RMSP fails or is breached, a whole sector is not hamstrung by it. I can envision a situation whereby one particular RMSP dominates a large category or small subsector that may be a crucial part of a supply chain, thereby crippling the whole chain. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West cited the UK Government’s dependency on AWS and Microsoft as an example. Will the Minister please consider that?

Aside from my two amendments, it is clear that the Bill, in itself, is not the only answer to our cyber-resilience; multiple approaches are needed. Given that the Bill does not include large swathes of the economy or local government, it is even more important that we explain to businesses and the public the very real threats that we face. That brings me to my final point, which is on the need for a national conversation on national security. We can have the best crafted and tightest legislation and regulation, but unless we have a real cultural shift and acknowledgment of the cyber-threat and its impacts, from board level to entry-level positions, all of this will be wasted. I once again encourage the Department and the whole machinery of government to go further and faster in explaining the threat posed and the steps we can all take to boost resilience, because resilience starts with the mobile phone in our pocket, and cyber-security is only as strong as its weakest link.

The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, has begun its inquiry into building national resilience through a national conversation. It is clear from the evidence we have heard from Taiwan, the Netherlands and other European nations I have spoken to that we need to explain the threat to people, build a stronger cultural sense of resilience and explain that we all have a role to play; it is not simply the state’s responsibility. I will update the House on our findings in due course, and I hope the Minister and the Government will find that useful when considering their plans for national resilience.

To conclude, this Bill is a substantial and serious step forward in protecting the UK from cyber-attacks. It makes us more resilient and strengthens our collective security, but there are areas where I encourage the Government to be more ambitious—namely, by bringing the food supply chain into the essential services classification, as Europe is doing; setting critical risk thresholds for RMSPs; and expanding the scope of the Bill to encompass more of the economy.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow such esteemed colleagues. My only declaration before I start my speech is that I hold a degree in information systems from the University of Leeds.

I have been sat here for the last two hours looking at the memorial plaque for Jo Cox, 10 years after the horrific day that we lost Jo. I was a West Yorkshire candidate alongside Jo in the run-up to the 2015 election. It is to my huge detriment that I never got to serve with her here. Today is such a difficult day for so many colleagues. I know that Jo would have dearly liked to see many of the things that Labour is doing in government. It is incumbent on us to try to push forward all the things that Jo strived for, to make this place better, to make the country better and to make the world better.

Let me now turn to cyber-security. Data centres are warehouse-like facilities that house the information technology equipment upon which almost all digital activity relies. The UK Government say that they

“underpin almost all economic activity and innovation, including the development of AI and other technology, public service delivery”

and modern-day communications. Europe’s largest data centre market is Greater London, where most of the UK data centres are concentrated. There are four types of data centre, one being AI data centres, which are facilities specialised for the high-performance computing needs of AI development and AI models. Having data centres based in the UK allows our Government to regulate them, such as by requiring them to meet cyber-security standards and reduce their environmental impact, which is obviously very important.

Data centres are an essential part of our critical national infrastructure. They have a huge environmental impact so must be managed carefully, but the benefits of having them on our home turf is that we can regulate them. In our current state of hybrid war with Russia, it is vital to protect those data centres from any nefarious actors or cyber-warfare, and to strengthen their protections against cyber-attacks spawned by AI. Otherwise, the impact on public safety, the economy and society could be catastrophic.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

I start by echoing the thoughts of many Members from across the House, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). I did not know Jo Cox, but I admired her deeply. As we talk about our country’s resilience, her central message—that there is no deeper route to resilience than through the unity of our country and community—is top of our minds for all of us in this House.

It is a pleasure to bring this important Bill back to the House this afternoon. The Bill will increase our cyber-defences and resilience, making the UK an even safer place to live and do business. I thank Members on both sides of the Chamber for their valuable contributions to this debate and for the expertise that they have brought throughout the passage of the Bill. I particularly thank them for their recognition of my core belief: that the central question for our national security and resilience is the question of our technological and AI capabilities.

We tested the Bill’s measures carefully before introduction, but we have since listened to feedback. There are a small number of minor, technical drafting improvements, which I will briefly go through. Government amendments 16 and 17 ensure that regulators can ask for the information they need to fulfil their obligations under the NIS regulations. This does not give regulators any new powers; it simply confirms that the current reasons for requesting information under the NIS regulations will still apply under the updated regulations.

Government amendments 7 and 8 make changes to align with two information-gathering Government amendments made in Committee—amendments 16 and 17. Government amendment 11 makes consequential changes following an amendment made in Committee. That amendment enables information sharing between NIS regulators and other public authorities for cyber-matters outside the scope of the NIS regulations.

Government amendments 14 and 15 clarify the safeguards for information sharing gateways, and amendments 9, 10, 12 and 13 make the necessary changes to ensure that the rest of the clause is consistent with the change made by amendment 14. Government amendments 18 to 26, to clause 57, allow regulators and the Secretary of State to issue notices related to the powers of direction to nominated representatives of regulated entities. I have also tabled Government amendment 27, which corrects minor drafting errors to ensure the Bill works as intended.

Members raised a series of questions, and I will address them thematically. First, the question of scope was raised by new clauses 4, 20, 21, 5, 8 and 9. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, who brings consistent expertise and experience to these questions; the Chair of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western); and the hon. Members for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), who tabled amendments on the services and scope of the Bill.

All organisations, from high street shops to manufacturing giants, should take steps to increase their cyber-security and resilience. The Government and the National Cyber Security Centre are making sure that the right tools are available for every part of the economy. I am sympathetic to their intent, and in particular with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) when he talks about the impact of cyber-security incidents on local communities.

The Government have committed to reviewing whether new activities need to be brought into the scope of the NIS regulations, but it is essential that any such decision is based on a systematic and specific assessment of carefully considering whether the regulation in these particular parts of statute are the most appropriate response. The NIS regime has been put in place to protect the most essential parts of our economy, often those whose disruption would cause an imminent threat to life. It is focused on a specific set of tests where sectors have little or no alternative service provision in the event of disruption and relates the latest systematic evidence of the threats that each sector faces.

In that context, all Government Departments with sectoral responsibility work with their sectors on broader cyber-resilience. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does so with food, and the Department for Business and Trade does so with retail, automotive and so on. The NCSC also has strong relationships across sectors, actively working with them to share best practice and incident insights, and to strengthen overall resilience, such as by engaging with the British Retail Consortium following incidents affecting the sector last year.

The food sector is unique among other critical sectors because of its high levels of diversity. In the analysis underpinning the judgments made in the Bill, there are approximately 20,000 SME food manufacturers in the UK alone, and many more farms, distribution centres, retailers and other types of businesses that form the UK’s food supply chain. Given the lack of a single point of failure, we think there are more proportionate levers to pull, rather than bringing food in scope of the NIS regime. We have made similar judgments about other sectors on the basis of that systematic analysis, as I have shared in Committee and at other stages of the Bill’s consideration.

[Matt Western]

I accept the point about the plethora of businesses in the food supply sector, but my amendment simply seeks commonality with what the European Union has pushed for. Why can it not be the right thing for the UK Government to do as well?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I am happy to the write to the Chair of the Select Committee about comparisons with the EU, but the broad thrust is that we have undertaken a specific analysis of whether the burdens of the Bill should apply in a systematic, proportionate and coherent way to sectors. The analysis suggests that food supply is not in scope for the reasons I mentioned—primarily diversity of supply—but I would be delighted to engage with him on the question of why Europe took a different decision. We have based our decision on our analysis here.

Automation: Economic Benefits

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of automation for the economy.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I do not want to sound too dramatic, but hon. Members should know that this is an historic debate: it is the first time, to my knowledge, that automation specifically has been debated in Westminster Hall, and perhaps even in Parliament. This will also perhaps be the first speech in rather a long time about business and innovation not to focus solely on AI, which I am sure is a relief to us all.

I am going to argue that automation is not a threat to the UK economy; it is one of the greatest untapped opportunities that we have. From boosting productivity to creating high-quality and high-skilled jobs, automation can power our growth, competitiveness and resilience, but for reasons that I will touch on, and which I would be grateful for colleagues’ views on, the UK is, unlike in so many other areas, sadly not yet a world leader. Before I get too far into my speech, let me define automation as the action or process of introducing automatic equipment or devices into a manufacturing or other process or facility. It is not just about robotic arms.

There are a few problems relating to automation. One of them, at the most basic level, is that automation—robotics—conjures up deep-set primordial fears in many people. It is the fear of the march of the robots, of Terminator, and perhaps at a less hyperbolic level, of machines taking our jobs, particularly in manufacturing. Perhaps even in this place we fear automatons taking over our roles as Members of Parliament. I will argue strongly against such fear regarding automation.

I want to dispel the myth about robots stealing jobs. It simply does not stack up. In the UK, unemployment sits at 4.4%, similar to the US, where it is about 4.2%, but the United States has 300 robots per 10,000 workers—more than double the UK’s figure. The same is true for Japan, where the unemployment rate was just 2.4% in February 2025, despite its having 419 robots per 10,000 workers. In South Korea, the trend continues: unemployment stood at 2.9% in March 2025, even with an impressive 1,012 robots per 10,000 workers. Automation replaces tasks, not people, and in so doing it creates better-paid, more fulfilling jobs.

The current situation in the UK, according to the latest International Federation of Robotics figures, shows just how far British manufacturing has to climb in terms of automation adoption. The UK is now 23rd in the global robot density league table—that is not a phrase that I thought I would necessarily read out in the House, but I have just done so—with 119 robots per 10,000 workers, compared with a global average of 162. We have also dropped out of the top 10 global manufacturing nations, sadly; we are now in 12th place. Our global competitors are investing heavily in productivity. Sadly, in too many cases, we are falling behind, notwithstanding the excellent work of the Minister and the Government in this regard.

The UK is lagging behind for three main reasons: first, a reluctance to invest in capital equipment; secondly, perceptions of complexity and high up-front costs around robotics and automation; and thirdly, a lack of confidence and clear guidance, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises. Both Automate UK and the Manufacturing Technologies Association have highlighted that investment and confidence gap.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend says, productivity in this country has flatlined since 2008. It is great that he has secured this debate, because productivity is one of my pet subjects, and as he has said, the Manufacturing Technology Centre is doing some fantastic work. I am sure he will have seen the video last week of Chinese robots running a marathon—what an extraordinary sight that was. Does he agree that while we need to develop all sorts of policies, fiscal incentives are key to getting the investment that businesses need to deliver on increasing robotisation and automation?

[John Slinger]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am hopeful that the Minister will refer to some of the measures that the Government can take, and are already taking, to increase productivity. I must say, as someone who is running the London marathon on Sunday, I am slightly worried about the rapid rise of robots in that particular field—I am certainly going to beat any that I see.

The Manufacturing Technologies Association is calling for Government leadership to break down the barriers and deliver a national framework to accelerate adoption. While knocking on doors, which I am sure many colleagues were also doing over the Easter break, I met a young entrepreneur who has a small robotics and automation systems business. He wanted to expand but was not aware of what finance was available to make the capital investments he needed, nor of how he might take on an apprentice or two. I helped as far as I could as an MP by signposting him to the right people, but it shows a lack of cut-through regarding support for automation.

I have seen the potential of automation first hand on visits to companies like FANUC UK, in my constituency, part of a high-tech cluster at Ansty Park, which also includes the London Electric Vehicle Company and the Manufacturing Technology Centre, or the MTC, which I am proud to represent and champion here. I have seen how automation transforms jobs, shifting roles towards programming, maintenance and process design. I have also witnessed, first hand, how automation—due to its requirement for high-skilled workers—stimulates company investment in skills development, with apprenticeship programmes, outreach to schools and sponsorship of competitions. FANUC UK is a long-standing sponsor of the WorldSkills UK industrial robotics competition.

I have met apprentices at FANUC, the MTC and elsewhere, and seen their excitement and enthusiasm—as I am sure colleagues across the House have—when meeting young people who are training to become the masters of machines, unleashing economic potential and enabling new innovations to be born and grow. The MTC, which forms one of nine Government-backed Catapult centres that bring together industry and academia to turbocharge innovation and solutions—its progenitor being my noble Friend, Lord Mandelson—even runs an education campus. The generous sponsorship of £15 million over 15 years by Lloyds Bank has enabled it to offer numerous apprenticeship programmes that cater for our most innovative companies.

Another concern raised with me by businesses I have visited is that companies do not want, or are unable, to invest in automation and therefore cannot expand to meet the demand for their products and services. However, some solutions are already under way. In addition to the excellent work of FANUC UK in my constituency, the MTC is taking a leading role in the debate about automation, and having an effect. It is providing independent advice to help businesses on their first automation journey, and has opened a new robot experience centre, giving companies the chance to test, trial and learn in a risk-free space.

The MTC is also focused on upskilling and reskilling, with targeted workforce development especially for SMEs, which are, of course, the backbone of our economy. It is also driving the west midlands robotics and autonomous systems cluster, helping to build a strong regional ecosystem. There are lots of phrases that I am quite surprised to be saying, but none the less, this is the kind of support businesses need—and it is replicable at scale.

There is a huge prize available to the UK. Make UK estimates that if we scale up our SME manufacturers, we could add £83 billion to our manufacturing output—lifting us to seventh in the world rankings. To deliver that, we must double our robotics adoption by 2030.

Listed Places of Worship Scheme

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Western. Before my hon. Friend develops the debate, may I inquire about the fact that, according to the Order Paper, the fourth of the written statements to be made today, by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, is titled “Future of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme”? If that statement is being made today, would it not be convenient for us to see a copy of it before this debate begins, so that it can inform the debate, rather than that being left until after the debate?

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Sir Christopher, thank you for your point of order. I am sure that that is something the Minister will attend to in his winding-up speech.

[Bradley Thomas]

There are about 20,000 listed cathedrals, churches and chapels in use across the UK, belonging to a wide range of denominations, together with a number of important listed synagogues, mosques and temples. The buildings are valued for their architecture and history and for the economic and social benefit they bring to the communities they serve. These beautiful buildings, with storied histories, serve both as sacred spaces for the religious community and as spaces for the wider public.

The listed places of worship grant scheme supports faith communities by allowing them to reclaim the full amount of VAT spent on eligible repairs, alterations and additions to their building. That includes vital repair works to roofs and stonework, and improvements to facilities such as kitchens and toilets and to the thermal performance of the building.

At present the scheme, which spends only around £30 million per year, is due to close on 31 March 2025, and no extension or alternative is yet known about. If the scheme is cancelled or scaled back, it will be devastating for these historic buildings, local communities and the heritage construction sector. What a travesty it would be if, for the sake of £30 million to the Exchequer, the Government exacerbated the decay of our historical, spiritual and social heritage, with no upside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Given that so many are standing, we will start with a time limit of three minutes. I ask that any interventions be kept to a minimum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

The hon. Lady is right. It would be good to have clarity today. I appreciate that a statement is coming, but it would be good to have clarity from the Minister this morning.

Places of worship contribute immensely to social and economic value, health and wellbeing. The cathedral’s weekly food collections enable 500 children in one school to be given breakfast for two weeks. The cathedral supports other schools, refugees, the homeless and other local food projects, and provides a place for the charity Mind to meet free of charge. Over the recent Christmas period alone, some 1,000 people passed through the cathedral doors for services—up 20% on last year. The cathedral is open every day and people regularly call in for quiet reflection and for assistance in distress.

Crucially, all that is possible only because the building is in good repair. I have given just one example of how places of worship in Newport West and Islwyn have used the moneys from the scheme wisely over the years. I strongly encourage the Government to extend the scheme, for all the economic and social benefits it provides, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that the listed places of worship scheme, or a replacement, is put in place in short order? This is not just about buildings; it is about supporting communities such as Horwich. Many worshippers from Horwich parish church have contacted me about making sure that places of worship are retained for future generations and to provide important spiritual and community support for people in my Bolton West constituency.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. Can interventions be brief, please?

[Terry Jermy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; it has been wonderful today to hear so many examples of community services run through churches. We all have examples in our constituencies.

When I went to Feltwell, I was so impressed by the work of Sue Garland and the other volunteers. It was a joy to see that they are preserving the building, but importantly giving it life and purpose. These provisions are crucial and highlight what our local places of worship provide in their communities. That is why it is vital that we do all we can to support their maintenance. I would welcome the Minister clarifying whether the grant scheme can be renewed for another year.

St Mary’s is just one of 20 churches in South West Norfolk that has benefited from the listed places of worship grant scheme in the last financial year, but it remains on the heritage at risk register and is in desperate need of repair. I urge the Minister to consider what can be done to protect our most precious historic places of worship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on bringing this important debate to the attention of the House. The stakes are high if the scheme is discontinued, and it will put immense pressure on a small number of volunteers to keep those precious places of worship in good order.

Churches are not just places of worship. In my constituency, Holy Trinity church in Prestwood hosts a monthly breakfast between services, as well as toddlers’ activity groups and regular clubbercise sessions. St Mary’s in Long Crendon hosts choral evenings, mother and baby groups, orchestral events and—very importantly—a beer festival. Without critical restoration work, and the grant scheme making it possible, churches risk losing their vital place in the wider community.

At the 800-year-old St Mary Magdalene church in Great Hampden, fundraising started in 2018 for £300,000—excluding VAT—with restorative paintworks alone costing £50,000. The VAT relief afforded through the grant scheme was so critical to the project that, in its absence, fundraising would continue to this day; work would not even have started. The rector and her team have even arranged a loan facility to cover the time it might take to claim the VAT refund because they could not raise the funds to cover that element of the cost. In the rector’s words,

“The project would not have been possible without the grant scheme.”

I have also heard from St Mary’s church in Princes Risborough, which alongside St Peter’s church in Ilmer, has benefited hugely from the grant scheme, allowing both improvements and the maintenance of the building. In the coming months and years, substantial building works will be required that will benefit both the church and the community. Without the grant scheme, those simply will not happen.

In Great Missenden, the church of St Peter and St Paul provides a valuable service by providing a community space in the adjacent Oldham hall for activities supporting the village’s Church of England school as well as for the church itself. The treasurer has made it clear to me that the enhanced efficiency in planning for major works that the grant scheme allows for has been a great help to the church and the wider community in recent years.

I have given just a snapshot of how critical the scheme is to my constituents. When the Conservatives were in government, the scheme was renewed every year. We see and appreciate the value to communities of the vital and multifaceted roles that churches have, both in bringing people together and symbolising the proud history and traditions of our rural towns and villages. I hope that is foremost in the Minister’s mind when he, hopefully, delivers good news in his winding-up speech or in his written ministerial statement later today.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Due to the constraints of time and the number of interventions, after the next speaker we will reduce the time to two minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shockat Adam]

I agree wholeheartedly. They are our heritage and we must save them for our future generations. The scheme should not just be extended; it should be made permanent and accessible to many places of worship.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I call on the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and I would appreciate it if her speech could be reduced to around nine minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. We are not going to protect specific parts of the BBC by primary legislation, but we have a number of important measures on radio services that we feel strongly about including in that legislation, and that includes measures on smart speakers. We want to reduce the regulatory burden on and costs for radio stations, but we also want to strengthen the protections for local news and content. Hopefully that legislation will help with some of these issues.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

At a time when accountability and scrutiny in public life are more important than ever, the role of the BBC and other media outlets is so important. My local newspaper, for example, will not run any political stories, and has not really done so for many weeks now. Will the Minister consider the role of local media and why local newspapers will not run political stories?

[Julia Lopez]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the importance of local news reporting to the health of our democracy, and I met news publishers recently to discuss how we might support a more thriving local newspaper ecosystem. There is a range of challenges in making those publications commercially successful, but as he says, if they do not have that local content, they are fundamentally undermining their own importance in the communities they serve.