Bradley Thomas MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q But would you like to see a Bill that goes further and has broader scope? Kanishka Narayan: As I have said, this legislative vehicle is focused on really high standards of rigour for essential services. I am very keen to ensure that, in the first instance, we are engaging with those companies through the cyber action plan and the National Cyber Security Centre’s framework and to ensure that, as a consequence of those, they are in a robust place.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Are you able to quantify that in any way? Ian Hulme: At the moment, to give you a few broad numbers our teams are around 15 people, and we anticipate doubling that. In the future, with self-funding, we will be a bit more in control of our own destiny. It is a significant uplift from our perspective. Natalie Black: The challenge is that the devil is in the detail. Until that detail has worked through secondary legislation, we will have to reserve our position, so that we give you accurate numbers in due course. From Ofcom’s point of view, it is about adding 10s rather than significant numbers. I do not think we are that far off the ICO. But I want to emphasise that this is about quality, not necessarily quantity. Companies want to work with expert regulators who really know what they are doing. Ofcom is building on the work we are already doing under the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. It will be a question of reinforcing that team, rather than setting up a separate one. We want to get the best, high-quality individuals who know how to talk to industry and really know cyber-security, to make sure people have a good experience when engaging with us. Ian Hulme: To add to that, the one challenge we will face as a group is that we are all fishing in the same pond for skills. MSPs and others will also be fishing in that pond from the sector side. There needs to be recognition that there is going to be a skills challenge in this implementation. Stuart Okin: To specifically pick up on the numbers, we have a headcount of 43 who are dedicated within cyber regulation. That also includes the investment side. We also have access to the engineering team—the engineering directorate—which is a separate team. There is also our enforcement directorate, as well as the legal side of things. The scope changes proposed in the Bill are just the large load controllers and supply chain, so we are not expecting a major uplift. These will be small numbers in comparison. Unlike my colleagues, we are not expecting a big uplift in resourcing.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q With regard to ransom payments and extortion attempts, what do you typically see? Is it for monetary gain or intellectual property data—what is the split? DCS Andrew Gould: That is another really good question. Generally, it is financial, but you will often get what is called the double dip, so there is the extraction of data as well as the encryption of it, so that you no longer have access to it. They might take that data as well, primarily personal data, because of the regulatory pressures and challenges that that brings. There is a sense among a lot of criminal groups that, if they have personal data, you are more likely to pay, because you do not want that reputation, embarrassment and all the rest of it, as opposed to if they take intellectual property, for example. But it is not that that does not happen as well. Primarily, it is financial gain.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q For the avoidance of doubt, I will put on the record that I am a member of the IPAC caucus in this Parliament. Thank you for coming in to see us. You have spoken about the threats from hostile and adversarial states. Given the scope of what we are talking about, can you give us any insight on what comparable western nations are doing to protect themselves? Chung Ching Kwong: The US is probably a good example. It passed Executive order 14028 in May 2021, which requires any software vendor selling to the US federal Government to provide something called a software bill of materials—SBOM. That is technically a table of ingredients, but for software, so you can see exactly what components the software is made of. A lot of the time people who code are quite lazy; they will pull in different components that are available on databases online to form a piece of software that we use. By having vendors provide an SBOM, when anything happens, or whenever any kind of vulnerability is detected, you can very easily find out what happened. That is due to a hack in 2021, in which a tiny, free piece of code called Log4j was found to have a critical vulnerability. It was buried inside thousands of commercial software products. Without that list of ingredients, it would be very difficult for people who had been using the software to find out, because, first, they may not have the technological capabilities and, secondly, they would not even know if their software had that component. This is one of the things the US is doing to mitigate the risks when it comes to software. Something that is not entirely in the scope of the Bill but is also worth considering is the US’s Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act. That is designed to prevent goods made with forced labour from entering the supply chain. The logic of preventing forced labour is probably something that the UK can consider. Because the US realised that it could not inspect every factory in Xinjiang to prove forced labour, it flipped the script: the law creates a rebuttable presumption that all goods from that region are tainted, so the burden of proof is now on the importer to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, that their supply chain is clean. A similar logic could be considered when it comes to this Bill to protect cyber-security. Any entities that are co-operating with the PLA—the People’s Liberation Army—for example, should be considered as compromised or non-trustworthy until proven otherwise. That way, you are not waiting until problems happen, when you realise, “Oh, this is actually tainted,” but you prevent it before it happens. That is the comparison that I would make.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have two questions. First, on the topic of cross-border control, how do you think we can get definition around the resilience obligations and how they apply to foreign-hosted systems, particularly given that your networks will be quite widespread? My second question is more broad. Given that you are all responsible for operating networks that are strategically important, and that you are also commercial companies, how do you think we strike the right balance between growth in AI, proportionate regulation and not stifling commercial innovation? Dr Ian Levy: I will start with that one.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Two questions: first, for a bit of context, could the witnesses give us an idea of the objectives of cyber-attacks? Are we seeing objectives based around disruption or around extortion, either monetary or for intellectual property? Perhaps we could have a perspective on whether that differs depending on the origin of the organisation conducting the cyber-attack. Secondly, around the reporting model, is there a view on whether the model proposed in the Bill is beneficial, and whether it risks a fragmented approach, particularly if companies operate in a sector that is regulated under the jurisdiction of two regulators? Do you think that a more universal, singular reporting model would be beneficial in ensuring as strong a response as possible? Dr Sanjana Mehta: May I weigh in on the second question first? It is good to note that the definition of reportable incident has expanded in the current legislation. One of the concerns that the post-implementation reviews had from the previous regulatory regime was that the regulated entities were under-reporting. We note that the Bill has now expanded the definition to include incidents that could have an adverse impact on the security and operations of network and information systems, in addition to those incidents that are having or have had a negative impact. While that is clear on the one hand—some factors have been provided, such as the number of customers affected, the geographical reach and the duration of the incident—what is not clear at the moment is the thresholds linked with those factors. 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. We must think about regulatory capacity to deal with all the reports that come through to them, and to understand what might be the trade-offs on the regulated entities, particularly if an entity is regulated by more than one competent authority. For those entities, it would mean reporting to multiple authorities. For organisations that are small or medium-sized enterprises, there is a real concern that the trade-offs may result in procedural compliance over genuine cyber-security and resilience. We call on the Government for immediate clarification of the thresholds linked to those factors. Jill Broom: I would like to come in on that point. Our members would agree with it. Companies need to be clear about what needs to be reported, when it needs to be reported and where they need to report it. A bit of clarity is required on that, certainly around definitions. As Sanjana said, it is good to see that the definition is expanding, but definitions such as “capable of having” a significant impact remain unclear for industry. Therefore, we need a bit more clarity, because again, it means that we could risk capturing absolutely everything that is out there, and we really want to focus on: what is most important that we need to be aware of? Determining materiality is essential before making any report. In terms of the where and the how, we are also in favour of a single reporting platform, because that reduces friction around the process, and it allows businesses, ultimately, to know exactly where they are going. They do not need to report here for one regulator and there for another. It is a streamlined process, and it makes the regime as easy as possible to deal with, so it helps incentivise people to act upon it. I have another point to add about the sequencing of alignment with other potential regulation. We know that, for example, the Government’s ransomware proposals include incident-reporting requirements, and they are expected to come via a different legislative vehicle. We need to be careful not to add any additional layers of complexity or other user journeys into an already complex landscape.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Picking up on what Jen mentioned about FTSE and publicly traded companies being within scope, is there a view on ensuring g that privately owned companies of a particular scale are within scope, and if so, how will you determine that? Might it be based on things such as turnover or number of employees, or would it be some other identifiable characteristic? Jen Ellis: For sure, it should not come down to whether you are public or private; it should be about impact. Figuring out how to measure that is challenging. I will leave that problem with policymakers—you’re welcome. I do not think it is about the number of employees. We have to think about impact in a much more pragmatic way. In the tech sector, relatively small companies can have a very profound impact because they happen to be the thing that is used by everybody. Part of the problem with security is that you have small teams running things that are used ubiquitously. We have to think a little differently about this. We have seen outages in recent years that are not necessarily maliciously driven, but have demonstrated to us how reliant we are on technology and how widespread the impact can be, even of something like a local managed service provider. One that happened to provide managed services for a whole region’s local government went down in Germany and it knocked out all local services for some time. You are absolutely right: we should be looking at privately held companies as well. We should be thinking about impact, but measuring impact and figuring out who is in scope and who is not will be really challenging. We will have to start looking down the supply chain, where it gets a lot more complex.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do the witnesses have a view on the benchmarks that, at the moment, do not appear to sit behind the scale of incidents that must be reported? Do you have a view on the absence of any benchmarks and the impact that they may have on smaller firms, or on the risk of over-reporting? Stuart McKean: Under the designation of a critical supplier, the Bill says: “any such disruption is likely to have a significant impact on the economy or the day-to-day functioning of society in the whole or any part of the United Kingdom”. That is a pretty big statement. As a small business owner, how do I know whether what I do is going to have an economic effect on the UK? It will have an economic effect on my business, but whether it has a wider impact is a big statement. I am not sure that it is clear enough.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q How might we glean some clarity on that? Stuart McKean: It needs more detail, even if that is about providing some boundaries so that we have something to say, “If it is going to do the following, what is a ‘significant economic impact’?”. I would like to think that none of our services would have a significant economic impact, but they may well affect a person, so I would bring it more on to the citizen and the impact on people. We heard this a number of times in relation to the JLR incident: the impact on the supply chain was huge, it was economically very costly and directly impacted people’s lives. Anything that can provide more clarity in the definition of an impact at that level can only help. Jill Broom: I agree. More clarity is needed. The Bill should be tighter in terms of defining that sort of systemic risk. Dr Sanjana Mehta: The Bill as it stands requires competent authorities and regulators to designate an organisation as a critical supplier rather than the regulated entity. Organisations work with complex multi-tier supply chains, and the concern is that competent authorities that are one step further removed from those complex supply chains, and have even less visibility, transparency and control over those supply chains, might find it difficult to determine true criticality and risk within the supply chains. We ask for greater collaboration and co-ordination between the regulated entities and the competent authorities in designating an organisation as a critical supplier.

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has failed to stand up for Britain’s interests. From what we have seen, he could not even make it across Beijing’s red carpet without being guided along the way. What did the Prime Minister expect to receive in return for approving the Chinese super-embassy, and did the Chinese give it to him?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. The Government have said that we should be bolstering our preparedness for war. Can the Minister tell us when the defence readiness Bill will be ready and when he expects it to gain Royal Assent?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last May, Reform pushed leaflets through the doors of homes in Worcestershire that said that it would cut taxes, but this year, Reform-led Worcestershire county council has sought permission from the Government to increase council tax by a staggering 10%. Does the Leader of the House agree that that inflation-busting rise is a step too far for the residents of Worcestershire? Will he rule it out, and make representations to the relevant Secretary of State?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  The facts speak for themselves: the unemployment rate for those aged between 16 and 24 is 15.9%—that represents 700,000 people —and 946,000 young people aged between 16 and 24 are categorised as NEET. There has been an 11% drop in the number of job adverts in the 12 months between July 2024 and July 2025. Under this Labour Government, there has been a staggering 14.6% increase in the unemployment rate of those aged 16 to 17. When I go out and about in my constituency and talk to businesses—particularly small businesses in retail, hospitality and leisure, which are for many the first rung on the employment ladder—they make it known loud and clear that the Government’s tax rises, and rising energy costs and bureaucracy, are eroding not just their margins but their confidence. That is perhaps the most corrosive effect of all. Once those businesses are gone, the opportunities for young people to get on the first rung of the employment ladder are reduced. In listening to comments by Members from across the Chamber, I have been struck by what I consider to be the fundamental ideological difference between the two sides of the House—between my party and the Government—on the question of where wealth is created. Governments do not create wealth. They can play a role in catalysing the foundations of our prosperity, and it is right that they lean into that and create schemes where necessary, but at the core of this issue is the fact that empowering individuals and small businesses to take risks is what enables the economy to prosper. We see that time and again. It is noble that the Government want to intervene to support businesses in creating jobs, and to create routes for young people to develop their skills and enter the jobs of the future, but we are just not seeing enough hard action that acknowledges the reality of where wealth is generated.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  The best welfare programme of all is a job; nothing else comes close, in terms of the earnings that people receive as recognition of and reward for their contribution, and the effect on their self-confidence. During this debate, we have not heard much, if anything, about incentives for people to take risks. Ultimately, every single business that employs people, whatever their ages, has been created by someone who has taken a risk because they have been empowered to put something on the line, be it capital or time. Every business, large or small, was started off by somebody taking a risk. Our economy is becoming increasingly risk-averse, and that is exacerbated by the pressure placed on businesses across the board, whether from rising employment costs, energy costs or bureaucracy. Many organisations that are experts in this field directly critique the Government’s policies. The Centre for Social Justice, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and UK Hospitality all say that the choices made by the Government are having a detrimental and corrosive effect on the employment prospects of society as a whole, but particularly of young people. I urge the Government to focus less on work programmes, and to instead speak directly with those who take risks to employ people of all ages. The Government need to be less burdensome, to get off the backs of those who take risks, and to instead support them. When the Prime Minister gave his very first speech at 10 Downing Street following the election, he said that the Government would tread much more lightly on people’s lives. They are doing the opposite, and that needs to change.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  This is another U-turn that does not go far enough, because as a result of the choices made by Labour, energy bills are up, taxes are up and confidence is down. That is corrosive, and it is having a particularly corrosive effect on cafés, restaurants, hotels and small retail outlets. Will the Minister announce broader support for those businesses to alleviate the pressure of business rates or, better still, scrap them once and for all?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise for missing the first moments of the debate. This situation is having a profound impact, and what is going on is a travesty. There is a complete failure of leadership. This is bleeding out into the wider area. My constituency borders Birmingham, and we have streets of two halves—one half is in the Birmingham city council area, where the bins are piling up, and the other half is in Bromsgrove, where the bins are collected. We are seeing an acute rise in fly-tipping. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a failure of leadership, and that there is no excuse for a global city in a developed G7 country to be facing a leadership failure this acute?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is quite clear that social media is causing a health and wellbeing crisis among young people. Parents are absolutely terrified about the content that their children are viewing and the amount of time that they are spending online. Just a couple of months ago, 14 and 15-year-olds in my constituency told me about the profound pressure that they feel to be on social media. They feel a compulsion to use it, but they do not want to. Will the Government get off the pot and announce a ban? Perfection really is the enemy of the good here. The evidence is plain to see. We need action, not words.

• 14 Jan 2026 · West Midlands Police · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a dark moment for policing in the west midlands. I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for putting on the record her belief that the chief constable of the force should go. For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with her. This has always been about the police being able to fulfil their role objectively without fear or favour. Repeatedly, the Jewish community are made to feel that they are the ones who are the problem. That cannot go on. We have seen in this instance that the police have surrendered to the pressure placed on them by an Islamic community that sought to create a no-go zone for Jews within the west midlands. That is not acceptable. Will the Home Secretary update the House on what the Government are doing to flush out antisemitism across public institutions and society at large? If she has not got time to expand on that today, will she come back to the House and give a statement as soon as possible?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  This is a complete farce, to be quite honest. We have seen reports in the media that there will be a secret room less than 1 metre away from sensitive cabling, and that since 2018, the Chinese authorities have been cutting off utilities to the UK embassy in China. National security should surely trump the planning system. This is a decision that should be taken by the Prime Minister in Downing Street—it should be a very quick and resolute no. If the Government are not in a position to do that, the framework needs to be changed. If necessary, the Government need to come before Parliament to do that, where they will find a very warm reception.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Bromsgrove: Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  I am surprised but that must be seen in the context of the survey I referenced. Only a very small proportion of the Worcestershire population responded to any consultation about future options. I will refer later to the wider stakeholders that are supportive of a single unitary authority to deliver local government in the best interests of residents across Worcestershire, including Wyre Forest. The creation of two unitary councils would do the opposite of respecting the distinct needs and rural identity of Worcestershire. It would see the north Worcestershire section become by default an extension of Birmingham and would fundamentally shift our identity. North Worcestershire is a neighbour of Birmingham, but is proud to be part of the adjacent countryside that so many Birmingham residents enjoy. Conversely, north Worcestershire enjoys a proximity to Birmingham, while maintaining its unique rural character and slower pace of life. A divided structure would only weaken our voice, dilute our identity and place our future in the hands of those who do not understand us. One unitary authority is the only option that protects Worcestershire’s integrity, strengthens its governance and secures its long-term ambition for prosperity. Many residents across Bromsgrove and the villages have chosen to live there because they value the way of life. That valued identity must be protected from being merged into an urban extension, or even treated as a subset of an identity that has existed for generations and delivered a footprint for successful local government service delivery until now. We are already at risk of urbanisation and our local democracy is already being eroded by the unprecedented housing targets being forced upon us, despite consistent local objection. As a 79% rural constituency composed of 89% green belt and approximately 8% brownfield land, our housing targets have increased by 85%. Meanwhile, our neighbouring city of Birmingham with at least 140 hectares of brownfield land and extensively established infrastructure, has seen targets cut by more than 30%. If we were involuntarily to risk becoming an extension of Birmingham, it is highly likely that our precious green belt would be sacrificed even further. The character of our county, its landscape, identity and rural heritage would be placed at real risk. Despite that loss, it would still be the urban areas that would continue to receive the largest proportion of infrastructure investment, leaving my constituency questioning how it can be expected to absorb the growth when infrastructure is already at capacity. Urban areas have the highest demand for housing precisely because they are urban. That is why urban densification remains the housing policy most genuinely representative of the public’s needs and wants. When providing a common-sense counter to central Government decisions, such as unreasonable housing targets, one unified voice is essential. A single coherent authority can speak for the whole county, representing all our views and standing the strongest chance of securing greater funding for transport, housing and economic development. Multiple voices drown each other out; a united voice is harder to ignore. Alongside ensuring that decision making is kept local to Worcestershire and that my constituents are not stripped of their voice—an action that would run counter to the principle of devolution—a single unitary council is also the most sensible financial decision. It would protect local democracy while strengthening our ability to shape our own future. Financial sustainability is vital for any council. Across the country, we have seen many councils struggle with rising costs; costs that inevitably become the burden of the British taxpayer. Without a sustainable model, residents pay the price through higher taxes, reduced services or both. My constituents have already experienced a 4.9% increase in council tax this year, due to increasing financial pressures, and are set to face a staggering 9.9% increase from Reform’s county council in the next financial year. A single financially resilient authority is the most responsible way to safeguard public money and ensure that essential services remain secure for the long term.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Bromsgrove: Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. The disaggregation and loss of access to sustainable services is a profound risk in any case of local government reorganisation, but particularly in rural constituencies. I acknowledge the recent survey shared around Worcestershire, and thank those who responded: local consent should always be a priority in any devolution process, including local government reorganisation. The results showed a clear split in opinions across the county, and must be considered in context. Some 48% of respondents supported two unitary councils, 29% supported one unitary authority and 19% did not support any reorganisation, yet the number of respondents—4,200—represents only 0.6% of Worcestershire’s 621,000 population, meaning the survey is questionable as a true representation of Worcestershire as a whole. In short, it is a snapshot, not a consensus. Worcestershire is a rural county—approximately 85% is classified as such—and a picturesque one, with a seamless mix of small urban cities, semi-rural towns, rural villages and uninterrupted green space. That is no less so in my constituency, which is 79% rural and 89% green belt. Serving the needs and wants throughout the vastly different parts of the county is a delicate balancing act, but it is a balancing act that allows Worcestershire to be so wonderfully unique. It is a balancing act that allows my constituents to enjoy beautiful country walks and quaint villages on their doorsteps, alongside the convenience of more urban towns or cities not very far away. That harmony between rural tranquillity and accessible urban life is part of what makes Worcestershire a fantastic place to live. That balancing act would be toppled by the forced use of a city template. A model designed for incomparable metropolitan areas cannot be imposed on a county defined by its largely rural character without causing catastrophic disruption. Keeping decisions local to Worcestershire is vital: it is the only way to ensure that local communities are not sidelined, that my constituents’ voices are not stripped away and that the fabric of rural life is not sacrificed. Counties shaped by their rural character are rightly proud of their identities and traditions, and any local reorganisation that happens in Worcestershire must recognise and respect our distinct needs.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Bromsgrove: Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. He makes a very relevant point that the cost of organising two councils will be profound, and in the long term will prove to be a false economy. The figures that I will quote shortly will demonstrate that further. Reorganising local government will not resolve all the financial challenges facing our communities, because even with structural change, there will continue to be rising demand on adult social care, persistent pressures in homelessness and temporary accommodation, a growing resource need for schools and increasing demand for children’s services. That is why financial sustainability must be by design and not chance. Anything less will fail to meet the increasing needs of local communities and will ultimately result in deficits that must be paid for by hard-working residents. Financial sustainability cannot be an afterthought; it must be the foundation. One council will have the ability to follow six key principles to achieve genuine and lasting financial sustainability. First, it could reduce the cost of leadership and governance by redesigning leadership from the ground up to reflect the needs of a new, modern unitary authority. Secondly, it could become prevention focused by embedding a long-term independence-based approach across all services, enabling people to get back on their feet and easing the burden on local provision. Thirdly, it could ensure that all commissions are intelligent and that services provided are appropriate and necessary, supported by the unparallelled buying power and market access afforded to one council, enabling strategic investment in better value services. Fourthly, it could nurture an accountable and high-performing workforce by bringing together the strengths of seven predecessor authorities and building on their collective skills. Fifthly, it could deliver responsible custodianship of public assets to maintain a balanced budget, safeguard the continued delivery of local services and preserve our historic culture. Finally, it could make decisions that are fully informed and grounded firmly in evidence. The outcome of that approach is simple—£32 million saved by 2031 and a more balanced, less impactful increase to council tax. In comparison, the imbalance between service need and income from council tax would be significant under two unitary councils. A new North Worcestershire unitary council would face substantial challenges, with higher levels of need but a smaller share of the tax base, while a South Worcestershire unitary authority would experience significant council tax rises over the same period. It is simple to understand that improved financial results lead directly to improved services for the community. With the stronger position created by one council, services could be delivered through a more community-centred approach, with simpler, more accessible pathways. Residents will no longer need to navigate multiple tiers of local government to resolve their issues. That is particularly beneficial for individuals who require access to multiple services at once. This model will not only increase transparency and improve local access, which are distinct components of British politics, but will also ensure that policies truly reflect what people actually want to see and expect their council tax to support. Streamlining service delivery under one council removes the risk of a postcode lottery where access, cost, sufficiency and quality vary depending on where residents live. That is especially vital for young people, as many schools are reaching capacity, so students are being required to travel further, and for rural communities, which are already facing limited infrastructure compared with more urbanised areas. Key people services, including housing, family support and social care, are currently delivered across two tiers of local government, creating unnecessary complexities and inefficiencies. That is particularly important in Worcestershire, where demographic shifts are significant—an ageing population exceeding the national average, with 22% of people aged 66 to 84, alongside a growing younger population of more than 117,000 children. Those trends place profound pressure on essential services such as GPs, hospitals, schools, nurseries and social care. One council could integrate those services so that they work cohesively to achieve better outcomes for the community. A prime example, given the demographics that I mentioned, is the ability to align health priorities with housing and leisure, enabling preventive policies that improve quality of life and reduce pressure on health services later on. Removing duplication across services would also increase efficiency in the council’s overall offering. It would allow organisations, including local NHS trusts and schools, to build stronger, more consistent relationships as they would be working with a single unified authority rather than navigating multiple structures. It is evident that one council would be able to deliver the improved and simplified services that my constituents called for. The risk of disaggregation also cannot be ignored. The need for high-cost social care, the service that 42% of survey respondents cited as the one that they care about most, is concentrated in one half of Worcestershire, while the greatest proportion of the tax base is in the other half. The current degree of balance that results in residents paying relatively low tax would be disrupted, creating long-term instability for both households and essential services. Not only is the disaggregation of social care a dangerous risk, but it would set back the progress on bringing its functions to the high standard that they are. Adults would be at risk of not receiving seamless community care. Service deliveries and assessments would be delayed. Children’s services would be restricted by boundary lines, causing disruption for those not on the correct side to continue their current care; it would be a postcode lottery. Maintaining two recording systems for social care would be costly and take a long time to implement, diverting resources from frontline support. Similarly, fragmenting the network of partnerships in Worcestershire would only complicate funding arrangements, commissioning plans, service eligibility and the ability to install an action plan. Those partnerships have taken years to build; dismantling them would undermine the very foundations of effective care. Instead, relationships should be preserved and built upon, and closer collaboration would be far more possible with a single service provider rather than numerous tiers. That is a key benefit that only one unitary council can provide; it would ensure continuity, coherence and a system that works for every resident across Worcestershire. A proposal for a single Worcestershire unitary authority has been backed by local partner stakeholders, including the police and crime commissioner, the local NHS integrated care board, Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS trust, the Worcestershire local visitor economy partnership, and commercial stakeholders, including Worcester Bosch. It is evident that the proposal for a single unitary council meets the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s criteria for devolution arrangements. The case is clear and compelling. A single council for Worcestershire would offer not only operational simplicity, but a renewed sense of purpose for local government in our area. The one council would prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to residents. This would not simply be an organisational reshuffle; it would be a commitment to ensuring that every community, from the most rural parish to the most urban centre, receives services that are consistent, efficient and good value for money. Councils in the area have sought to work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views. This collaborative approach demonstrates a proactive start and an ambition to adapt and build a structure that is reflective of residents’ realities. Having one council would enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment. Removing unnecessary layers of bureaucracy would give residents a stronger voice and a more direct relationship with those making decisions on their behalf. There would be a single tier of local government for the whole area, simplifying it and making it more accessible. The new structure would resize in order to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks. In an era when public finances are increasingly overwhelmed, the ability to operate with greater resilience and strategic oversight is essential. It cannot be doubted that one unitary council would significantly meet the criteria outlined by the Government, while being in the best interest of Worcestershire as a whole. Keeping decisions local is vital, as is achieving long-term financial sustainability, offering consistent, high-quality services, and protecting our green belt and our county’s identity. That is why I strongly support the creation of one unitary council that would streamline services, improve value for money for residents and work towards a strong future for Worcestershire. This is an opportunity to shape an efficient and community-centred system for our local government—one that respects our current identity while preparing us for the challenges and opportunities ahead. A single unitary council is not merely an administrative preference; it is a strategic choice for a more secure, more coherent and more prosperous Worcestershire.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Bromsgrove: Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered local government organisation in Bromsgrove. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. The reorganisation of Worcestershire councils will be the largest local government reshuffle in more than 50 years. It represents a defining moment for our county—one that offers either the opportunity to deliver better value for money to residents or the risk that parts of the county will be pushed, involuntarily, into becoming extensions of an urban city. The stakes could not be higher. The required aims of the new council organisation are clear: financial sustainability, good value for money, high-quality services and an ambition of continued improvement. Those are not abstract aspirations, but the practical foundations required to protect our communities and safeguard essential services. Only one of the two options before us will achieve the wants and needs of the local community: one unitary authority—a single, united structure that provides the clarity, efficiency and strategic strength necessary to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I start by putting on the record my broad support for the principles in the Bill. Cyber-threats are among the biggest threats that our country faces. We are living in the grey zone right now—every day, thousands of cyber-attacks take place on private companies, publicly owned companies and infrastructure. This is probably the most profound wave of attacks and hostility that we face; they are in plain sight, but the vast majority of the country and our constituents are unaware of them. That is for good reason: there are many good people working at the National Cyber Security Centre, in the intelligence agencies and the military, across Government and across private industry who do so much to keep us safe. However, that does not mitigate the fact that the threat is real, present and only ever increasing. It is only ever increasing not just because of criminality in a cyber form, but because of the threats that come from nefarious states, particularly Russia, China, Iran and others that have been mentioned. The Jaguar Land Rover attack is particularly prominent in everyone’s minds. It affected the whole country and affected global supply chains, but it had a particularly profound effect in my constituency, where many of the JLR workforce are based. We have seen what happens if we fail to invest sufficiently in our cyber-defences—such a deficiency in investment only enables those who seek to do us harm. The point has been made that our lives are not somewhat digital; they are fundamentally digital in almost every facet of life. I would like to emphasise a couple of points in particular. One that I have not heard spoken about much, which I think is both within the scope of the Bill and, at the same time, somewhat adjacent to it, is the role of foreign technology in our supply chains, particularly kill switches. We are seeing increasing numbers of news articles about these switches, particularly relating to energy installations. Questions have been raised on numerous occasions on the Floor of the House about the prevalence of kill switches in Chinese technology in particular and the risk of exposure to an adversarial state abroad that could destabilise our energy systems. I would particularly like to see a joined-up, whole-of-Government approach to tackling the broader threat, instead of it being viewed through a single lens. I know that Ministers will be looking at it across the board, but I would appreciate if the Minister could address how it is being looked at across Government. Another case is the rise of Chinese-made cars. It struck me that around 12 months ago I rarely saw a Jaecoo or Omoda car on our streets, but now they seem to be everywhere. I cannot help but suspect, given the links that those manufacturers have to the Chinese Communist party, that there are potentially kill switches within those vehicles and, more importantly, that the vehicles are sending data on users’ mobility habits to a foreign adversarial state. The implications of that are profound. My final point is about the reporting regime. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill a couple of months ago that touched on the broad principles within reporting, calling on the Government to have a pragmatic approach with regard to the reporting obligations on particularly small companies. I suggested a threshold of £25 million of turnover before a company would be within the scope of my proposed Bill. I chose that threshold because it would omit the vast majority of small or family-owned businesses unless they are designated within one of the 13 critical industries. The reason for that was simply a fear that reporting obligations on small businesses are ever-growing, and for many businesses additional cyber-security obligations could result in significant additional head count that they may not be able to afford. I encourage the Minister to engage as much as possible with representatives of small business to ensure that the reporting obligations are as minimal as possible while capturing the broad principle of the Bill. I support the broad principle of the Bill; I think it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Government will adopt a cross-Government approach. This is a wider societal issue that all of us have an obligation and duty to fulfil. I look forward to seeing the Bill’s progress and contributing as it makes its way through Parliament.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to my question about whether bills in April 2026 will be lower than in July 2024, the Secretary of State claimed that they would be. However, the price cap would suggest otherwise: it was £1,568 in July 2024 and is projected to be £1,620 in April 2026. Can you advise on how the House can seek a correction of the record?