David Chadwick MP: speeches

My constituency is home to the Sennybridge training area, an area of vital national importance that borders Merthyr Cynog. The military training area exists only because local farmers surrendered their farms for the national interest. However, the Minister’s Department is now raising concerns about foreign investment in the area—notably that from Bute Energy, which plans to build wind farms that could create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and military operations. Will the Minister outline what he is doing to support defence investment in Wales at sites like Sennybridge? Will he agree to meet me and Merthyr Cynog community council to discuss Bute Energy’s plans for the area?

1. What steps he is taking to help improve cross-border healthcare between UK nations.

Powys has no general hospital, so my constituents are dependent on access to English hospitals for the treatment and operations they need. However, last July, Powys teaching health board made the decision to extend waiting times for Powys patients awaiting operations, with the result that many have now been waiting years, often in agonising pain. Will the Minister meet me, Powys teaching health board and the new Welsh Health Minister to ensure Powys patients get the funding and treatment they need?

The Foreign Secretary will know that the ongoing violence continues to take a horrific toll on civilian populations across Lebanon, Gaza and the wider region. Given our legal obligations under the strategic export licensing criteria, what assessment have the Government made of the risk of UK-supplied components being used in violations of international humanitarian law? Will the Government publish those assessments so that they can be properly scrutinised? Will they now take the decisive step to halt all arms exports to Israel?

My constituents are disgusted by the sheer volume of sewage dumping that is happening across the River Tawe, the Usk and the Wye. Just two weeks ago, local children became ill after swimming in the Tawe, and the same happened last year in the Wye near Glasbury. Will the Minister listen to the Liberal Democrat calls to require water companies to publish the volume and concentration of sewage being discharged from emergency overflows?

I salute the speech that my hon. Friend is giving; I am seeing the same situation play out in my constituency. Brecon has one of the most beautiful high streets in Wales, with its gorgeous Georgian buildings, but local businesses are telling me exactly the same thing. They are taking an absolute hammering from this Government’s decision to push through business rate revaluations. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a real concern? Does he believe that the VAT cut to hospitality that the Liberal Democrats are calling for would at least help to restore some activity, life and profit to our hospitality businesses?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing the debate. I agree with many of his comments. Transport options for people across Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe are dreadful. Whether for getting to work, accessing healthcare, visiting family, attending college or simply participating in community life, transport options are often the difference between a thriving town and one that has been left behind. In one of the largest and most rural constituencies in Wales and the whole UK, too many residents feel that transport decisions are being made “to” them rather than with them. One of the biggest concerns recently raised with me is the changes made to the T4 bus service. What was once the only direct connection between mid-Wales and our capital, Cardiff, now requires passengers to change in Merthyr Tydfil. For many residents, particularly older or disabled passengers and those carrying heavy luggage, that additional change is not a minor inconvenience. It makes journeys longer, more complicated and less attractive. That is made worse by the fact that the T4 and X4 timetables are poorly integrated, leaving passengers facing lengthy waits and unreliable connections from Merthyr. Cardiff is the major destination on the route. It is where people travel for specialist NHS appointments, university and college education, employment opportunities, access to national institutions or simply a day shopping. For many residents across Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, a reliable public transport connection to the Welsh capital is essential. Those changes to the T4 service may look minor on a map but, for those who rely on public transport, it has made travelling to Cardiff significantly more difficult. Rural communities should not be expected to accept a worse service while being told by their Government that it represents progress. The direct service to Cardiff must be restored, because it is leaving many elderly pensioners in my constituency stuck at home. The Swansea valley has similar challenges with bus services. People in Ystradgynlais, Ystalyfera and Pontardawe have repeatedly reported buses on the T6 and X6 routes running late, being cancelled at short notice or not turning up at all in recent months. That is why rural bus connections are so important. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen for giving us the opportunity to put these points on the record.

I start this contribution on a positive note for the steel industry. Last week I visited Kiernan Steel’s fabrication workshop in Llandrindod, Wales. Kiernan Steel is a tremendously successful Irish company that has brought much-needed jobs to Radnorshire, and its success shows how the rural economy can prosper if our businesses are encouraged and enabled to locate there. One thing there is no shortage of in mid-Wales is land, and if we make that land available to businesses that need it, they will create the jobs that our region and economy need. The steel industry is critical to our wider economy—it is virtually impossible to build anything without steel. However, the steel industry requires a skilled workforce. I was encouraged by some of the Secretary of State’s comments about the skills shortages, because we have serious skills shortages. There are thousands of vacancies for welders alone, and their pay is shooting up as a result. Skills shortages throughout the steel industry are pushing up the price of building anything, particularly infrastructure. That is why the health of our steel industry matters. If we do not look after it, the costs for projects such as HS2 and the cost of delivering all the housing we need will continue to mount.

There are at least 6,000 vacancies for welders, so we absolutely need a lot more of them. The skills shortages present opportunities to get future generations into well-paid and secure trades. Artificial intelligence cannot do welding yet, because it does not have any arms—yet. Our education system is not producing the skills that our economy needs, and our economy is suffering from that failure. Steel is strategic. It is part of our sovereign capability and part of British power. That is why steel matters. As has been mentioned, the steel industry is affected by the geopolitical tensions that are so rampant across the world. Our steel industry has been hammered by the Chinese, who have flooded the international market with cheap Chinese steel and have run one of our biggest companies into the ground. China has wiped out our steel industry intentionally, yet today the Conservatives seem to be saying that they do not think the Government should do anything about it. Just yesterday they were complaining about our lack of defence readiness. Well, what do they think tanks and ships are made from? Today, this Government ask Parliament to move heaven and earth to save steel in Scunthorpe. It is right to act—of course the Government should have the proposed powers—but people in Wales are asking one simple question today: where was this Bill in July 2024, when the blast furnaces at Port Talbot were switched off for the last time? When Welsh communities were crying out for help, Westminster shrugged its shoulders. That was despite Welsh Labour MPs and candidates, in the months prior to the general election, lining up in front of giant election posters that read, “Save our steel.” They said they had a £2.5 billion fund to spend on steel. Given that the Government have admitted to spending £1.3 million a day to keep the Scunthorpe plant going, how much of that fund is left to spend in Wales? If protecting primary steel production is so important, why did they allow the biggest steelworks in Britain to be turned off? Welsh workers were told that nothing could be done. People in my constituency have lost their jobs because of this. When 2,800 jobs were wiped out in Port Talbot, there was no emergency Saturday sitting, no recall of Parliament, no emergency legislation and no sudden declaration that steel was a vital national—

Increased fuel costs are a real pain point in a constituency like mine. Rural households that depend on their cars spend nearly £800 a year more on fuel than people who live in urban areas. Will the Government listen again to the Liberal Democrats’ demands for an immediate 10p cut in fuel duty, which would bring down pump prices by 12p per litre?

The hon. Member is making a sincere and excellent speech, and just made a brilliant point. As we heard earlier, in 2023 some 2.6 million animals were still being tested on, which is a moral atrocity. Does the hon. Member agree that the move away from animal testing should lead to greater investment in testing that will drive better scientific outcomes?

Since coming to power, time and again this Government have failed to stand up for Welsh interests. Nowhere has that been more obvious than in mid-Wales, where Oliver Millican and his company Bute Energy would like to build a series of energy parks that encircle our military training bases, impede our farmers’ access to their land and do great damage to our local tourist industry. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to tell Oliver and Bute Energy that they are not welcome in Wales, because we are fed up of being exploited?

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this vital debate. I share many of his concerns. Mid-Wales faces a wave of wind farm proposals on a scale that would transform the landscapes that make mid-Wales so incredibly special. From Gilwern hill near Llandrindod Wells to Nant Mithil in the Radnor forest, Banc y Celyn, Garreg Fawr and Aberedw, our communities are being asked to absorb huge energy developments across some of the most unspoilt and environmentally sensitive parts of Wales. Clearly we need clean energy. We need renewable energy and there are huge possibilities across Wales. Sir Alec, I know that you are a keen engineer and that you will be interested in the opportunities to develop tidal energy in Wales, and the bountiful opportunities to develop our offshore wind capabilities. However, destroying one of our most important natural climate defences in the process of developing onshore wind is reckless and irresponsible. That is the contradiction at the heart of wind farm development on peatland. Peatlands are not wasteland. They are among our most valuable ecosystems. They store carbon, regulate water and support biodiversity. When damaged they can release the very emissions that we are supposed to be preventing. We already have evidence that such warnings are being brushed aside in Wales. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales—the Welsh countryside charity —uncovered internal Welsh Government documents that show there is serious ecological damage at existing wind farm sites. Peat soils are being excavated, dumped and “left to oxidise, erode and degrade.” Officials warned that further damage would occur, and that further public money would be needed to put that right. Despite all that, the Welsh Labour Government still approve projects such as the Garn Fach development in the north of Powys, on vital peatland that serves the catchment area of the River Severn—an area that we know is already vulnerable to causing severe flooding downstream. That decision sent a deeply worrying message: that promises to protect peatland can be overridden when it becomes politically convenient to do so. When we look at the sites now proposed, the stakes become even clearer. Take Gilwern hill. Its open moorland is crossed by ancient drovers’ routes. It is home to species such as the curlew, the skylark and the red kite, and it is rich in archaeology. One of the specialities of Powys is the reintroduction and preservation of endangered birds. We have bronze age cairns and iron age hillforts that face not only turbines but access tracks, as previously mentioned, up to 100 metres wide cutting across the landscape. At Nant Mithil, we have more than 4,500 acres of the Radnor forest, where the Welsh dragon supposedly lives— [ Laughter. ] Take my word for it; it is too dangerous. That landscape includes a special area of conservation linked to the River Wye, sites of special scientific interest and a network of public rights of way used by walkers and local communities. Around 80% of the site lies outside the Welsh Government’s own designated areas for wind development and yet they are threatening to allow Bute Energy to destroy it. It is at sites such as Banc y Celyn and Garreg Fawr that the myth of low ecological value land is most clearly exposed. Those are not degraded or expendable landscapes; they are some of the last remaining habitats of their kind. Those ecosystems survive precisely because they have not been intensively managed. They have avoided the fertilisers and pesticides that have wiped out similar habitats across much of Europe. They support fragile and irreplaceable biodiversity, from waxcaps to breeding populations of curlew, skylark, cuckoo and raptor, as well as protected mammals such as the brown hare. That is the crucial point: those habitats cannot simply be recreated somewhere else. They exist because of centuries of minimal human intervention. Once they are developed, they are lost for ever. In a global context, Wales is one of the last refuges for these species. We are told these are exceptional cases but when one exception follows another, people are right to ask whether any peatland or any sensitive habitat in Wales is truly safe. That matters not just for wildlife and landscapes but for the credibility of Welsh climate policy. How can Ministers talk about biodiversity targets while approving developments that official briefings warn could negate years of restoration work? Wales needs a renewables strategy that commands public consent, protects irreplaceable habitats and recognises that not every hectare of land is suitable for industrial development. Otherwise, the Welsh Government risk undermining the very environmental goals they claim to champion. As I am sure we all agree, once those landscapes are gone, they are not coming back.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. More than 55% of households in Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe are off grid. I am grateful to him for mentioning LPG. As he knows, residents who rely on LPG did not get support from the Conservatives when this last happened back in 2022. Does he agree that we need to go further and provide support to people who rely on all fuel types?

I agree wholeheartedly that that is a great waste of the undoubted talent that Megan has and should be able to bring to the table. Demand for the scheme has risen sharply. That should be welcomed, because it shows that people want to work and want to get back into work, but the system has not kept up with their demands. Backlogs are growing, processing times are getting longer and confidence in the scheme is falling away.

Yes. The hon. Member is right to mention how everyone can benefit from people getting back into work—both employers and disabled people looking for work can benefit—but the system is not enabling that to happen. Self-employed individuals, in particular, are losing their businesses, and employers—in particular smaller employers—are being left with costs and uncertainty. A scheme designed to support work is, in its current state, preventing it. Alongside the delays, there are growing concerns about how the scheme operates in practice. My constituents report being forced to reapply from scratch at renewal, even when nothing has changed. We know that we have the technology to deal with that problem. They face long reconsideration processes, struggle to contact caseworkers and in some instances cannot even access the system properly, because of their needs. This does not sound like a system working with people; it feels like one that they are having to fight to get through. There are also serious concerns about funding decisions. I have been made aware of cases in which support has been cut significantly, not because needs have changed, but because funding is benchmarked against generic regional job market rates, which will punish people living longer, particularly in Wales, where we have lower than average salaries. That misunderstands the entire purpose of the scheme. We are seeing a convergence of problems: delays getting into the system, barriers to navigating it and reductions in support once people are in it. The result is clear: people are being kept out of work because the Government’s system is not working for them. That creates a fundamental contradiction: the Government want more disabled people in work, and disabled people have plenty to offer, but encouragement without support does not represent opportunity. When Access to Work fails, people fall out of employment, businesses miss out on talent, and more people are pushed into economic inactivity. At a time when we must indeed focus on growth, we should be strengthening the system, not allowing it to fall behind. We need urgent steps to tackle the backlog. We need a system that is faster, clearer and accessible. We need funding decisions that reflect the reality of specialist support. Ultimately, this is about whether disabled people can participate equally in working life. Many disabled people are desperate to work, but they are being let down by this scheme, which has helped so many people over the years. I urge the Minister to recognise the urgency of the issue and set out how the Government will act.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the Access to Work scheme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. A disability can happen to any one of us at any time. That was a lesson that I learned the hard way, when I became fully paralysed by Guillain-Barré syndrome aged 22. I was unable to walk for five months, and it took me more than two years to walk steadily on my feet again. I remember feeling utterly exhausted and I worried about how I would ever work again. I am grateful to have made a near full recovery, but not everyone does. For many disabled people, the greatest barrier to work is whether the right support will be in place to make work possible and sustainable for them. The Access to Work scheme should enable disabled people to enter work, to stay in work and to contribute fully to their communities and to our economy. Disabled people can have complex needs, but achieve remarkable things despite them. The scheme enables more than 74,000 disabled people to work by providing support such as specialist equipment, support workers and specialist job coaches. A study commissioned by the Royal National Institute of Blind People found a £1.48 return for every £1 spent on the Access to Work scheme, so it is excellent value for money. I have mentioned previously in the House that some of my constituents have been waiting more than nine months just for an assessment of their needs. Since then, the situation has deteriorated further. The waiting list has grown to 66,000 people, an increase of 4,000, and 32,000 payments are now outstanding. Applicants are being told that they may wait up to 37 weeks just for a decision, and some, in particular the self-employed, for more than a year. Let us be clear what that means. It means that someone offered a job cannot take it, that someone already in work cannot do the job properly and, in too many cases, that jobs are being lost unnecessarily.

The hon. Member is right to focus on retention, which is an equally important part of the scheme.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this vital debate. I have tried to support the Evans family, my constituents, since I first became an MP, carrying on the work of my predecessor Roger Williams, who was here until 2015. I have got to know Don, Rachel and Paul and their circumstances quite well, and Paul is here with us today. The Evans family have suffered as a result of shocking banking malpractice, and I hope and believe that we have a Minister here today with the professional expertise and intellect to understand what the banks did and put things right. Don Evans led a family firm in every sense: his wife, two daughters, son, son-in-law and granddaughter all played a part. Springdew Ltd, a pharmaceuticals company, was the kind of firm that made its employees and the wider upper Swansea valley community part of an extended family. Customers included Procter & Gamble, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and GSK. In 2007, the business became GSK’s supplier of the year. Unknown to the Evans family, Springdew was originally put into a 10-year structured collar by Barclays Capital in early 2006 for a notional amount of £800,000, allegedly rolled into an interest rate swap with a notional value of £1.3 million, with Springdew paying the fixed rate of 5.6% for an excessively long period—15 years. The bank was highly motivated to make the term so long because it had secretly added a hidden margin of circa 60 basis points to the swap rate, bookable as a day one profit of circa £85,000. That interest rate swap was included in the 2012 interest rate hedging products remediation process. Barclays stated that the product had been mis-sold and a full tear-up was agreed, with the Evans family refunded moneys paid plus statutory interest. However, the bank refused to engage with Springdew’s claim for consequential losses, and the hidden credit line had damaged its credit standing, leading to transfer to Barclays’ business support unit, where additional fees were charged. Its experience in the business support unit included manipulated interest rates, false reporting, a refusal to suspend payments, personal and pension funds being injected and forced equipment sales. The hidden credit line also meant that the bank was unwilling to provide additional lending to support growth. The bank has since refused to disclose key internal documents promised in the guide to the review in November 2012. As a company rather than an individual, Springdew has no legal right to a data subject access request, so reform there is desperately needed. If businesses cannot access disclosure from the other side, they are fighting blindfolded. We also need to regulate business lending properly. The world of SME finance should not be the wild west. The business had been flourishing, but the bank’s behaviour brought all of that to an unnecessary end. The family invested a further £600,000 of their own money to keep the business afloat—money that is now with creditors. Springdew was the last major employer in the upper Swansea valley, providing much-needed jobs. I must stress that when businesses are destroyed through banking misconduct it is not just founders and shareholders who suffer, but employees and the wider community too. The stress has had direct medical consequences. In 2011, Don suffered a perforated ulcer and was hospitalised for a week. In January 2024, a month after Springdew began liquidation, Don suffered a major stroke. He was discharged early on a Friday due to his wife’s deteriorating condition; that same night she was hospitalised with pneumonia, an illness that can be brought on by sustained stress. The situation worsened when the family learned that she had cancer, which she had kept secret, not wanting to add to the family’s burden. Although the financial consequences have been devastating, the greatest losses have been of health, of time and of life; one of Don’s daughters also sadly passed away. The Fraud Act 2006 defines three types of fraud: false representation, failure to disclose information and abuse of position. The Evans family believe that they have been the victims of all three. There was a brief glimmer of hope for justice when the Business Banking Resolution Service was established, but the guilty banks engineered ways to deem Springdew ineligible, as they did with the vast majority of claimants, with a staggering 76% of claimants being turned away. The family were then diverted to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which was an equally unsatisfying experience. There are clear systemic failures in how financial injustices are handled. The Financial Conduct Authority’s purpose is to regulate financial services, set standards and hold those that fail to meet those standards to account. Clearly, it has failed to help the Evans family and so many others. The FCA deliberately excluded key features of derivatives and consequential losses from its remediation exercise, and direct correspondence with chief executive officer Andrew Bailey and chair John Griffiths-Jones produced nothing meaningful. Springdew relied on a system it was told to trust. It was misdirected by official process, suffered catastrophic personal and financial harm, and followed the rules throughout. My constituents have been victims of serious banking misconduct and have been terribly let down. As far back as 2014, Parliament made a commitment to the Evanses and others like them that their cases would be reviewed and that fair and reasonable redress would follow. That commitment has not been honoured. Justice is long overdue, and I urge the Minister to relook at the Evans case and the others raised today and commit to ensuring that those businesses will finally benefit from a redress scheme that will provide true compensation and fairness.

Park home residents in Brecon and Radnor, and indeed across the entire country, describe the 10% sales commission as a deeply unfair hit on their life savings, often amounting to tens of thousands of pounds. With the Government’s call for evidence now under way, what assessment has the Minister made of whether this charge is fair and whether residents are receiving value for money?

8. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of sales commission charges on park home residents.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this vital debate on voluntary groups and community centres. Supporting voluntary groups and community centres must include supporting how people actually get to them. In rural areas like mine, that means community transport, which is an essential service in rural Wales. It is what keeps voluntary groups and community centres going. It enables people to attend lunch clubs, reach community hubs, volunteer their time and stay connected to the places they live in. It is also vital for ensuring that people across Powys can reach their healthcare appointments. In towns and villages throughout Powys and the Swansea valley, people rely on those services every single day. Without them, many, particularly older residents, are simply cut off. In my constituency, we are fortunate to have a network of dedicated, community-led schemes doing incredible work. Services such as Hay and district dial-a-ride, Rhayader and district dial-a-ride, Brecon and Crickhowell dial-a-ride and Llanwrtyd Wells community transport provide vital lifelines. Alongside them, organisations such as Steer community transport in the Swansea valley, Rhayader and district community support and the Ystradgynlais community car scheme help people remain independent and connected. Those services are under real pressure. They are often volunteer led, operating on tight budgets and now facing rising fuel costs that they struggle to absorb. Unlike commercial operators, they cannot just increase the prices, because the people who rely on them often cannot afford it. Increasingly, they are asked to do more than just provide transport. As pressures on social care grow, community transport providers are stepping in to offer reassurance and informal support, and helping people navigate services, going well beyond their funded remit. Demand for such services is rising, especially as public transport options reduce and more people face isolation, particularly in rural areas, but funding has not kept pace. In one local scheme alone, nearly 5,000 journeys were provided last year, covering more than 30,000 miles. Yet services are still being asked to do more with less, and the consequences are stark. If community transport begins to struggle, people do not just lose a lift; they lose access to their community, their support networks and, in many cases, their independence and ability to get to healthcare appointments. We should recognise that many volunteer drivers use their own vehicles, and that current mileage rates do not fully reflect the real cost of fuel and maintenance, making it harder to recruit and retain the people the services depend on. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ mileage rate has not increased since 2011, and is set at 45p a mile. If we are serious about supporting voluntary groups and community centres, we must be serious about supporting the transport networks that make them viable. Clair Swales, the chief executive officer of PAVO—the Powys Association of Voluntary Organisations—told me of her real concerns about the future of such services if the mileage rate is not increased, particularly given the fuel shock we are experiencing at the moment. We must recognise that community transport is essential infrastructure. It should not be an afterthought. Ensuring that it receives the support it needs to keep going is also important for making sure that our residents can receive healthcare treatment. Without it, our warm words about community support risk meaning very little in practice. Finally, I pay tribute to the volunteers who keep these schemes running—quietly, selflessly and often without recognition. Without them, none of this would be possible.

In 2024, Labour MPs across south Wales stood on a pledge to “save our steel”. They promised £2.5 billion for the steel industry, and they said that they had a plan. They began by saying that they would publish the steel strategy in spring 2025. Then it was autumn 2025, and now finally it arrives in spring 2026. We still do not know how much of that money will be spent in Wales. Will the Secretary of State confirm that to the House today? In the meantime, British steel production has continued falling, and thousands of jobs have been lost across south Wales since the blast furnaces were turned off. I am not really sure that Labour understands the damage that its party’s failures are having across south Wales. Wales feels abandoned. Steel is in our blood. It is the backbone of our economy. But we are still losing jobs. Skilled workers such as welders are leaving, and tarmac companies are struggling to make asphalt. Consumer spending is falling. People in south Wales are fed up with broken promises. South Wales was promised that the electric arc furnace would be up and running by 2027, but we are now told that it will be 2028. Can the Secretary of State update the House on that deadline? We need to see so much more urgency. Wales is desperate for the good jobs that the steel industry can provide. There is still—just about, if the Government move quickly—the opportunity to build a home-grown supply chain for the floating offshore wind sector. The Government have told me that they are not expecting to have that sector going until the mid-2030s. That is far too slow. That lackadaisical approach means that the energy that should be created through offshore wind will not be added to the grid until the mid-2030s. The Government must hurry up and deliver on their promises to south Wales.

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I agree with many of his points. Tackling the climate emergency is vital, but that does not mean that green energy companies should be allowed to do whatever they want. Does he share my concerns about the conduct of Bute Energy, a green energy company that has spent—at the very least—thousands of pounds on courting his colleagues in Cardiff?

My hon. Friend is quite right. Many of my constituents certainly would not say that Lloyds is by their side. That is why it comes down to the Government. They have to show that they are on the side of our constituents, not just of the big banks. Ultimately, this is a question of political choice. The Government can choose to stand up for rural communities and those reliant on in-person banking—which is all of us—or they can continue to allow this managed decline. Right now, the choices being made are the wrong ones. Labour has chosen to keep the tax breaks handed to the big banks by the previous Conservative Government and hinge its economic strategy on appeasing those same banks. At the same time, it is asking the small, often family-run businesses on our high streets to shoulder more of the burden to raise revenue. While big banks are being rewarded, rural communities are being left behind and local businesses are being squeezed. That is not fair, balanced or sustainable. We need a reform of banking hub criteria to reflect rural geography, a proactive provision of hubs before the last bank closes, guaranteed access to free-to-use ATMs, and stronger obligations on banks to maintain services in underserved areas. Without intervention, the current trajectory is clear: more closures, further exclusion and more communities left behind.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this vital debate. He represents a similar constituency to my own, with the additional challenge of some extra islands, and I was struck by some of the similarities in our experiences—particularly the dismissive attitude of Lloyds, which was mentioned by several Members. My hon. Friend spoke about the reliance on community bankers, which banks have provided as an alternative, but, similarly to him, I have found in my constituency that the locations in which they are offering those services are not up to scratch, and local residents do not feel comfortable with them. My hon. Friend also said that the FCA criteria need to be widened, a call that I certainly agree with. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) spoke of the impact of closures on small towns and local economies. There is only one bank left in Tewkesbury; I am sure that is causing a huge inconvenience for his residents. Likewise, I agree with his call for the number of hubs to be increased. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) spoke of Lloyds’ “computer says no” approach, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) spoke about the community campaigns in her constituency and the impact of Santander’s closures. Across my constituency of Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, we are seeing a steady and deeply worrying erosion of access to basic banking services. The issue here is whether people can withdraw their own money, whether small businesses can function, and whether elderly residents can manage their day-to-day lives. In rural Wales, access to cash and in-person banking is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Take Hay-on-Wye, an internationally renowned tourist destination and home to the Hay festival, with a thriving high street built on independent businesses. It is heavily cash dependent, particularly during the tourist season, yet it has no bank, and its only 24-hour ATM is routinely out of action, often for weeks at a time. What message does that send—a town that welcomes the world yet cannot guarantee access to cash for its own residents or its many visitors? That is not just inconvenient; it is economically damaging. In Presteigne, the situation is even more stark: the town has lost its bank branch entirely. The nearest alternative—this speaks to the point about long bus journeys—is now two hours and 40 minutes away by bus. This is a town with a large elderly population—people who are far less likely to bank online and far more reliant on face-to-face services. Those people are effectively being told that accessing their own money now requires a full day’s travel. That simply cannot be right. In Brecon and Llandrindod Wells—the largest towns in Brecknockshire and Radnorshire respectively—each town is now down to its last remaining bank. Those towns are key hubs for their counties, serving not just local residents but the wider Brecon Beacons and Radnorshire area, with a significant tourism and agricultural economy. Yet, under the current rules, those towns must wait until the final bank closes before they can be considered for a banking hub. That forces us into a perverse situation in which communities have to lose everything before they qualify for any support. Why are we waiting for failure when we can clearly see it coming? In Pontardawe, residents have already been left without a bank. They are now forced to travel to Neath—a round trip by bus that can often take more than two hours. Again, that disproportionately affects older residents, those without cars and those on lower incomes. Financial access is becoming a postcode lottery. The fundamental problem is that the criteria for banking hubs are deeply flawed. They simply do not reflect how rural communities actually work. The current model looks at whether there are 7,000 people within 1 km of a high street, but rural Wales does not work like that, and nor do many areas across the United Kingdom. Towns like Brecon, Hay, Llandrindod and Presteigne act as hubs for vast surrounding areas—villages and rural communities many miles beyond that arbitrary radius. The system therefore systematically underestimates need, and communities lose out as a result. Banking hubs are about more than convenience; they are also about inclusion. We still have significantly high levels of digital exclusion, particularly among older residents and in rural areas, where many struggle to get a mobile signal at home. Many people simply cannot manage their finances entirely online, and they should not be forced to. Banks should have a duty of care to their customers. After all, their profits are built on the money that customers entrust to them. We also need to ensure reliable access to cashpoints. An ATM that is frequently out of service is no access at all. Let us be clear: this situation is not inevitable. The major banks are making significant profits. They are benefiting from higher interest rates and, in many cases, generous tax arrangements. Yet at the same time, they are withdrawing services from the very communities that helped them to build those profits. In Powys, for example, a county that covers nearly a third of the land mass of Wales, there are no remaining Lloyds branches at all. That is an extraordinary withdrawal of service. Yet Lloyds made a £6.7 billion profit last year, which was up 12%. Its CEO, Charlie Nunn, received a total pay package of £7.4 million for 2025, and he is reportedly set up for a potential maximum payout of £17.7 million under a new performance-related pay policy proposed for 2026. There we have it: he will get a £10 million pay rise for closing bank branches across the country. Communities are being abandoned unnecessarily while banking profits are being prioritised.

Mine is the biggest constituency in England and Wales, and four or five towns in it sorely need a banking hub: Brecon and Presteigne are two such examples, beyond the hub that has already opened in Ystradgynlais. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for more than the 350 hubs that the Government have already committed to?

The hon. Member says that banks do a very good job. Is he not aware of the numerous outages that Lloyds has had on its banking apps over the past couple of years and indeed the past couple of weeks? Those outages create a reliance on physical infrastructure for people to access cash if they need to. Does the hon. Member also agree that the banks can afford to pay for banking hubs? It is not the Government who should have to pay for them. Does he agree that banks have more than enough to cover the cost of these hubs?

Almost two thirds of homes across Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe are dependent on heating oil, the price of which is now surging thanks to Donald Trump’s decision to bomb Iran. Will the Chancellor reassure my constituents that help will be on the way from the Government?

Tourism is one of our key economic sectors in mid Wales. Last year, I visited Fforest Fields in Radnorshire, a beautiful campsite and family business that has been built up over generations. However, Bute Energy plans on building a wind farm on the other side of the hill from the site, with turbines that will be nearly as big as the Shard. Have the Government, or their colleagues in Cardiff, conducted any economic impact assessment on the damage that that will do to the economy in Powys?

As long as the Iranian regime exists, it will continue to pose a direct threat to our security, and to stability across the region, yet Cabinet Office figures show that non-official development assistance integrated security fund spending for the middle east is set to fall by a third in the coming years. Will the Prime Minister explain why funding to counter Iranian threats is being reduced, when those threats remain so acute?

8. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the student loan system.

Many graduates feel as if they are drowning in debt and that they were sold a promise—that a university education would help them to pay off their debts quickly—which has not come true. Their debts continue to mount. Will the Government consider scrapping the planned freeze of the repayment threshold?

Wales is ready to move on from 27 years of failure and a century of Welsh Labour dominance. Labour’s failures in Wales represent the greatest failure in democratic governance anywhere in the world. Wales lies at the bottom of every British league table: it has the lowest education scores, the lowest wages and the longest waiting times. What explains this complete failure of democratic governance? Welsh politics has been too chummy, with people moving freely between journalism, public affairs and political parties. Wales has lacked proper scrutiny. It needs fresh thinking, which is why Wales needs Welsh Liberals. I wish to be clear: for over 100 years, Welsh Liberals fought for Home Rule, Cymru Fydd and a Welsh Parliament. Devolution is a sacred flame that we will follow, but the Labour party has done irreparable damage to it. Recent polling shows that only 36% of people in Wales think that devolution is worth it. Why is that? Why has Welsh devolution failed to improve outcomes? First, Wales should have powers equal to those of Scotland, because we are an equal nation and should be treated as such. The galling gap exists most obviously in the funding and powers made available for rail and those of the Crown estate. Until the Westminster Government acknowledge that Wales gets a raw deal, this constitutional question will rumble on, fanning the flames of populism and nationalism.

It will be news to people in Port Talbot that the electric arc furnace is ready, because that is not what they are seeing on the ground. It is not ready. They were told it would be ready in 2027, but now we are hearing that will not happen until possibly 2028. This failure in industrial development is costing us jobs and damaging Welsh communities. I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned the Crown Estate, because the Crown Estate should have been forced to prioritise domestic supply chains, as has happened in the Netherlands and Germany, in its offshore leasing rounds. That is why devolution of the Crown Estate matters. It must be held accountable for its actions in Wales, and for its utter failure to build Welsh supply chains using Welsh businesses. I would like to distance myself from my predecessor, who said in this place that “moving away from steelmaking would not have a direct impact on national security.” —[ Official Report , 31 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 849.] I disagree, and I think it shows that the Conservatives do not understand Wales and never have done. Finally, the Welsh Liberal Democrats believe that the green transition must be a Welsh jobs strategy. That means anchoring supply chains here, and investing in steel capacity, heavy plate manufacturing and port infrastructure, so that Welsh communities benefit directly from the energy revolution happening off our shores.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and I am coming to that. Secondly, we need a Government with plans to empower people across Wales. Devolution was intended to bring power closer to people, but the Welsh Government has instead hoarded power in Cardiff. We need a Government in Wales who trust councillors and council officers to make their own decisions, without demanding that the Welsh Government sign off on minor changes to bus routes; a Government who do not try to hide behind a £2 million a year Future Generations Commissioner; and a Government who ensure that health boards are truly accountable to the people they serve. In short, to put things right, Wales needs more than just a change of Government; we need a change in the style of government. Most importantly, people need the truth from us—politics depends on it. What happens to the spirit of democracy when people are not told the truth? It erodes trust, leading to populism. Last week, the Government sought headlines by saying that they were spending £14 billion on Welsh rail projects. Well, Labour knows, and we know, that they are not doing so. What did that announcement achieve, other than creating further distrust in politicians? This will be their legacy: a Wales that is so tired of broken promises that people have stopped tuning in or turning up. The Government are not the only ones who have broken their promises. The Brexiteers told Wales that leaving the European Union would save our steel industry, save Welsh farming and boost our international links. Ten years on, our steel industry is on the brink of collapse, Welsh farmers are being undercut by lamb imports from Australia and New Zealand, and Welsh universities are cutting jobs. The Brexiteers cost us the last decade, and Reform cannot be trusted with the next. If this Government wish to see off the threat from Reform and restore some faith in democracy, they must do two things: first, fix our health care system, and secondly, grow the economy. I will start with healthcare. At the start of this Parliament, we were told that the two Labour Governments would work together. The Government said that they would use spare capacity in England to drive down waiting lists in Wales, and that proposal was welcome. Cross-border healthcare has long been an everyday reality for my constituents. My predecessors, Richard Livsey and Roger Williams, fought to ensure that Powys patients could go to Hereford hospital for treatment. But last summer, faced with a mounting deficit that is now approaching £50 million, Powys teaching health board asked English hospitals to slow down treatment times for Powys patients. Waiting times for some procedures have now doubled. On Saturday I spoke to Dorothy Griffiths, who has been waiting since June 2024 for a knee replacement, and she is not alone. Patients who could have had hip or knee operations months ago have been left in pain because no one will take responsibility for ending this cruel policy. Nobody waiting for a knee replacement gets better with time, and the financial, physical and emotional costs will only mount. I have pressed the Welsh Office and Welsh Government Ministers for a plan to end the pain, but it is clear that there is no plan. Denying healthcare to people who need it is a moral outrage. Growing our economy is how we can pay for the NHS that we need. Agriculture, heavy industry and tourism are key sectors of the Welsh economy. The Welsh economy is driven by small family-owned businesses, and I wish to emphasise this point: the best long-term approach to tackling poverty in Wales is to build an economy with good jobs. Businesses are allies in the war on poverty, not foes, yet rather than seeing those sectors as an asset, this Labour Government have all but declared war on them. First, despite the low earnings of Welsh farmers being well known to anyone who knows anything about farming, the Government launched a tax raid on family farms. Secondly, they introduced a jobs tax and rateable value changes for pubs, restaurants and hospitality venues, prompting closures and lost jobs across Wales. Thirdly, there is the great betrayal of our steel industry. Before the general election, Welsh Labour MPs lined up in front of signs saying that they would “Save Our Steel.” They had a manifesto commitment to spend £2.5 billion on rebuilding our steel industry. Then they let the blast furnaces be turned off and said there was nothing that they could do. Yet months later, when the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe were under the same threat, Labour intervened and nationalised the steelworks. It was one rule for England and another for Wales. We were told during that debate that a steel strategy was forthcoming. In September last year, I asked the Government where it was. Their answer was that it would be published by the end of the year, but it still has not been published. Why not? How much money has been spent on shoring up the English steel industry in the meantime? Will the Government commit to spending that £2.5 billion in Wales? If they do not, our economy in south Wales will be in danger of withering away, and the anger that will follow will wash Labour Members away. They must fight their colleagues for that funding. There is huge demand for the skills that exist in south Wales, particularly around Neath Port Talbot. Welders are in big demand and can command six-figure salaries. We need an abundance of welders to build the big infrastructure projects that we need on time and on budget, and therein lies the opportunity to tackle poverty and build the industries of the future. Let us get Welsh children welding. I support the Government’s aim of building supply chains and providing green jobs, but they must hurry up, because Wales is missing out. The tidal lagoon project in Swansea bay, which the Conservatives cancelled, would have created thousands of jobs, generated tons of green energy and given us an industrial lead. The Liberal Democrats agree with the Government that green industrial leadership is ours for the taking. Take offshore wind: Wales has the coastline, the ports and the industrial skills to lead the renewable transition, but parts of the supply chains have now been built elsewhere, which means that Welsh companies will have to import steel to build the necessary parts. We should not be importing steel into Port Talbot—that defies all logic. The Government have given themselves a deadline of 2035 to get floating offshore wind ready. What are they waiting for? This sluggish attempt at industrial development is costing us jobs.

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Despite a spirited performance at the weekend, Welsh rugby is in crisis. Clubs are demanding a vote of no confidence, and supporters fear a stitch-up that wipes the Ospreys off the map, ending professional rugby in Swansea. Does the Secretary of State agree that the leadership of the Welsh Rugby Union has lost the confidence of the grassroots game, and should step aside?

Is the Minister aware that the financial services industry is required to conduct regular testing of its systems, and that sectors like aviation and nuclear have designated individuals in their security organisations who are responsible for overseeing those sorts of practices?

During the evidence sessions, numerous very knowledgeable witnesses called for these new clauses, so I will push them both to a vote. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.

Can the hon. Gentleman address the point of who he thinks would benefit if that Act was repealed?

I will.

Will the Minister clarify what he thinks ethical vulnerability research actually constitutes?

I think this once more comes down to state capacity and how we see the state’s role. Clearly there needs to be an expansion of the state’s powers—that is why the Bill was introduced—to mandate in writing various requirements of the companies that provide the critical infrastructure upon which our country relies. The hon. Member will remember the numerous witnesses who told us that board accountability was crucial. Some told us that in public and some in private. They are the people who are doing this job, and whom the Government are asking to do this job. That is why we should listen to them and why we will press the new clauses to a vote.

New clauses 16 and 17 work in tandem to align the Bill with best practice among our European neighbours, introducing measures that would strengthen ongoing oversight and enhance preparation, therefore improving the UK’s cyber-resilience before incidents occur. New clause 16 would make cyber-resilience a core responsibility of organisational leadership. It would require boards to oversee security arrangements, approve risk management approaches, satisfy themselves that protections are working on an ongoing basis and, importantly, be accountable. Numerous witnesses that we have spoken to over the past month told us that cyber-security deserves the most senior level of oversight. In fact, those professionals from within the industry told us that they desperately need this to happen to make sure that they can do the job that the Government are asking of them. ISACA, an organisation that I remember looking up to when I was working in cyber-security, has said that it supports both our new clauses.

One of the measures that the new clause would introduce is a requirement for board members to receive education. Clearly, it is necessary for boards to understand cyber-security risk, and the new clause is about putting that into legislation. Board accountability is the cornerstone of corporate governance. Corporate governance is one of the reasons for the Bill. We have seen drastic failures in corporate governance across the UK in numerous sectors. Financial services, historically, is one sector that corporate governance has completely failed in, yet the Conservatives continued to support it with tax cuts. All we are saying with our new clause is that boards need to be held accountable for the cyber-risk that they pose, and that making boards responsible for that obligation helps the cyber-security professionals responsible for securing those organisations to do their jobs properly. ISACA has 8,000 members. They are the people who will be carrying out this work. Surely, we should listen to them when they tell us that this is what they need. It was not just one organisation that told us that either. Boards have an obligation to oversee financial risk, for which they need financial literacy. Cyber-risk deserves the same treatment. Importantly, this would bring the UK into line with international best practice. The European Union’s NIS2 framework explicitly places cyber accountability at senior management level, and makes the same demands of board oversight in these areas. That is why it is confusing again to see the Government diverging from that framework without a clear explanation of why. It is not clear why the UK should be settling for less. Why have the Government taken that out?

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

In our previous sitting, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge set out clearly the cyber-threat posed by China, and argued that, through new clause 2, China should be explicitly recognised as a foreign power presenting a significant risk to the United Kingdom. He rightly highlighted the precedent in UK legislation for maintaining registers of hostile or high-risk state actors to protect national security. I agree that Parliament should be unequivocal in recognising the Chinese Communist party as a strategic cyber-threat, particularly given evidence of state-linked cyber-espionage, infrastructure compromise and the targeting of critical national infrastructure. We have seen data from the Cabinet Office last week indicating that the Government plan to drastically reduce the integrated security fund spending on domestic cyber and tech to counter cyber-attacks. It will be cut from £113.3 million to £95 million by 2028-29, which is a reduction of 16%. Domestic spending to counter Russian threats in the same period will incur a drop of more than 20%. Those reductions leave us dangerously exposed and are in direct opposition to the Government’s promises to support the UK’s national security priorities. New clause 2 offers the chance to identify and monitor state actors that pose a threat to UK cyber-security. The register must also reflect the evolving nature of cyber-risk. Threats do not arise solely from formally hostile states, but also from jurisdictions where hostile cyber-actors operate at scale, using digital infrastructure to target UK systems and citizens. We have seen that in countries such as India and Nigeria, where organised cyber-criminal networks have run sophisticated international operations against the UK, exploiting cloud services and telecommunications infrastructure. In India, law enforcement has dismantled major cyber-crime hubs linked to international targeting, including operations specifically affecting large numbers of British victims. In 2025, the National Crime Agency worked in partnership with India’s Central Bureau of Investigation to raid an organised crime group in Uttar Pradesh, which had targeted more than 100 UK citizens with pop-ups stating that their devices had been compromised, losing them more than £390,000. That is not only an unacceptable financial loss for our citizens, but a significant waste of resources. In Nigeria, long-established cyber-criminal networks continue to conduct large-scale digital fraud campaigns aimed at overseas targets including the United Kingdom. Interpol’s Operation Serengeti in 2025 tackled high-impact cyber-crimes in Nigeria and 17 other nations, arresting 1,209 suspects and recovering nearly $100 million that had been stolen through cyber-fraud. Although these states might not be hostile in a geopolitical sense, hostile cyber-actors operating within their borders are none the less inflicting sustained harm and placing heavy burdens on our cyber-defence and law enforcement resources. I support the aims of new clause 2, but urge Ministers to ensure that the framework is flexible enough to capture not only hostile states but jurisdictions that consistently serve as bases for large-scale hostile cyber-activity. Data from the Cabinet Office shows that integrated security fund spending on Russia is set to fall over 20% between 2026 and 2029, which shows that the Government are not taking threats from Russia, or other hostile nations, seriously enough.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The purpose of new clause 10 is to ensure that regulatory authorities and regulated persons have adequate resources and capabilities to carry out their responsibilities. Fundamentally, this is a question of state capacity. Surely it is hard to disagree with that statement. We can pass legislation in this House, but if the regulators tasked with enforcing that legislation lack the resources and capabilities to fulfil their duties, and if the businesses subject to the new requirements lack clarity about what is required of them, the Bill will remain little more than words on a page. Cyber-resilience cannot be achieved through legislation alone, poor and weak though this piece of legislation is; it must be delivered by regulators with properly trained staff, clear guidance and sustained investment in enforcement and oversight. Without that foundation, even the strongest legal framework risks becoming ineffective. The new clause would create a vital statutory reality check. It would require the Secretary of State within one year of the Act coming into force to consult with regulators and regulated organisations, and report to Parliament on whether the regulatory system is equipped to function under the new rules. The new clause asks a simple but essential question: do the bodies responsible for protecting our critical digital infrastructure have the people, funding, tools and skills that they need to succeed? Laws work only if the people enforcing them have the time, money, expertise and systems to do so properly. The scale of the challenge is already clear. Research from ISC2 shows that 88% of organisations that have suffered cyber-incidents link those breaches directly to skills shortages. If regulators themselves face similar skills or operational shortages, enforcement will be slow, inconsistent and ultimately ineffective, and may leave businesses facing uncertainty about what is required of them. The new clause would help to ensure that issues are identified early and addressed proactively, rather than after a major cyber-security incident exposes weaknesses in our regulatory system. For this legislation to work, it requires fully funded and effective regulators. That is why I will press the new clause to a vote.

My hon. Friend will be aware that we are in the week of St David’s day, which is a terribly important day for all of us in Wales. In terms of accountability, she will be very aware of the long-standing stance that the Liberal Democrats have taken on the Crown Estate, which in Wales regrettably still has not been devolved. Its powers and funding have been devolved to Scotland, but not—

New clauses 8 and 9 would close a dangerous gap at the heart of the Government’s cyber-security strategy. Right now, the Bill creates a two-tier system. Private companies running critical national infrastructure face strict legal duties, enforcement and oversight, yet the very public institutions that hold our democracy together and protect our most vulnerable citizens are left outside statutory protection. Nowhere is that more alarming than with our local authorities. Indeed, that is where the Government’s approach diverges from some EU member states. For example, the Netherlands is applying its equivalent legislation to local authorities. When a council suffers a cyber-attack, it is not just an IT inconvenience; it means real life grinding to halt. Members of the Committee who have served on local authorities will be well aware that a cyber-attack hitting a local authority creates problems with welfare payments, housing services, processing benefits payments, accessing social care for the most vulnerable in our society and collecting bins. Those are crucial activities in the day-to-day life of our society and our democracy. A cyber-attack can leave families without support, vulnerable children without protection and elderly residents without care, yet the Minister has suggested that these services are not necessary to the day-to-day functioning of society. I disagree with that. We have already seen the consequences at Tewkesbury borough council, where a cyber-attack was so severe that it triggered a major incident and crippled core services. Likewise, the attack on Gloucester city council cost the taxpayer more than £1 million and put at risk some of the most sensitive information held on UK residents, particularly if one considers the nature of employment in Gloucestershire. The reporting from those attacks showed that local authorities, which are cash-strapped and struggling to make do as they are, had to divert staffing resources into addressing those incidents.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We cannot allow these services to be interrupted. He will be well aware of the impact that bins not being collected has on our streets. Councils are being targeted because they hold sensitive personal data and provide much-needed services to the most vulnerable in society, yet they are being left as soft targets, without statutory requirements and the ringfenced resources that accompany them. We cannot claim to be building a cyber-secure Britain while leaving the frontline of public services unprotected. Resilience must extend beyond councils. Our new clauses also ask that our political parties and electoral infrastructure are properly protected, because we know that hostile states and non-state actors are actively seeking to undermine democratic systems. An attack does not need to change an electoral result to be devastating; it need only cast doubt on the integrity of the count or prevent legitimate voters from casting their ballots. We know that trust, once lost, is extraordinarily hard to rebuild. The security of our elections is too important to be left to secondary legislation made at some future date. Finally, our new clauses would require the Government to bring critical manufacturing, food production and large-scale retail distribution into scope. When British companies such as JLR lose billions to cyber-incidents, or when national retailers such as Marks & Spencer are paralysed, it is not just a private commercial issue, but a blow to national economic security, and there is no economic security without cyber-security. The Minister will be aware that the ramifications of the JLR attack were felt across south Wales because of the link to the steel industry supply chain. Our neighbours in the European Union already recognise this issue through the NIS2 framework, which covers food production and transport manufacturing as essential sectors. The new clauses simply ask the Government to match that seriousness. At their heart, our new clauses are about ending the two-tier approach. We seek the Government’s recognition that councils, political parties, electoral infrastructure and core supply chains are just as critical to national resilience as power stations and data centres. A country is not secure if its public services, at any level, are exposed. Its elections are vulnerable, and its economy can be brought to a standstill by a single cyber-attack. These new clauses hope to close those gaps and make Britain safer.

Amendment 27, which I move on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame, would give the Government the ability to remove, disable or modify hardware and software that could be used to infiltrate British national infrastructure, such as the cables underneath the now approved Chinese mega-embassy in Tower Hamlets. The Prime Minister’s greenlighting of the Chinese super-embassy in the heart of London is a grave mistake that presents an open door for the ramping up of Chinese espionage in our country. It sends a regrettable and shameful message to Hongkongers—many of whom have already been targeted, intimidated and coerced by the Chinese Communist party—that trade deals are being prioritised over their safety. The Government must take a robust stance with hostile states such as China.

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 43, page 66, line 11, at end insert— “(fa) a requirement to remove, disable or modify hardware, software or other facilities;” This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to issue directions to remove, disable or modify hardware, software or other facilities for national security purposes.

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 40, page 63, line 7, leave out “5” and insert “3”. This amendment would increase the frequency of the reports that must be published under Clause 40, from every five years to every three years.

Amendment 26, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame, seeks to ensure that the Bill keeps pace with the reality that it seeks to regulate. In the world of cyber-security, five years is a lifetime. In the past five years, the size and scale of cyber-attacks has continued to advance at pace, and we can expect the next five years to be the same. In that context, waiting five years for the first formal parliamentary review of the Bill seems dangerous. It risks leaving us with a regulatory framework designed for the threats of yesterday and not tomorrow. The cyber-threat is real, evolving and urgent. The NCSC has reported that nationally significant cyber-incidents more than doubled in 2025 alone. That is why the amendment would change the reporting cycle to once every three years. That is a pragmatic timeline, which allows the Government to identify gaps and close them before they are exploited. The EU’s NIS2 directive explicitly mandates a review by the Commission every three years, and it is not clear why the Government have decided to diverge from that standard. Is it because they believe that the cyber-threat here is considerably less than the one facing European member states? It is simply not clear, which adds to the general sense of bewilderment about this provision. If our European neighbours are reviewing their cyber-security approach every three years, why are the UK Government content to wait for five?

Given the reassurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45 Monitoring by regulatory authorities Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave, withdrawn . Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 41 Regulations under section 24 or Chapter 3 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

T2. Green GEN Cymru was granted an Ofgem licence within days of this Government coming to power. Is the Secretary of State confident in the process that took place, and can he confirm how far it had reached under the previous Government?

The hon. Member is quite right to say that American companies have captured most of the market that he is talking about, particularly the cloud providers. What does he think is stopping British cloud providers from getting a larger share of the market?

Welsh Water’s chief executive has one of the highest paid jobs in Wales at almost £900,000 a year, and the company is hiking basic pay to get around the Government’s crackdown on executive bonuses, despite being a not-for-profit. That is even though Welsh Water presides over some of the worst sewage dumping and leaks in the UK and sky-high price rises. Will the Minister look into companies trying to bypass the new regulations in that way and ensure that those loopholes are closed?

Surely, we cannot pass a cyber-security and resilience Bill that ignores a crime that affects thousands of people. We know that cyber-security criminals across the world attack individuals to enable themselves to get into systems. Families are losing life savings, and small businesses are shutting down because of this epidemic. The Government often treat fraud as a policing issue, but the amendment would establish that it should be regarded as a cyber-security issue that needs action at the national security level. By amending regulation 12(1) of the NIS regulations, we place a legal duty on digital providers to identify these vulnerabilities proactively. If we mandate that providers manage fraud risks before an incident occurs, we will reduce the number of victims and the devastation caused to livelihoods. We cannot claim to protect our digital economy while ignoring the billions of pounds lost to scams.

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 8, page 7, line 31, at the end insert— “(1A) In paragraph (1), after ‘risks’ insert ‘, including risks arising from fraud,’”. This amendment would explicitly include fraud as one of the risks to the security of network and information systems relevant digital service providers must identify and manage.

Currently, the law requires regulated persons to manage risks to the security of their systems. Amendment 28, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, explicitly inserts “risks arising from fraud” into that duty. It would make it clear that a system cannot be considered secure if it is easily exploited by scammers. Fraud should be considered a national security issue, and there is clearly a relationship between fraud and cyber-security. Scammers across the world are targeting British citizens. Elderly fraud victims in Dyfed-Powys lose £7,900 a day to a tidal wave of scams perpetrated by scammers from many countries across the world, notably Nigeria. UK-wide, in the first half of 2025 alone, criminals stole over £600 million through scams. Surely, we cannot pass a cyber-security and resilience Bill—

Apologies for the preview.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this debate, and on his excellent speech. Last year, postal services became a source of real frustration, anxiety and, frankly, anger in Radnorshire. Across Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, and right across rural Wales, we saw serious problems in the run-up to Christmas. Parcels were marked as delivered but never arrived, items were left at farm gates, on main roads or in full view of passers-by, Christmas presents went missing, and essential items were delayed for days or even weeks, and then marked as lost. When things went wrong, people found it almost impossible to speak to a real human being to sort it out. I want to be clear that, in my opinion, those problems stem from the corporate leadership of Evri. The problem is a systemic one within their business model, and rural areas are feeling the consequences first and hardest. Constituents of mine in the Teme valley tell me that their experience with Evri was awful. One constituent told me that they “have never received a single Evri parcel on time, most never ever arrive, and those that do are weeks or months late.” My constituents tell me that they often pay extra for faster shipping, but they then have to spend significant time processing refunds and working with credit card companies to recover some of the lost money. A frustration for customers is that they often cannot choose their delivery company. It is chosen for them by the retailer they are buying from. When a parcel company performs badly, consumers are simply stuck with the consequences. Consumer bodies back that up, and companies like Evri consistently rank bottom for customer satisfaction, yet too often nothing seems to change. That is where regulation matters. There must be clear, enforceable service standards for parcel deliveries, including in rural areas, on safe delivery practices, accurate tracking and proper access to customer support when things go wrong. Consumers who have no choice over their courier should not be left navigating automated systems or vague updates when a parcel is lost or delayed. If companies repeatedly fail customers, especially in rural and hard-to-serve areas, there must be consequences—not just guidance or warm words, but real accountability. For many of my constituents, Evri’s failures have meant money lost, ruined Christmases, wasted time and a growing sense that rural communities are once again expected to put up with worse service. Rural Wales deserves reliability, respect and accountability, not excuses. I urge Ministers to take this issue seriously, and ensure that parcel delivery works for every part of the country, not just the easiest ones to serve.

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech, and we are all grateful for the opportunity to raise these cases. I have been contacted by a constituent who left the civil service in 1992 and, more than 30 years later, has still not received the pension that she is owed, despite providing proof of service from HMRC and making repeated transfer requests. Despite the fact that the civil service later located her superannuation file, the scheme continued to insist that no record existed. Does the hon. Lady agree that such cases show that the failure is not just delay but deep-rooted maladministration within our state, and that the Government must commit to ensuring people are paid the pensions that they are legally entitled to?

Q Got it. The other question is about board-level responsibility. Numerous witnesses said that they would like to see more on board-level responsibility and people working within organisations, particularly chief information security officers, to strengthen their hands and make sure cyber-security measures are in place. What is your response to that? Kanishka Narayan: It is absolutely critical that boards take their responsibilities to the organisation and the consequences of being in a regulated sector very seriously. The scope of the Bill has been mentioned. The Secretary of State wrote to FTSE 350 businesses, as well as a range of small businesses, to make that point very clear. The cyber assessment framework has particular requirements for boards to take their cyber-security responsibilities seriously. In the course of implementing the Bill and in the secondary legislation process, we will look to ensure that specified security and resilience activities, including the possibility of specific responsibilities, are set out very clearly.

Q Thank you for joining us. Reporting of several recent cyber-attacks has one thing in common: there were often insufficient security measures in place. British Airways in 2018 is just one example. Reportedly, the average tenure of a chief information security officer is 18 months. From your perspective, what do CISOs need from the Bill to help strengthen their hand when they are saying to a board, “This is what I need to do to keep our organisation secure”? Richard Starnes: On what you say about the 18-month tenure, one of the problems is stress. A lot of CISOs are burning out and moving to companies that they consider to have boards that are more receptive to what they do for a living. Some companies get it. Some companies support the CISOs, and maybe have them reporting to a parallel to the CIO, or chief information officer. A big discussion among CISOs is that having a CISO reporting to a CIO is a conflict of interest. A CISO is essentially a governance position, so you wind up having to govern your boss, which I would submit is a bit of a challenge. How do we help CISOs? First, with stringent application of regulatory instruments. We should also look at or discuss the idea of having C-level or board-level executives specifically liable for not doing proper risk governance of cyber-security—that is something that I think needs to be discussed. Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 states that you must act in the best interests of your company. In this day and age, I would submit that not addressing cyber-risk is a direct attack on your bottom line.

Q Thank you for joining us. You mentioned frauds. It is a fact that criminals across the world are targeting British citizens every day. In Dyfed-Powys, over £500,000 was lost to online fraud in 2023-24, and elderly victims are losing £7,900 a day to fraud. Clearly, these attacks are coming from all over the world. Interpol recently arrested over 800 members of a global criminal network based in Nigeria. From your perspective, how effectively are UK police forces currently able to work with international partners to investigate and prosecute overseas criminals? What additional support from the Government would most improve your ability to mitigate online fraud from overseas? DCS Andrew Gould: That is a really good question. The international jurisdiction challenge for us is huge. We know that is where most of the volumes are driven from, and obviously we do not have the powers to just go over and get hold of the people we would necessarily want to. You will not be surprised to hear that it really varies between jurisdictions. Some are a lot more keen to address some of the threats emanating from their countries than others. More countries are starting to treat this as more of a priority, but it can take years to investigate an organised crime group or a network, and it takes them seconds to commit the crime. It is a huge challenge. There are two things that we could do more of better—these are things that are in train already. If you think about the wealth of cyber-crime, online fraud and so on, all the data, and a lot of the skills and expertise to tackle that sit within the private sector, whereas in law enforcement, we have the law enforcement powers to take action to address some of it. With a recent pilot in the City funded by the Home Office, we have started to move beyond our traditional private sector partnerships. We are working with key existing partners—blockchain analytic companies or open-source intelligence companies—and we are effectively in an openly commercial relationship; we are paying them to undertake operational activity on our behalf. We are saying, “Company a, b or c, we want you to identify UK-based cyber-criminals, online fraudsters, money-laundering and opportunities for crypto-seizure under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002”. They have the global datasets and the bigger picture; we have only a small piece of the puzzle. By working with them jointly on operations, they might bring a number of targets for us, and we can then develop that into operational activity using some of the other tools and techniques that we have. It is quite early days with that pilot, but the first investigation we did down in the south-east resulted in a seizure of about £40 million-worth of cryptocurrency. That is off a commercial contract that cost us a couple of hundred grand. There is potential for return on investment and impact as we scale it up. It is a capability that you can point at any area of online threat, not just cyber-crime and fraud, so there are some huge opportunities for it to really start to impact at scale. One of the other things we do in a much more automated and technical way—again funded by the Home Office—is the replacement of the Action Fraud system with the new Report Fraud system. That will, over the next year or so, start to ingest a lot of private sector datasets from financial institutions, open-source intelligence companies and the like, so we will have a much broader understanding of all those threats and we will also be able to engage in takedowns and disruptions in an automated way at scale, working with a lot of the communication service providers, banks and others. Instead of the traditional manual way we have always been doing a lot of that protection, we can, through partnerships, start doing it in a much more automated and effective way at scale. Over time, we will be able to design out and remove a lot of the volume you see impacting the UK public now. That is certainly the plan.

Q I would like to continue the line of questioning on the importance of having a single regulator. Other countries, such as the Netherlands, have recently merged their cyber-security organisations. The Bill introduces expanded but sector-specific reporting requirements, to apply to regulators across different sectors. Do you believe that this fragmented reporting landscape risks preventing Government and regulators from forming a coherent a cross-sector picture of emerging threats—particularly when foreign actors may be probing multiple systems simultaneously? If so, what measures could be taken to mitigate that risk? It strikes me that, if one of the things that this legislation is to guard against is pre-positioning, and there are 14 parallel reporting systems in place, it could be the case that those pre-positioning attacks are not picked up as co-ordinated attacks from another nation state or organisation, because they are not pulled together in time. Natalie Black: I point to my earlier remarks about information sharing. You are right: that is one of the great benefits of the Bill. To be able to do more, particularly when it comes to pre-positioning attacks, is really important. You will have heard from the NCSC, among others, that that is certainly a threat that we are seeing more and more of. At the moment, it is too difficult to share information between us. The requirement to have an annual report to the NCSC is a good mechanism for consolidating what we are all seeing, and then for the NCSC to play the role of drawing conclusions. It is worth emphasising that Ofcom is not an operational organisation; we are a regulator. We look to the NCSC to provide threat leadership for what is going on across the piece. I think that that answers your question about where it all comes together. Stuart Okin: I fully support that. The NSCS will be the hub for that type of threat intel and communications, in terms of risks such as pre-positioning and other areas. The gateways will help us to communicate. Ian Hulme: Bringing it back to the practicalities of instant reporting, you said that there are potentially 14 lines of incident reporting because there are 14 competent authorities. How that can be consolidated is something to be explored. Put yourself in a position of an organisation that is having to make a report: there needs to be clarity on where it has to make it to and what it needs to report.

Q I have two questions. Why have electoral services provided by local authorities not been considered as critical infrastructure? Kanishka Narayan: As I mentioned at the outset, the scope of the sectors is focused on a specific test: are they essential services, the disruption to which could cause an immediate threat to life or have an extremely significant impact on the day-to-day functioning of the country? I do not mean to diminish the significance of electoral services, but, notwithstanding their significant impact on me as a candidate on election day, the test does not appear to be met.

Q Thank you both for joining us. I have a very broad, open question: what other measures, both legislative and non-legislative, could the UK Government take to enhance the cyber-resilience of the UK’s critical national infrastructure? Chris Parker: That is an excellent question. The good news is that a lot is happening already. An enormous amount of collaborative effort is going on at the moment. We must also give grace to the fact that it is a very new sector and a new problem, so everybody is going at it. That leads me on to the fact that the UK has a critical role in this, but it is a global problem, and therefore the amount of international collaboration is significant—not only from law enforcement and cyber-security agencies, but from businesses. Of course, our footprints, as big businesses, mean that we are always collaborating and talking to our teams around the world. In terms of what the UK can do more of, a lot of the things that have to change are a function of two words: culture and harmonisation—harmonisation of standards. It is about trying not to be too concerned about getting everything absolutely right scientifically, which is quite tempting, but to make sure we can harmonise examples of international cyber-standards. It is about going after some commonality and those sorts of things. I think the UK could have a unique role in driving that, as we have done with other organisations based out of London, such as the International Maritime Organisation for shipping standards. That is an aspiration, but we should all drive towards it. I think it is something the UK could definitely do because of our unique position in looking at multiple jurisdictions. We also have our own responsibilities, not only with the Commonwealth but with other bodies that we are part of, such as the United Nations. It is not all good news. The challenge is that, as much as we know that harmonisation is okay, unfortunately everyone is moving. Things have started, and everyone is running hot. An important point to make is that it is one of the busiest sectors in the world right now, and everybody is very busy. This comes back to the UK having a particular eye on regulatory load, versus the important part that other elements of our society want, which is growth and economic prosperity. We talked earlier about SMEs. They do not have the capability to cover compliance and regulatory load easily, and we would probably all accept that. We have to be careful when talking about things such as designating critical suppliers. All of this wraps up into increasing collaboration through public-private partnerships and building trust, so that when the Government and hard-working civil servants want to see which boundaries are right to push and which are not, bodies such as the UK cyber resilience committee, which Carla and I are on, can use those collaborative examples as much as possible. There is quite a lot there, but something the UK certainly should be pushing to do is culture change, which we know has to be part of it—things have been talked about today by various speakers—as well as the harmonisation of standards. Carla Baker: I think we are in a really interesting and exciting part of policy development: we have the Bill, and we have recently had the Government cyber action plan, which you may have heard about; and the national cyber action plan is coming in a few months’ time. The Government cyber action plan is internally facing, looking at what the Government need to do to address their resilience. The national cyber action plan is wider and looks at what the UK must do. We are at a really exciting point, with lots of focus and attention on cyber-security. To address your point, I think there are three overarching things that we should be looking at. First is incentivising organisations, which is part of the Bill and will hopefully be a big part of the national cyber action plan. We must incentivise organisations to do more around cyber-security to improve their security posture. We heard from previous panellists about the threats that are arising, so organisations have to take a step forward. Secondly, I think the Government should use their purchasing power and their position to start supporting organisations that are doing the right thing and are championing good cyber-security. There is more that the Government can do there. They could use procurement processes to mandate certain security requirements. We know that Cyber Essentials is nearly always on procurement tenders and all those types of things, but more can be done here to embed the need for enhanced security requirements. Thirdly, I think a previous witness talked about information sharing. There is a bit of a void at the moment around information sharing. The cyber security information sharing partnership was set up, I think, 10 years ago— Chris Parker: Yes, 10 years ago. Carla Baker: It was disbanded a couple of months ago, and that has left a massive void. How does industry share intelligence and information about the threats they are seeing? Likewise, how can they receive information about the threat landscape? We have sector-specific things, but there isn’t a global pool, and there is a slight void at the moment.

Q We have heard concerns about definitions, particularly regarding incident reporting. What are your observations on the Bill as it stands, and those definitions? Richard Starnes: Throughout my career, I have been involved in cyber incidents from just about day one. One of the biggest problems that you run into in the first 72 hours, for example, is actually determining whether you have been breached. Just because it looks bad does not mean it is bad. More times than not, you have had indicators of compromise, and you have gone through the entire chain, which has taken you a day, or maybe two or three days, of very diligent work with very clever people to determine that, no, you have not been breached; it was a false positive that was difficult to track down. Do you want to open the door to a regulator coming in and then finding out it is a false positive? You are also going to have a very significant problem with the amount of alerts that you get with a 24-hour notification requirement, because there is going to be an air of caution, particularly with new legislation. Everybody and his brother is going to be saying, “We think we’ve got a problem.” Alternatively, if they do not, then you have a different issue.

Q Do you know how you would do that information sharing at the moment? Ian Hulme: As we have already explained, the current regs do not allow us to share the information, which is a bit of a barrier for us. In the future, certainly, we will be working together to try to figure it out. I think that there is also a role for DSIT in that. Natalie Black: First, we currently have a real problem in that information sharing is much harder than it should be. The Bill makes a big difference in addressing that point, not only among ourselves but with DSIT and NCSC. Secondly, we think that there is an opportunity to improve information reporting, particularly incident reporting, and we would welcome working with DSIT and others—I have mentioned the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum—to help us find a way to make it easier for industry, because the pace at which we need to move means that we want to ensure that there is no unnecessary rub in the system.

Q This feels like quite a big issue to be flagging up quite late in the day. In terms of the legislative process, do you think there has been a good enough consultation process between Government and business? Chris Parker: The consultation has been a best effort and I think it is a best effort as a function of three things. First, we have a new sector, a new Bill—something very new, it is not repeating something. Secondly, we are doing something at pace, it is a moving target, we have to get on with this, and so there is some compulsion involved. Thirdly, there are already some collaborative areas set up, such as techUK, that have been used. Would I personally have liked to have seen more? Yes—but I am realistic about how much time is needed; when you only have a certain resource, some people have got to do some writing and crafting as well as discussing. One thing that we could look at, if we did the process again, would be more modelling, exercising and testing the Bill until it shakes a bit more—that is something that perhaps we could do, if we were to do this again. With the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, that was done at length and collaboratively with industry, on a nearly fortnightly basis, for some time. Beyond that, I think that we are realistic in industry because we understand the pressures on the people trying to bring legislation in. A second point to remember is that we are all volunteers. Carla and I, and all those on the Cyber Resilience Committee, volunteer away from our day jobs—which are busy—to do all this. There is a realistic expectation, if you like—but I would say there has been a best effort. Carla Baker: I would like to look to the future. We have all the secondary legislation that is coming—and there will be lot—so we recommend early insights, and time to review and consult, in order to provide that industry insight that we are happy to provide. Let us look to the secondary legislation and hope that there is good consultation there.

Q What about workforce? One thing we have heard today from the regulators is that they are going to have to expand their teams. Reportedly, there are thousands of vacancies across cyber-security, and there is more regulation coming that they will have to comply with. What should the Government be doing to improve and expand the size of the workforce that is available to do all of this work? Chris Parker: It is a national problem. We have had a lot of discussion on that at the techUK cyber resilience committee. We think it is not just about skills and bunging lots of training at people, because you have to work out cyber as a whole. A very small component of cyber is people at the wonderfully high-tech end, where they are coding and writing software. There are an awful lot of jobs in places out there that a lot of people are just not aware of, and perhaps would therefore not be volunteering or aiming towards it—even at their school. There are lots of jobs in cyber sales, marketing and analysis that do not require a very high level of mathematics, for example. Some of them do not need a very high level of mathematics at all. I think that some awareness needs to be built there. Personally, I would like to see more championing of the people who are in the sector at the moment. We have some fantastic young men and women in the sector, but we also need to make sure they are able to have chartered status. It is out there, now that we are starting, but it needs to gather pace, because we need to make sure these people are represented and feel professional, so that it can be reflected. Another thing to mention is that there is a lot of effort in the cyber growth partnership, which is run through DSIT and techUK. It is initiating an idea where people will be lent from industry into academia, to offer inspiration but also to improve lecture quality and standards, because things move fast and we are running so hot. It is very hard for academia to keep up. There is quite a lot that can be done to increase the workforce and skills, but going back to our original points, with greater public-private collaboration and discussion, we will get it absolutely right on focusing on the right places to spend resources.

10. If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of holding cross-party talks on reaching 3% defence spending by 2030.

Britain faces a once-in-a-generation threat to our national security, as Putin’s war continues in Europe and uncertainty grows about the future reliability of the United States. Will the Secretary of State therefore take up the Liberal Democrats’ proposal that we issue time-limited defence bonds? That would allow the public to invest directly in modernising our armed forces, raise billions for new equipment, and ensure strong parliamentary oversight of how the money is spent.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. For obvious reasons, we often hear in this House about failure, notably in the tragic case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster)—I congratulate him on securing this important debate—but I will focus on a local authority that has been able to turn its children’s services around. In 2017, a BBC report warned that children in Powys were being put at risk because of serious failings in the council’s children’s services. Inspectors found missed safeguarding opportunities, weak oversight and poor follow-up—concerns so serious that Welsh Government intervention was actively discussed. That history matters, because it gives context to the progress that is now being made. Since 2022, under Liberal Democrat leadership of Powys county council, there has been a focus on rebuilding children’s services from the ground up—strengthening leadership, supporting the workforce and putting children’s safety back at the centre of decision making. That work is now being recognised independently. A recent external assurance review concluded that Powys children’s services are safe and improving, with no serious failings identified. The reviewer specifically highlighted stable leadership, strong advocacy for children through independent reviewing officers, and high-quality performance reporting—precisely those areas that were found wanting in 2017. Staff report feeling supported and proud to work in the service, and Powys social workers and safeguarding professionals have been recognised at regional awards for their work protecting children and involving young people directly in shaping services. No one is pretending that the job is finished. Pressures remain, particularly around funding and placements, but the direction of travel is clear and welcome. Powys has moved from a service once described as putting children at risk to one independently judged to be safe and improving. That is what sustained leadership looks like, and it is a positive example that this House should be willing to recognise. The overlying point is that vulnerable children need a strong state to look after them, and functioning children’s services that keep them safe are essential. That is why I hold the Conservatives and Reform in complete contempt, because they do not believe in our state. They have spent the last 40 years bashing and cutting the state; they attack it over and over again, spreading their cynical poison that a small state is desirable. Well, a small state will end up endangering our nation’s children. It is essential that these services are funded properly and well to keep our children safe. That is why I am proud to be a Liberal Democrat, and I am proud of what Powys county council has achieved over the past few years.

Access to Work is meant to help disabled people to stay in employment, yet numerous constituents tell me they have been waiting more than nine months for an assessment, and a year or more for changes of circumstances. Those delays are putting jobs and incomes at risk. How many people has the Department assessed as losing work because of the delays and what urgent action is being taken to clear that backlog?

The Secretary of State has been highly critical of the legitimate concerns that my constituents have raised about the numerous wind farm proposals across mid-Wales. Now the Ministry of Defence has raised its concerns that at least one of the proposed wind farms has the potential to form a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and military activities at the Sennybridge training area. If the Labour Government will not listen to the concerns raised by my residents, will they at least listen to their own military?

Over the past year, I have spoken to hundreds of children in schools across my constituency as part of my safer screens tour. It has been very distressing to hear from them about the material that they have been exposed to, and to hear that social media companies have not come back to them when they have reported this harmful content. If the Secretary of State agrees that there should be a ban on children accessing harmful social media platforms, will the default age for accessing them be 16?

To say the very least, Donald Trump’s actions in Greenland and the related sanctions on the UK are not befitting of a trustworthy ally. Does the Foreign Secretary now accept that President Trump does not respond to weakness, and that, as Canada has shown, we must stand firm against this bullying behaviour and, as the Liberal Democrats have argued for months, work more closely with our EU allies?

Not a single part of Wales benefits from the rural fuel duty relief scheme, while rural areas in England and Scotland do, simply because of how the previous Conservative Government designed it. Does my hon. Friend agree that that unfair anomaly should be corrected and that the scheme should be extended to places such as Powys?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The Government would do well to listen to his wisdom and knowledge, and indeed to that of the farmers, because they are the people experiencing these problems at first hand.

The economic impact of this issue is being felt across the United Kingdom, and that is because there is still no settled SPS agreement. That has resulted in uncertainty, and uncertainty is poison for trade. Many smaller producers have already been cut out of EU markets, unable to cope with the administrative burden and added cost. There is also a clear imbalance in how trade is being managed. Under the border target operating model, checks are meant to be risk based, yet medium-risk products of animal origin imported from the EU into Great Britain face physical inspection rates of around 1%, while equivalent UK exports to the EU face inspection rates of between 15% and 30%. That is not a level playing field. It places heavier costs on UK farmers, while leaving them exposed to unfair competition from imports. That imbalance is compounded by repeated delays to the UK’s own border controls. The transitional staging period for the border target operating model has been extended again, this time to January 2027—the sixth delay already. Farming unions have warned that, without effective border checks, the UK remains vulnerable to animal disease. Those concerns have been echoed by Parliament’s own Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. None of this is accidental. These barriers exist because the UK chose to leave the single market. That choice was driven by a Conservative party that was willing to sacrifice British farming, and it was championed by Reform, who promised farmers frictionless trade while delivering friction at every stage of the export process. Welsh farmers were told that they would keep their markets, that nothing would change for them and that they were taking back control, but what they got was more paperwork, higher costs and fewer buyers. In Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, farming underpins entire communities. When lamb exports become uneconomic, investment stalls, confidence drains away and young farmers begin to question whether there is a future for them. Rural Wales is hollowing out through constant, grinding pressure on farming communities and the wider supply chains that they support. Efforts to restore relations with our nearest trading partners and pursue an SPS agreement with the EU are welcome, but such an agreement must be developed in close collaboration with industry, and it must be delivered urgently. Farmers cannot wait indefinitely while negotiations drag on. Any agreement should be concluded as soon as is practical and no later than the end of this Parliament, in order to protect market access and prevent further damage to the sector. Welsh farmers were promised certainty, continuity and opportunity. Instead, they got the Conservatives’ and Reform’s Brexit, and a deal that still does not exist. This debate is about facing that reality, owning the consequences and finally doing right by the people who feed this country and sustain our rural communities. Backing Welsh and British farming means more than slogans; it means restoring access to markets.

I am going to continue for a bit. Welsh lamb is not a niche export; it is foundational to the rural economy. Welsh food and drink exports were worth £813 million in 2023, with around three quarters going to EU markets. The EU remains the destination for around a third of Welsh lamb exports, around 90% of Welsh beef exports and the vast majority of Welsh dairy exports. Markets such as Germany and the Netherlands matter because they are the natural entry points into the European food system, but lamb cannot sit at borders while paperwork is argued over. A delay of hours can strip value from a load; a rejected consignment can wipe out profit for a week. Farmers tell me it is now easier to export lamb thousands of miles away than to our nearest neighbours. That is not control; it is self-harm. No doubt Ministers will point to headlines claiming that red tape has been slashed, but the reality for farmers tells a different story. Export health certificates are still required, veterinary sign-offs remain mandatory and checks are still taking place. Costs are still being borne by producers, and that eats into their profit margins. Because there is no settled SPS agreement, enforcement continues to vary from port to port and country to country.

I beg to move, That this House has considered meat exports to the EU. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on the export of meat to the European Union, and in particular on the ongoing difficulties faced by farmers and producers in constituencies like mine when exporting to markets such as Germany and the Netherlands. This debate matters, because a system that worked well for Welsh agriculture has been replaced by one that is more expensive, more bureaucratic and far less reliable. It has become clear that, although progress has been made, a fully settled and implemented common sanitary and phytosanitary arrangement is not yet in place, and will not be in place in the immediate future. As a result, exporters remain subject to many of the same requirements introduced after Brexit, and those requirements are having real consequences on the ground. Right now, there is only an intention to negotiate a framework for talks and announcements about what might happen in the future. But intentions do not move meat across borders, announcements do not pay veterinary bills, and frameworks do not stop lorries being delayed. That is what Welsh farmers are struggling with right now. Before Brexit, exporting Welsh lamb to Europe was straightforward: there were no export health certificates, no mandatory veterinary sign-off and no routine border control checks. Welsh lamb moved freely into its natural markets, allowing farmers to plan, invest and grow with confidence. Since Brexit, that has changed completely. Today, a single consignment of lamb can require export health certificates, official veterinary approval, customs declarations and SPS checks at EU border posts. Every step adds cost, delay and risk, especially for a perishable, time-sensitive product.

Cyber-attacks are a growing menace for British businesses. They cause chaos for all types of businesses and organisations, both small and large. The consequences of those attacks have hit our economy hard. The disruption caused by the cyber-attacks on Jaguar Land Rover, M&S and the Co-op were felt by many businesses further down their supply chains; for instance, the disruption that hit JLR resulted in a freeze for its steel supply chain, much of it in Wales. So much of our economy relies on well-functioning digital platforms. Last year, many Lloyds bank customers found themselves unable to access money or pay their bills due to app outages, with that problem compounded by its decision to close high street branches. Yet, bizarrely, Lloyds decided still to pay its chief executive officer Charlie Nunn £5 million in 2024. I make that point to illustrate the lack of accountability we see in positions at the top of these organisations despite massive numbers of people being reliant on those services. A successful cyber-attack often ends in people having their personal data stolen. That is why it is welcome that the Bill highlights sensible requirements to ensure that businesses properly consider supply-chain risks and their usage of managed service providers, as well as many others. On the other hand, it will be a mystery to many why sectors such as finance, food and drink and retail have not been included, particularly considering how those sectors have been hit hard recently. The Government would clearly like to achieve security. To do that, it would help if the Bill could be improved to provide greater certainty and clarity for businesses. For instance, how are businesses supposed to manage relationships with managed service providers? For five years, I worked in the cyber-security industry, starting with the introduction of the GDPR, which happened at the same time as the original NIS directive. I found that the cyber-security sector is a well-connected community underpinned by a welcome commitment to sharing knowledge and best practice. For instance, Cyber Wales is a representative body that brings together the Welsh cyber-community. It is an industry that requires input from academia, law enforcement agencies, defence and businesses. There are clusters of success across Wales, including in my constituency. Partnerships built in academia often create spin-off companies that generate jobs. For instance, in Wales, the University of South Wales and Swansea University have done a lot to build up our local cyber-security ecosystem. As the Bill progresses, the Government would be wise to continue to consult regularly with this very engaged community. It would be helpful to hear what sort of consultations, and how many, have taken place so far. It would also be helpful to hear the Government respond to the Information Systems Audit and Control Association’s proposals, particularly around giving regulators the power to suggest mandatory penetration testing. The growing cyber-security sector should be a route for much needed economic growth and well-paid jobs in Wales. Many such jobs can be done remotely from anywhere with an internet connection. Recent research from Infosecurity suggests that there are 17,000 vacancies in the cyber-security industry right now, with that figure growing at 10% to 12% a year. That is a huge opportunity for a country like Wales. Having an effective skills base is one way in which we can guard ourselves against cyber-attacks. Keeping Britain safe from cyber-attacks requires a trained workforce who can marry technical expertise with regulatory competence. I have seen in my professional experience how many people from many other sectors were able to retrain and upskill to work in cyber-security. People with experience in project management or managing processes are very capable of retraining to work in the cyber-security industry. Special thought should be paid to military veterans in particular, who are well suited to those jobs. One of the questions for the Government should be about how to help more British people into those jobs while ensuring that our education system is equipped to help children pick the sector. That is why I call on the Government to ensure that funding is available for all schools in Wales to take part in the highly successful CyberFirst Wales scheme.

Wales is the poorest of our four nations. It has the highest levels of unemployment and the lowest wages. The family farm tax is yet another example of how this Government are going to hurt the Welsh economy with full knowledge of the consequences. They have decided to hit Wales, in whose economy agriculture is a major sector, with an extra tax. It is, quite frankly, an unacceptable and horrific way for this Government to start off. Family farms are the backbone of our rural economy, the heart of our food system and central to the survival of many communities in Wales. People in Wales are shocked that this Labour Government have decided to come for one of our major industries. People in Wales are accustomed to the Conservatives unpicking our major industries and taking them out—they expect that—but they expect better from the Labour party. When family farms are hit, the damage spreads far beyond the farm gate; it hurts vets, suppliers, hauliers, markets, local shops and rural high streets. That is why it was so deeply disappointing that 23 of Wales’s 27 Labour MPs chose to vote this policy through despite clear warnings from rural Wales. The scale of what is being put at risk is enormous.

My hon. Friend is quite right to point to the struggles of upland farmers, who deserve to earn a living from their work—they are working people too, but they are not being recognised as such. Agriculture and the wider food and drink sector supports more than 228,000 jobs in Wales and generates more than £24 billion in turnover each year. This is not a marginal industry; it is a pillar of the Welsh economy. Industry bodies have warned that these tax changes will force family farms to sell land or assets simply to meet higher liabilities, accelerating consolidation and driving our young people out of rural Wales, which damages our food security and local supply chains, hollows out communities and obviously undermines our tax base, too. This is not just an economic but a cultural issue. Some 43% of people working in agriculture in Wales speak Welsh, compared with 20% of the population overall. To undermine family farming is to undermine Welsh culture and the Welsh language itself. What makes this policy even harder to defend is the Government’s selective approach. Ministers have refused to act on supermarket profiteering—with Tesco alone seeing its profits rise by more than 100%—yet are content to squeeze family farms that are already grappling with rising costs and post-Brexit uncertainty. The Welsh Affairs Committee has called for this policy to be paused so that a Wales-specific impact assessment could be carried out. It is a grave mistake that that request has been ignored. This is becoming a familiar pattern for those of us from Wales. There has been rail underfunding, a refusal to devolve powers, including over taxation, and now a tax that threatens one of Wales’s most important sectors. Time and again, Labour has advanced policies in this Parliament that would hit Wales the hardest, and waved them through regardless. The Welsh Liberal Democrats oppose this tax because we believe that family farms should form the spine of a prosperous rural economy. Rural Wales—in fact, the rural economy across the whole UK—deserves a plan for growth, not punishment driven by ideology. The Welsh Government deserve a Government who understand the value, strength and work that our agricultural sector provides to rural Wales. I think of the tens of young farmers’ clubs in my constituency; they are run by incredible young people who form community groups and build the confidence of the young people in their communities, as well as running their family businesses. We need those young people to stay in Wales, run their businesses well, and create the jobs and employment that will enable rural Wales to prosper. Instead, they are being told by this Government, “No, we’re going to hit you with an extra tax”. This will fall on the shoulders of Welsh young farmers. The Welsh economy deserves a Government who understand Wales, and that is not what we are getting so far.

Let me be clear from the outset that the Bill fails Wales. Last year, Wales voted decisively for change, and this is just another example of how that change will not be coming. The Bill fails my constituents, who rely on some of the most neglected rail lines anywhere in the United Kingdom. For years, the people I represent have endured cancellations, painfully slow journeys, ageing trains and stations that would embarrass any modern transport system. The Marches line still runs on signalling technology that belongs in a museum. The Heart of Wales line—a lifeline for rural communities—has been crying out for meaningful investment for over a decade. What does the Bill do to fix any of that? Nothing. Instead, it centralises even more power here in Whitehall and offers Wales nothing more than a pat on the head and the promise of consultation. Consultation is what Wales has had plenty of for the last 30 years and look where it has got us. Yet the real injustice is this: Scotland gets real power over its railways and Wales gets nothing. No power of direction, no power over infrastructure, no power over funding and not even a guarantee that Welsh needs will be taken seriously. This Government have gone out of their way to give Scotland the meaningful authority and yet Wales, a nation with its own Parliament and its own transport strategy, is told to make do with a memorandum of understanding—a document with no legal force, no accountability and no guarantee of action. That inequality has real-world consequences. Independent experts told the Transport Committee that England will receive tens of billions in rail investment over the next decade, while Wales will receive only a few hundred million. That is a gap so vast that it can only be described as systemic neglect. Indeed, just this week, analysis by the Welsh Liberal Democrats showed that Wales is set to lose another £1 billion after Northern Powerhouse Rail was wrongly classified as an England and Wales project. That brings the total lost for Wales through that accounting trick to around £6 billion, while Scotland and Northern Ireland receive their fair share. Meanwhile, the Government expect Wales to be grateful for £445 million over 10 years. It does not take a maths genius to see that those of us in Wales are being short changed. My constituents see the results every day: rural stations left behind, limited services, long commutes and opportunities missed. The rail network in Wales is not second-class by accident but is second-class by design, and the Bill entrenches that design. It hands the UK Secretary of State even more control over decisions that directly affect Wales, with no matching powers for Welsh Ministers to shape the services that our communities rely on. Let me say this plainly. A modern railway for Wales cannot be built on scraps of power handed down from Westminster. Wales needs the same powers that Scotland already has, Wales needs fairness, not favours, and Wales needs the tools to build a railway network worthy of our own people. Wales deserves better than this Bill and as Welsh Liberal Democrats, we will not accept anything less than equality for our nation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. It was Harry Willcock, a Liberal party activist, who started the successful campaign to get rid of physical ID cards. After being stopped and asked for his cards by the police, he threw his papers on the floor and said, “I am a Liberal and I am against this sort of thing.” That is because as Liberals we believe that the state exists to empower its citizens rather than endlessly monitor them. What we have before us today is yet another example of this Labour Government announcing a grand, attention-grabbing idea without really having a plan for how to do it. The proposal for a mandatory digital ID system is set to drain at least £1.9 billion from the public purse—and if history tells us anything about major Government projects, it is that that figure is likely to rise substantially. At a time when every pound counts, it is astonishing that Ministers believe that this is the right priority. The reality is that this digital ID proposal risks becoming an enormously expensive distraction, absorbing money, time and political energy that should instead be directed towards the things that people actually rely on: police on our streets, timely NHS care, functioning local services and funding border security.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to question whether or not this is a good use of Government time and money. The 4,500 constituents of mine who have signed this petition would much rather the Government spent their time and money on trying to fix other data governance issues. For example, one big data governance issue in Wales is that, when patients go over the border to Hereford, they often cannot retrieve their health data. It would be much better if the Government prioritised spending money on that. Some 75 years on from Harry Willcock saying that he was a Liberal and against this sort of thing, I reiterate the same principle. I am a Liberal, and we remain against this sort of thing.

This Government keep claiming that offshore wind will bring down bills for people in Wales and drive economic growth, but research from Greenpeace shows that the opposite is happening. The Crown Estate is pushing up bills by running uncapped auctions that force energy companies to pay huge fees just to use the seabed. Those extra costs are added straight on to the energy bills of families and businesses across Wales, meaning that Welsh households pay more. The profits are taken out of Wales, while the Crown Estate’s chief executive officer pockets £1.9 million a year. Why are the Government allowing the Crown Estate to drive up energy bills, and why will not they force the Crown Estate to manage Welsh natural resources in the public interest, rather than its own?

I start by raising a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State said that the Liberal Democrats were responsible for imposing the two-child benefit cap. That is simply not true. It was imposed by the Conservatives, and we have campaigned tirelessly against it ever since. Will she correct the record?

The recent floods in Monmouthshire have been devastating for local communities, and our thoughts are with everyone affected as they try to return to some sense of normality. I would also like to pay tribute to the emergency services and everyone who has worked tirelessly to keep residents safe throughout these events. Last year, we saw attempts by multiple fire and rescue authorities in Wales to close small fire stations, which often house the equipment needed to respond to major floods like the ones we have just seen. Two of the proposed closures are in my constituency in Knighton and Crickhowell. Crickhowell is just a stone’s throw away from Monmouthshire, and the services that are based there often go over the border to help out. Will the Minister clarify what engagements the Government have had with fire services in Wales on potential closures? Does she agree that it is vital that we keep small stations open to protect residents in rural Wales from devastating events such as the ones we have just seen?

We have heard just how little money is being spent on research, comparatively speaking. As has already been mentioned, the DecodeME study is identifying genetic signals linked to immune and neurological pathways, offering real clues to the biological mechanisms of this disease. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must finally adopt a strategic and properly funded research programme?

I pay tribute to everyone in Wales and across the United Kingdom who has campaigned so hard for people living with Parkinson’s. In Wales, we expect the number of people living with Parkinson’s to rise to more than 9,000 by 2030. Yet too many people trying to access the most basic elements of care, from diagnosis to rehabilitation, still face a postcode lottery. Welsh health boards do not have reliable plans to replace specialist staff when they leave, which means long gaps in access to expert care. Given the ongoing shortages in neurology, people can wait far too long to see anyone with the right expertise. For a degenerative condition that demands regular and specialist review, that is simply unacceptable. Wales saw some of the worst disruption to rehabilitation services during the pandemic, and many of those pressures have not fully eased. People with Parkinson’s still report difficulties accessing physiotherapy, speech and language therapy and occupational therapy. When rehabilitation breaks down, people deteriorate physically, mentally and socially, and carers are left to carry an enormous burden—many are older spouses whose health is already fragile, and they deserve a system that recognises and supports them. We must also fix the basics. In Wales, 73% of people with Parkinson’s in hospital say that they do not receive their medication on time. A delay of just 30 minutes can make the difference between going home or staying another week on a ward. That should not be happening.

Lloyds bank has more than 31,000 customers in my constituency, yet many of them, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable, are struggling to get out their own cash. That is because Lloyds has closed its branches in Brecon, Presteigne, Ystradgynlais, and before the end of this month in Pontardawe, despite making billions in profits and paying its CEO £5 million. Will the Prime Minister write to Lloyds bank and ask it to keep that last branch in Pontardawe open?

Apples and pears provide essential nutrients, such as vitamin C and folate, and they count as one of our five a day, as recognised by the NHS Eatwell guide. Does the Minister agree that any attempt to include fruit juice in the HFSS category risks sending the wrong messages to families at a time when fruit and vegetable consumption is already falling, especially among children and those on lower incomes, as she mentioned?

Will the Minister give way?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I am sure her constituents will be pleased to hear her make it. The 2018 cross-border statement of values and principles promised that no patient would face delay or disadvantage because of which side of the border they live on, but my constituents know that those principles are not being applied in practice. The clearest recent example of what has gone wrong is the new waiting list policy introduced by Powys teaching health board this summer. From 1 July, the board instructed English hospitals treating Powys residents to deliberately and artificially extend their waiting times, bringing them into line with the longer averages elsewhere in Wales. Until now, Powys patients had been treated in hospitals, such as Hereford and Shrewsbury, in exactly the same way as English patients, but from this summer they have been asked to wait up to twice as long. We are told that hospitals in Herefordshire and Shropshire are treating Welsh patients “too quickly” and that Powys’s budget does not allow for the current number of people being treated each year, so patients have to be spread out over more years. How appalling it is to say that a patient can be treated “too quickly”. Swift treatment should be an objective, not a problem. Worse still, this supposed cost-cutting exercise may not save a penny, because both the Wye Valley NHS trust and the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust believe that it could cost Powys more, because they will have to bill Powys teaching health board for the administrative cost of running two parallel waiting list systems. That is before we consider the hidden costs: the human and financial price of patients deteriorating while they wait longer, needing emergency admissions, extended rehabilitation and, in some cases, never recovering the quality of life they once had. My constituents are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; their lives are on hold. Those months are months of agony, of lost work, of isolation, and of watching opportunities and life slip away while waiting for operations that should already have happened. Agnes is a patient from Llandrindod with Parkinson’s disease. She has been told that she must wait another 52 weeks for a knee replacement after already waiting a full year. That means a total of two years waiting for surgery. The delay has made it increasingly difficult for her to stay active, even though regular exercise is vital to managing Parkinson’s symptoms. The prolonged wait is worsening her mobility and pain, and it is undermining her ability to live independently. Hazel, from Builth Wells, is awaiting spinal surgery in Hereford. Her expected waiting time has doubled to 104 weeks. She has been unable to work during this period due to numbness in her legs and feet, and she now fears losing her job. Once financially independent, she now relies on family support—an experience she describes as “degrading and unfair”—through no fault of her own. Kelly was diagnosed with serious spinal disc problems in September 2024. She was given a surgery date for December, then March, but both were cancelled. Even though her pre-operative assessment had been completed, she later discovered—on her own—that her operation had been postponed by at least another year under the new policy. This is despite her being classed as an urgent P3 case and being told that existing bookings would not be affected. The delay has left Kelly in constant pain, which has taken a serious toll on her mental health and has contributed to her losing her job. Those stories are not isolated; they speak for hundreds of others who are being quietly told to wait, not because of capacity or clinical need but because of budgetary decisions. Behind every statistic is a person whose life is being diminished while they wait for care that should already have been delivered. What makes this even worse is that patients are sometimes not being told that their treatment has been delayed. Many have found out only through news reports or by doing their own investigations. Labour Governments at both ends of the M4 talk about driving down waiting lists and getting people back into work, yet this policy, which Ministers could stop tomorrow, does the exact opposite. The health board and senior Welsh Labour politicians call it “fairness” that Powys residents should wait no less than anyone else in Wales. However, fairness and ambition should mean lifting standards everywhere, not dragging Powys down to the lowest common denominator. It is not equality; it is equal punishment for the Welsh Government’s failure to fix the NHS after 25 years in power. The response from Ministers thus far, particularly in Cardiff Bay, has been nothing short of disgraceful. The Health Minister, Jeremy Miles, could not appear more uninterested if he tried—no action, no intervention and no urgency from the one man who has the power to stop the policy and to get people out of pain and back to their lives. Several constituents have told me that they have written personally to him and have received no response at all. That is despite the fact that it is his Government who are forcing Powys teaching health board to make significant cuts to its budget. As for the First Minister—who, I remind the House, represents Powys in the Senedd, as well as being a Member of the House of Lords—she brushed off my constituents’ concerns, saying that she thinks it is just “smoke and mirrors”. I invite her to say that directly to Kelly, Agnes and Hazel, because months or even years of their lives have been stolen and spent living in pain. The decision institutionalises inequality between Wales and England. If the waiting list policy exposes a failure of funding, the digital infrastructure of cross-border healthcare exposes a long-term failure of systems. Despite 25 years of devolution, we still have national health services across our four nations that cannot share data efficiently. Both NHS England and NHS Wales still operate separate digital systems that do not talk to each other. When a Powys GP refers a patient to Hereford or Shrewsbury, information often travels by post, fax or unsecured email. Discharge summaries arrive late or not at all. Test results are duplicated because clinicians cannot see each other’s records, wasting time and often causing distress for patients. Even in emergencies, A&E doctors in England cannot automatically view a Welsh GP’s records, and vice versa. To paint the picture more vividly, one Powys resident told me that he was admitted to Shrewsbury hospital with a serious heart condition, yet staff could not access his medical records. Because it was a Sunday, they could not even reach his GP by phone. That should not be happening in 2025. It puts lives at risk across our border regions. The lack of interoperability affects anyone moving between the four nations of the United Kingdom, as their health records tend not to move with them. The Welsh Affairs Committee has been calling for change since 2015, yet a decade later, nothing has happened. The Welsh Government alone do not have the funding to overhaul their systems, which is why we have called on Westminster to step in, as obviously this is a consequence of devolution. For a fraction of the cost of other Government digital projects, modernising NHS IT across the UK would directly improve patient safety, continuity of care and confidence in the system. Every week that remains unresolved, more patients are put at risk, which is a failure of politics, not just technology.

First, NHS waiting lists in Wales are not falling; Wales has the highest waiting list in the United Kingdom. Nearly a third of our population are stuck on waiting lists. I wanted to intervene to make the Minister aware that I agree that extra funding is required to tackle the waiting list that we face in Wales. But when extra funding was announced for the Welsh NHS in June by the Welsh Government, it later transpired that none of that money could be spent on this issue because none of it could be spent on English commissioned services, which meant that the problem we are here today to discuss could not be solved. That is why it is so important to bake in a sort of border by design when designing national healthcare systems, because, as we have heard today from so many Members, it is often very typical and much easier for our constituents to cross borders to access their nearest hospital or their nearest GP practice; and it is important for our Union to facilitate that practice by making it easier and faster. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) talked of the progress being made in her constituency to bring down waiting times. Clearly, that is good news and shows what can be done—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) has campaigned very hard for that. That is why it is so frustrating for my residents and constituents in Powys to know that access to faster healthcare is available just on the other side of the border, but their own Government and health board are preventing them accessing that treatment. Today we are calling on that to end. What this debate has shown is that for too long, Powys residents have lived with a system that treats them as an afterthought. The waiting list policy introduced this summer has made that painfully clear. People are waiting longer not because of medical need or capacity, but because the funding simply is not there to pay for it. We have heard today that the problems run deeper than just funding alone. They are about systems that cannot talk to one another, Governments that will not work together, and patients who are left to navigate the gaps. These are man-made problems, and they can be solved if there is political will. My message to Ministers in both Cardiff Bay and Westminster is simple: sit down together, bring in those of us who represent border areas, and fix this. Every week that passes without action means more people living in pain, more lives on hold and more families watching their loved ones deteriorate while they wait. This debate is about more than party politics; it is about people who simply want to be treated with the same respect and urgency as everyone else. We owe it to them to get this right. Diolch yn fawr. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered cross-border healthcare.

I beg to move, That this House has considered cross-border healthcare. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Last year, hopes were raised that two Labour Governments working together would put an end to conflict between Cardiff Bay and Westminster, yet few issues trouble my constituents more than the daily reality of cross-border healthcare between England and Wales. Powys is a beautiful county, but it is also the largest in Wales, with no district general hospital of its own. Nearly 40% of the health board’s budget is spent commissioning services across the border in Herefordshire and Shropshire, because that is where the nearest hospitals are. When co-ordination between the Welsh and UK Government fails, it is Powys patients who feel it first and hardest.

Will the Minister give way?

My hon. Friend is right to say that these system failures are putting extra responsibility, extra stress and often extra cost on individuals, which is why the system needs to be improved. Beyond the funding and IT problems, our systemic weaknesses make cross-border care even harder. Many Powys residents are registered with GPs in England simply because of geography—they might be closer—while others just across the border stay with Welsh practices. GPs who want to work in both nations must register twice, fill out the same forms twice and follow two sets of rules, which wastes time and discourages flexibility. A constituent of mine in mid-Wales with a rare artery condition needed ongoing treatment from Hereford hospital. Because the two NHS systems do not share results, they had to collect their own blood tests and email them to their consultant each month. Prescriptions issued in England were not approved in Wales, causing months of delay. That is the daily reality of an unco-ordinated system. At the governance level, the 2018 cross-border statement of values and principles remains voluntary and unenforceable. Each Welsh health board negotiates its own arrangements with English trusts. There is no single tariff, no unified billing system and no consistent data reporting. Audit Wales has warned for years that this patchwork leaves patients in limbo, between two systems that both claim to care for them, but neither fully owns responsibility when things go wrong. Those problems did not appear by accident. Powys residents do not mind which NHS logo is printed on their appointment letter; they care that their care arrives on time, that their doctors can speak to one another, and that they are treated fairly. The border should not be a barrier to treatment, data or fairness. I say to the Minister that although several of these issues fall within devolved areas, they are of direct concern to the UK Government because they are also directly influenced by NHS England and by decisions taken here in Westminster. My asks are simple. First, convene a meeting with counterparts in the devolved nations to finally address these cross-border challenges, and invite border MPs to that discussion. Those of us who represent border communities see these failures at first hand and know where the solutions are needed. Secondly, provide the funding required to make NHS IT systems interoperable across the United Kingdom, so that clinicians can share patient information safely and instantly wherever care is delivered. Thirdly, work with devolved Governments to give the cross-border statement of values and principles legal force, turning it from a voluntary pledge into a real, accountable framework that protects people in border communities like Powys. We owe it to the people of Powys, and to every border community, to end this quiet injustice and to build a system that treats them not as second-class citizens but as equals who are entitled to the same care, dignity and chance to live free from pain. Labour Governments at both ends of the M4 talk about driving down waiting lists and getting people back into work. However, this policy, which Ministers could stop tomorrow, does the exact opposite. I look forward to the Minister’s response and the contributions from other Members.

Will the Minister give way?

I commend the Minister for paying tribute to William Powell, who has campaigned for justice for 35 years for his son, Robbie Powell, who died as a result of medical negligence. William Powell has done so much to secure this legal duty of candour, so it is right that he is acknowledged here in this debate, but he is still waiting for a public inquiry into his son’s death. Can the Minister say whether she believes that this case, which has been described as the worst cover-up in NHS history, meets the conditions for a public inquiry—something that has been called for by the former Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman?

During the second world war, over 200 people were forced to leave their homes and give up their land in the Epynt when more than half of the community was taken for use by the Ministry of Defence. The people of the Epynt understood why that sacrifice had to be made, but now, Bute Energy and its wealthy investment backers want to take the rest of the Epynt. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Epynt has already sacrificed enough, and will she work with me to defend the Welsh countryside from once again having its wealth extracted from it, with no benefit to local communities?

I am glad that my hon. Friend is calling out the consequence of Thatcherite policies. Does he agree that no country has suffered more from Thatcherite policies than Wales?

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this important debate. Our constituencies meet around a former coalmine, so it is fitting that we are working on this issue together. The legacy of the coal industry is still all around us in Wales. Coal built our modern nation, but it also left deep marks on our land and our communities. Yesterday marked 59 years since the Aberfan disaster, when 144 lives were lost, including those of 116 children. Aberfan reminds us of what happens when safety is overlooked. We owe it to Aberfan and to every mining community to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated. Yet almost 60 years on, the dangerous legacy of coal still hangs over Wales. There are more than 2,000 disused coal tips across Wales, and several of the highest-risk sites are in my constituency. They stand as a stark reminder that the danger has not disappeared; it has simply been neglected. What that means for local residents is that each spell of heavy rain brings renewed fear. Recent landslips in Cwmtillery show that this risk is real, and it is growing as wetter weather destabilises former pits. No community should have to live in fear every time it rains. That is why the UK Government must commit the £600 million needed to make our former coal tips safe. This is a problem that predates devolution, and the cost should not fall on the Welsh Government alone. These communities in Wales powered Britain’s wealth, and the responsibility for their safety must be shared by Britain as a whole. The legacy of coal is written across the open scars on our hills. Across south Wales, open-cast sites have been left in limbo after operators walked away, leaving vast holes in the landscape and leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill. In my constituency, the East Pit mine between Tairgwaith and Cwmllynfell is a clear example. It was never restored because no proper restoration bond was put in place, and it is now a deep chasm filled with millions of tonnes of water—a monument to failure and neglect. That must change. We need stronger legislation so that open-cast mines are properly regulated and fully restored, with enforceable bonds to ensure that no company can ever again abandon a community. Despite such injustices, what matters now is investment and delivery. We must look forward. Communities across south Wales deserve real progress and not more broken promises. The proposals from Reform UK to issue new coal licences are not a credible plan for our future in south Wales; they are a retreat into the past. To suggest that the answer for the valleys lies in reopening mines is not only wrong; it is deeply patronising. I come from a Welsh mining family and I am very proud of my roots in Maesteg, but I certainly do not want to undertake the same work that my great-grandfathers had to do, because I remember how they ended up. Our young people do not want to be sent back down the pits. They want secure, well-paid jobs in clean energy and modern industries. The communities of the valleys are resilient, proud and determined, but that resilience should not be taken for granted. Promises of investment, which too often have been made and too often broken, must finally be delivered for south Wales. The people of the south Wales valleys have given more than enough, and we are still waiting for our new south Wales to emerge. We deserve safety, fairness and a future built on renewal, not nostalgia. Let us honour our past by investing in the future.

In Wales, companies such as Bute Energy and Green GEN Cymru, which are both owned by Windward Energy Ltd, are prompting local concerns that the rules separating electricity generation and distribution are being undermined by corporate restructuring tricks. Is the Minister confident that Ofgem’s rules will deliver operational independence?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. At a time when public trust in politics is low and confidence in Government competence is falling, I cannot think of a worse idea than a mandatory and highly expensive digital ID scheme, which inevitably will have to be delivered by private sector consultants. Of course, citizens should benefit from digital innovation, but between them the UK Government and the Welsh Government still struggle to transfer patient data from Hereford to Brecon. That is what my constituents want—they want their hospital records to be able to come back from Hereford. With that low level of capability, why would anyone believe that this Government can securely and effectively deliver a national ID system?