Harriet Cross MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that, but if Palestine Action is using pyrotechnics against people who are escaping an attack by that organisation, that is intent. If it intends to damage Royal Air Force property and Ministry of Defence property by sabotaging RAF jets at Brize Norton, that is intent. It is showing intent as well as the other organisations. These groups do not share our values. They do not respect our country. They do not care about our way of life and they show no regard for the safety of our citizens. On the Conservative Benches, we are proud of the actions taken by previous Conservative Governments to strengthen our counter-terrorism framework. We gave our police and security services the powers they needed to confront evolving threats, and we welcome and support the Home Secretary making use of the same powers today. As the Minister said, proscription is a vital tool and a strong deterrent, but it is only a part—albeit a very important part—of what we need to do to keep our country safe. On its own, it is not enough. It must be followed by enforcement. We will, of course, be watching closely to ensure the police have the resources and the backing they need from the Labour Government to do just that. As the Minister and I have said, the first job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. We, as the official Opposition, will always support the Government in that aim. The activities of these organisations have clearly met the threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act, and we on the Opposition Benches are very happy to support the Government in their aims today.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all the Members who have made contributions to today’s debate. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for bringing the debate before the House, giving Members a chance to speak about their and their constituents’ experiences of, and with, the Windrush generation. As noted by the then Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, in a letter to MPs, those first arrivals on the Windrush were expected to make a genuine contribution to addressing the UK’s post-war labour shortages. The story of the Windrush generation that followed is both troubling and inspirational, with many accounts of exceptional resilience and the overcoming of adversity. I want to be very clear: it is important that we acknowledge when the state fails its citizens. The treatment of some Windrush citizens was an unacceptable failure that successive Governments must own. That is why the previous Conservative Government apologised unreservedly and took decisive action. It was critical that the last Government established the compensation scheme. Over £100 million was granted in compensation to those affected, with over £93 million having been paid out, and that figure continues to rise as more claims are settled under this Government.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that. Television, drama and even radio and other non-visual means can show the story in a lot better light than anyone making a contribution at this Dispatch Box or in this Chamber. Seeing these things in real life, in colour and out in the streets is the way to bring them to life and to make sure that we recognise every day how the community is completely entwined in our society. The 80th anniversary in a few years’ time will be another opportunity to commemorate the enduring impact of this generation and to encourage further works from those in the creative industry who play such a vital role in shaping the public consciousness. Although today has been chosen as an appropriate moment to hold this debate in advance of Windrush Day on 22 June, commemorations need not be limited to anniversaries or milestones. I am confident that those involved will continue to highlight and educate others about the vital role that individuals played, their resilience and their ability to overcome adversity. More broadly, today allows us to reflect on the Windrush generation’s contributions to our institutions, industries and, importantly, our communities. It is worth remembering that HMT Empire Windrush was transporting dozens of Caribbean passengers who had served as RAF airmen—many returning from leave and others rejoining the service. Many more from this generation and their descendants would go on to serve our country in our armed forces. That is in addition to the countless individuals of the Windrush generation who helped build and sustain the NHS, particularly when post-war UK had an acute workforce shortage. That is not to mention the enormous contributions across so many other fields, including science, education, social work, business and countless others. I acknowledge the Government’s ongoing work to address the injustices that occurred in the Home Office. There are still claims to be resolved and payments to be made, and challenges remain in overcoming the consequences of past errors. We cannot change the past, but we can ensure that the schemes established by the previous Government continue to deliver for every eligible person. I welcome the fact that Patrick Vernon and Baroness Benjamin and others campaigned for a Windrush Day. It has given us all the opportunity to focus on the stories of those who came to this country and contributed so much, sharing how they came to Britain, how they were shaped by it and how they have helped shape it in turn. That is vital. As such, I thank Members for sharing their experiences and those of their constituents in the debate.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  While it is welcome that the SDR refers to the need for more routine protection of subsea cables and pipelines and of maritime traffic, there is no specific mention of the same commitment to the protection of North sea oil and gas platforms, rigs and floating production, storage, and offloading vessels. They are just as important to our energy security, which is our national security, and there could be much more catastrophic consequences if they were attacked. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those structures will be included in any plan for the routine securing and protecting of critical national infrastructure?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Licences and Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  I hope it will be apparent that all Members of the House strongly support this motion. Certainly those of us on the Opposition Benches welcome the opportunity for pubs and other licensed venues across the country to stay open late to commemorate VE day without incurring any cost to extend their licences. As time passes and those with direct memories of this momentous day grow older, it is critical that we continue to commemorate and remember the experiences of those who sacrificed so much and who in so many cases gave everything for our nation and for others’ freedom. We must celebrate the fact that their sacrifice was not in vain, but led to a great achievement, and recognise the efforts and endurance that overcame immense struggle. I hope I speak for all Members when I say that we are incredibly honoured to represent those who served in world war two and their family, friends and loved ones who survive to this day. VE day is rightly a day for us all to share in celebration. As Churchill said on 8 May 1945, “My dear friends, this is your hour. This is not a victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory for the great British nation as a whole.” It is only appropriate that we continue to reflect the evergreen truth and celebrate VE day as we should: unified as a country, proud of our history of determination and of sacrifice. The motion to extend licensing hours appears exceptionally appropriate. Not only was a national holiday declared in Britain on 8 May 1945, but it is said that on that morning, Churchill—with his focus very much on the real priorities—gained assurances from the Ministry of Food that there would be sufficient beer available in the capital. Meanwhile, the Board of Trade announced that people could purchase red, white and blue bunting without using ration coupons. We share that same spirit today by approving this motion, which I hope will allow people to fully and memorably commemorate this truly historic day.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 37 strengthens the existing law to address evolving predator behaviours. It extends section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, the offence commonly known as possessing a paedophile manual, to explicitly include any advice or guidance about creating child sexual abuse material. The current law, which was pioneered by the Conservative Government in 2015, rightly criminalises possession of written materials that facilitate child abuse. As depraved individuals find new ways to offend—perhaps sharing online how-to guides on generating child abuse images—we must ensure that the law clearly encompasses those too, and that is what clause 37 does. From the Opposition’s perspective, closing this loophole is entirely sensible. It would be inconsistent for our legal system to prosecute someone for possessing instructions on how to groom a child, and yet provide no recourse against someone with detailed guidance on creating computer-generated child abuse images. The two things are equally repugnant and dangerous. Government amendment 12 will ensure that the offence is added to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act, which will mean that the defence for slavery and trafficking victims does not apply. It is completely right that someone who possessed a guide to creating child abuse images should not be able to claim that they had it because they were being coerced. That complements the approach taken in amendment 11 to clause 36. In 2015 the Conservative Government set the maximum sentence for the paedophile manual offence at three years. Given that we are expanding the offence, and given public abhorrence of the facilitation of child abuse, did the Government consider increasing the maximum penalty? If not, does the Minister still feel that three years remains sufficient deterrent and punishment? Clause 37 is a targeted tightening of the law. It aligns with the previous Conservative Government-led efforts to eliminate materials to facilitate abuse. I expect that all Committee members will agree that those who seek out and hoard advice on creating indecent images of children are among the lowest of the low, and we must remove any ambiguity that they could hide behind in the face of prosecution.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 36 introduces a new criminal offence targeting what are termed child sexual abuse image generators. Simply put, it will make it illegal to make, possess or distribute any tool—an AI model, computer program or digital file—designed to create indecent images of children. It addresses what has been up to now a concerning gap in the legislation. We know that technology is advancing to the point at which artificial intelligence can produce realistic child abuse images without any child being photographed. If someone deliberately develops or shares software to generate child sexual abuse material, they are enabling heinous crimes, so it is right that clause 36 makes that explicitly illegal and punishable. The clause introduces new sections to the Sexual Offences Act 2023. It defines a CSA image generator in deliberately broad terms, covering any program or data created for producing child sexual abuse images. That breadth is essential to prevent offenders from evading liability through technical arguments about, for example, what constitutes a photograph in the digital age. Whether it is an AI model trained on abusive images, a computer-generated image rendering program or any digital template for indecent images of children, it will fall within this ban. Government amendment 11 ensures that the offence is added to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act. That is an important safeguard to prevent offenders from claiming that they were victims of trafficking to escape liability for creating these abhorrent tools. It is entirely appropriate that this offence, like other serious sexual offences against children, should be exempt from the slavery defence. Although we must of course protect genuine victims of trafficking, that exemption is necessary to prevent abuse by removing the defence in cases involving the deliberate facilitating of child sexual abuse. Clause 36 is a proactive step taken against emerging threats. The previous Conservative Government started focusing on the dangers of AI-generated child abuse images, and I am pleased that the current Government are continuing with that.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 52 makes it a serious criminal offence to cover up child sexual abuse by blocking a report. If any person—be it a headteacher, coach, priest or director of a care home—tries to stop someone else reporting suspected abuse, that person can be prosecuted and potentially imprisoned for up to seven years. We know from countless inquiries in the past that often the issue was not that frontline staff did not suspect; it was that they were silenced or ignored by those higher up. Clause 52 squarely targets that kind of misconduct. Instead of being able to threaten or cajole an employee into staying silent, now the one doing the threatening will face severe consequences. The clause is not aimed at someone who, for example, in good faith decides to wait until tomorrow, when the child is in a safer place, to file a report. There is a defence precisely for making suggestions about timing when motivated by the child’s best interests. That covers a situation where, for example, immediate reporting might tip off an abuser and endanger a child. A supervisor might decide to first secure the child before reporting. That is okay—they can argue that that is in the child’s best interests, not an attempt at covering up. But anything beyond those well-intentioned timing considerations—any attempt to outright stop a report or permanently delay it—has no defence. Clause 52 will apply not just within organisations but potentially to abusers themselves. If an abuser tries to threaten a mandated reporter into silence, that is also preventing a report. The clause should create a cultural backstop: everyone in an organisation will know that ordering a cover-up could land them in prison. It should therefore act as a strong deterrent.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As we have heard, clause 42 effectively incorporates provisions that had been included in the Criminal Justice Bill and is a key provision concerning sexual offences, specifically focusing on the offence of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child. The clause makes an important amendment to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which forms a core legislative framework addressing sexual offences in the UK. In particular, clause 42 expands on the existing provisions to enhance the protection of children from sexual exploitation and harm. Under the Sexual Offences Act, certain sexual offences are committed when a child is involved, such as sexual activity involving children, or causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. However, one area that has been highlighted for reform involves situations where a child might be exposed to sexual activity in a way that, while not directly involving them in the act, still results in harm. Prior to the introduction of clause 42, the law did not adequately address situations where a child was the passive observer of a sexual activity. For instance, in scenarios where an adult or adults engage in sexual activity with each other in the presence of a child, the law might not have captured this activity as an offence, despite the potential psychological harm to the child. Clause 42 seeks to close this gap by making it an offence for an adult to engage in sexual activity in the presence of a child. This means that any sexual activity taking place in the physical presence of a child, even if the child is not directly involved in the sexual conduct, could now result in criminal liability. The clause expands the scope of existing sexual offence laws to include situations that may not necessarily involve the direct participation of the child, but still expose the child to inappropriate activity or material that could be damaging to their wellbeing. Clause 42 also sees parallel offences involving sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder, impeding their choice, and similar provisions in the Sexual Offences Act. Those individuals, too, might not fully understand the sexual nature of what the offender is doing. Previously, there might have been the same issue with the law of requiring awareness. Clause 42 offers a broad safeguard for those who cannot consent or comprehend. The clause seeks to offer further protection for children by recognising the potential harm caused by exposure to sexual activity, even if it is not directed at them. The law would now acknowledge that witnessing such an act could have a detrimental impact on the child’s emotional, physiological, psychological or developmental health. Although we support the clause, I seek clarity from the Minister on a couple of points. In situations where sexual activity takes place in private or behind closed doors, it might be difficult to establish whether a child was present or the extent of their exposure to the activity. Proving the impact on the child could also be challenging, particularly where psychological harm or emotional distress is not immediately apparent. What discussions has the Minister had on that matter? I note that, as we have discussed a number of times today, Government amendment 14 carves out an important exception of the offence from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Clause 42 represents an important development in child protection law. At present, as the Minister has said, an offence is committed only where a person knows or believes that the child or person with a mental disorder is aware of the activity, or where a person intends that the child or person with a mental disorder be aware of the activity. The provisions will amend these offences to capture situations where, for the purpose of sexual gratification, a person intentionally engages in sexual activity in the presence of a child, even if they do not intend for the child to be aware of the activity. The examples covered by this amendment are clearly heinous, and we welcome the clause.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to reflect quickly on knife crime, and the Bill’s provisions on that. First, what are your comments on the clause to make it an offence to possess with the intent to cause unlawful violence? Do you think that is practically workable? How will that be enforced? More generally on tackling knife crime, what have you seen in your areas that has been good, bad or indifferent? Is there anything in particular missing from the Bill? Matthew Barber: An awful lot of focus in legislation goes on the type of knife being used—the talk about zombie knives and so on. Although I would not oppose the legislation that has been put in place to prohibit the use or ownership of those weapons, the reality is that the vast majority of knife-enabled incidents—whether that is robbery, theft or injury—are caused by kitchen knives, which we cannot realistically outlaw in our society. I think the use of intent and the ability to seize within private dwellings is really important. The police may be dealing with a suspect for an unrelated offence around drug possession, for example, and while they are in that property, they may see a stash of knives that are clearly likely to be used for criminal purposes—not for someone cutting their salad—yet they would currently be powerless to do anything about that, because they are being legally held in private premises. This is one of the things that I would put in that category of tying up some of the loopholes in legislation, which will not actually cost policing anything. At the moment we have police officers in situations where they cannot use current legislation to protect the public. More broadly, where we have seen success, certainly in Thames Valley and across the country where it has been done, it is that focus on the possession of knives that is absolutely vital. It is about a good use of stop and search, and making sure that we are focusing not just on the people who are already committing the dangerous offences of robbery and assault, but on getting the knives off the streets in the first place, recognising that possession itself is critical to enabling others to commit further offences. Roger Hirst: I very much agree with that. It has always been a difficult area, but I have never really understood why the previous legislation, and perhaps therefore this legislation, could not simply ban all bladed instruments that do not have a legitimate use in the environment in which they are found. We had a machete battle on Southend seafront last summer, which was extraordinary. None of those young people had any reason to be carrying a two-foot bladed instrument. In fact, why on earth were they allowed to buy them in the first place? The provisions around purchase over the internet need to be enforceable. It must be the case that people have to produce ID when they order it, and when it is delivered, to prove that they are over 18. But also, why are things like that available over the internet at all? Having talked to agricultural and nature groups, I know there is nothing that you can do with a machete that you cannot do with a billhook, and you are not going to take a billhook to a battle, so why not just ban machetes? That would really help. Also, with the way the Bill is phrased at the moment, the defence of saying, “I’m only carrying it for self-defence,” would effectively still work, because the implication is that you need to be going out with the intent to cause harm. I think if you are carrying it for self-defence, you are prepared to use it. I would ask the legal brains to think about a way of phrasing it to mean that the plea of, “I am only carrying it to defend myself,” is equally an offence, because that is something you can carry into a street fight. Emily Spurrell : On Merseyside, notwithstanding some really tragic incidents, we have actually seen knife crime going down. We have seen about a 7% reduction in serious violence, and particularly knife crime incidents. I think there are two reasons for that. First, there has been a huge amount of proactivity. We were the first force to pilot serious violence reduction orders, which have made a difference in terms of identifying the individuals who are routinely carrying knives and posing the threat that has been described. It has been helpful to monitor that. There was a previous question about prolific offenders; we have seen some good success with that. The flip side of that is public education and engagement, particularly with young people. We work with KnifeSavers to educate about the dangers of carrying a knife, and the fact that you are more likely to be a victim of a stabbing if you carry a knife yourself, even if you are doing it for protection. Through our violence reduction partnership, we have done some work to educate young people and help them to understand how they can get into that situation and what the alternatives are. There is a huge amount of work on education and prevention, which has to go hand in hand with all the enforcement activity.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing the debate. I rise to speak on behalf of the fishing communities in both my Gordon and Buchan constituency and wider north-east Scotland, who play such a crucial role in the UK’s fishing sector but are facing unprecedented challenges following, among other things, the most recent quota negotiations. The total allowable catch quota negotiations have been another example of the UK losing when Labour Governments negotiate. Analysis by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself shows that, as a result of the most recent negotiations, UK quota fell by 5% for 2025, representing a 38,000 tonne decrease and a £9 million reduction in the value of fishing opportunities. In total, the UK secured approximately 747,000 tonnes of quota, valued at about £950 million—a decrease from 2024 in both tonnage and value. Let us not forget that behind every percentage point of the reduction are real people—fishermen and women, their families and our coastal communities—who now face difficult decisions about their future. That is before we even start to consider “paper fish”, or quota allocations that cannot realistically be caught—that is to say, their benefit exists only on paper. That might happen, for example, when a country is allocated quota for species that are not present in sufficient quantities in its water, when quota is allocated for species that the fleet does not have the correct gear or capability to catch, or when the quota exists administratively but does not translate to actual fishing opportunities. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and other fisheries organisations have highlighted the distorting effect of paper fish when discussing quota negotiations, because it means that actual usable quota is less than what appears in official statistics. Some quotas look great on paper, but provide no benefit to the fleet. DEFRA has published two reports—one on economic outcomes and the second on sustainability—considering the UK’s fishing opportunities for this year. We should remember that sustainability under the Fisheries Act 2020 has three pillars—environmental, social and economic —and that no one pillar takes precedence over the others. In Scotland, about 70% of key commercial stocks are fished sustainably. Yes, there is still room for improvement, but it is important to recognise that progress has been made in the last 30 years. For example, in 1991, the same indicator showed that sustainability levels were only at 35%. The industry has driven that progress alongside fisheries scientists and managers, because no one has a greater vested interest in healthy seas and fish stocks than our fishermen and those who depend on them for their livelihoods. There is still much work to do for the UK’s fishing industry to benefit fully following Brexit and our departure from the broken, inequitable common fisheries policy. Under the adjustment period in the trade and co-operation agreement, the EU still has unrestricted access to the UK exclusive economic zone. That benefits the EU far more than the UK and, unsurprisingly, the EU wishes for that position to continue. As other Members have mentioned, we just have to look at how things have developed in recent weeks to get a true understanding of the EU’s approach to fishery negotiations. Some EU member states are now saying that, unless the UK gives way to exactly what the EU wants on fishing, it will be excluded from the EU’s defence fund. It is almost unbelievable that anyone would risk the safety, security and defence of Europe and its allies on such a pretence. Fishing and defence—indeed, national and international security—should not be conflated. Our national security is vital, our energy security is vital and our food security, in which fishing plays a major part, is vital, and each should be dealt with in its own right. We cannot allow our fishing communities to be caught up in this EU posturing. The UK Government must state unambiguously that giving up their rights to our waters and natural resources would represent a long-term loss of a national asset critical for food security and production of climate-smart food. I invite the Minister to do so in this debate. I urge the Minister to commit to securing a better deal for UK fishing in the revised TCA—one that genuinely rebalances quota towards zonal attachment principles—and protect our fishing grounds. Will the Government ensure that small-scale and coastal fishing operations have proper representation in future negotiations? The Conservative party committed to that in our manifesto, along with seeking additional opportunities for these vital parts of our fishing fleet.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Undersea Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State recently outlined to this House the serious situation with the Yantar—a clear example of the threat posed to our critical undersea infrastructure, and of the work that we need to do to defend ourselves and deter potential attacks. Does that not show that we need to increase our defence spending as quickly as possible to defend our crucial infrastructure and protect national security?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  How does the Secretary of State envisage the commissioner standing alongside others in the armed forces in terms of the chain of command? Has an assessment been made on that?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that at this time when the world is more dangerous than it has ever been, any reduction in defence spending is the wrong way to go?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This question is aimed at both of you. In terms of the job prospects for GB Energy, we have had figures such as 650,000 jobs, with 69,000 of those in Scotland as and when they come. However, I am sure that your members will be looking at not necessarily future jobs, but current jobs and the implication of the Bill for them. What would you like to see in the Bill to ensure that the jobs that are there today are protected? Do you think the Bill as it stands can and will impact them? Mike Clancy: I am not sure. As extensive as the powers of Parliament are, I am not sure a Bill in itself can give any of those guarantees. I am not trying to avoid an answer; the reality is that the Bill will set up a company with certain objectives, and those objectives should address directly the generation of employment. You have already heard and asked questions about how many jobs there will be in Aberdeen, what that will scale up to, and what it will mean in terms of the supply chain. We are seeing a lot of very considerable numbers in a lot of different energy spaces: potentially great demand and very high-quality jobs in both the public space and the private ownership of utilities. But it is all promise. Some of the numbers are so significant in aggregate that you have to wonder where they are going to come from, because there is pressure on different parts of the infrastructure. There are lots of synergies between this sector and others—the skills are the same in aviation, defence and so on—and the basic throughput of science, technology, engineering and maths skills in this country is a long-term inhibitor to our productivity and our delivery. In terms of the narrow focus of the Bill, this organisation needs to be the stimulus for that supply chain, with good employment conditions throughout. One of the issues in a just transition is that you replace public and private structured, high-quality jobs with jobs that are flimsier, more fragile and more temporary. If GB Energy can be a champion for long-term, durable relationships with its workforce—and that is how you want the energy sector to go—that is your best bet for having the jobs promise to replace those that have to be removed due to the climate impact. Mika Minio-Paluello: The easiest solution is to keep someone working in their current workplace, precisely because, as Mike explained, there is a significant risk that, in shifting across, you end up with more precarious work. A lot of the onshore supply chain for offshore oil and gas has been struggling; we have seen a big decline over the past 14 years both within the supply chain and directly. Chunks of that supply chain can be future-proofed to support offshore wind and other parts, and GB Energy has a significant role to play in supporting those supply chain sites. Whether it is Shepherd Offshore, Smulders or cable manufacturers, GB Energy should say, “We will be purchasing from you, and not just from China.” There is a big risk of China coming to dominate the offshore wind supply chain. We could end up in a situation with offshore wind like the one with solar at the moment, where if you buy a solar panel, it is 97% made in China. GB Energy can play a role in making sure the offshore wind supply chain is situated here, and that is part of the protection. The other part is about what could be done in the Bill, although it will not necessarily protect jobs—Mike is right; the Bill itself cannot entirely protect individual jobs. In our submission, we suggest that there could be an amendment to the strategic priorities section and that the statement of strategic priorities should have regard for a just transition, job equality and job creation. It should be embedded as a core part of the statement so that, when the Secretary of State sits down to prepare it, they go, “Okay, part of what we are going to put in here is about a just transition, job equality and job creation.” That is a possible amendment. We have also suggested an amendment on protection, particularly given that a lot of the job creation and economic impact will be in Wales and Scotland, so the Bill will play an important role for those nations. That means that those nations should probably have a say, through their devolved Governments, on what happens down the line to GB Energy. Let us say that down the line a future Government goes, “Well, actually we are going to privatise it,” or, “We are going to instruct it to dispose of a lot of assets,” Scotland and Wales should be able to have a say and go, “Well actually, this is about our economy here and we think that shouldn’t happen.” We suggest doing that through an amendment but you could explore different mechanisms, including golden shares for those devolved Governments that specifically say that.