National Youth Strategy

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this really important debate. I also thank my two work experience students, Nicoleta and Lyra. They are both from Harlow and are in the Public Gallery today. They have prepared me a very thorough and informative briefing ahead of this debate, so my contribution might be slightly more informed than usual.

When I met with Nicoleta and Lyra before this debate, they spoke about their experiences of taking part in the Duke of Edinburgh’s scheme, which obviously celebrates its 70th anniversary this year. I want to read out some of their thoughts on the scheme and the difference that it made to them and their friends and peers. Nicoleta completed the Duke of Edinburgh’s bronze award while she was studying at Burnt Mill academy. She said:

“I would describe it as very insightful and gave me an opportunity to give back to community by mentoring primary school children as part of the volunteering section.”

Lyra completed the Duke of Edinburgh’s bronze award while she was at Stewards academy, which is also in Harlow. She said that

“taking part in a local theatre production as part of the skills section, was very insightful and ignited a new passion. As part of the volunteering being able to volunteer at Harlow Youth Council improved political interest and involvement with the town.”

I think we can all agree that that is admirable and fantastic.

I have a few points with regard to the national youth strategy. I welcome the publication of the first long-term youth strategy that we have had in over two decades. Following a lot of lobbying from me and others, I am really pleased that young carers were included in that strategy, because it is hugely important that groups like that are listened to and their voices are heard.

I emphasise to the Minister the huge importance of prevention rather than intervention, and of ensuring that every young person, regardless of their postcode, has the opportunity to be involved in the schemes that have been mentioned. We can all appreciate, as Members across the Chamber have commented, the huge difference that taking part in schemes like the Duke of Edinburgh’s scheme can make to young people’s confidence and their ability to be part of the community.

Finally—I know I am running out of time—I am really delighted that Harlow will be the home of a Young Futures hub funded by this Labour Government. I am also delighted that this Labour Government have an ambition to halve the enrichment participation gap between disadvantaged young people and their peers.

Media Green Paper

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the birthday boy himself, Chris Vince.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—21 again. I thank the Secretary of State for her response to this urgent question, and particularly for her emphasis on the importance online literacy, which, as a former teacher—Chris Vince bingo in full force today—I know to be really important. I pay tribute to Michael Casey, editor of Your Harlow, an online newspaper that prints tens of thousands of articles every year, and that filled the hole left by Harlow Star when it closed down.

I would like to build on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who said that more and more people are using AI summaries to get their news, and are not relying on trusted sources. Is there not a danger that if we, and the AI companies, do not provide support to trusted sources, they will not be able to continue?

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I am very happy to confirm that the bursaries will continue in the 2026-27 academic year, and we have been able to increase the amount of funding available, which is a recognition of the cost pressures that families face. I very much agree with the hon. Member that bursaries are absolutely essential, which is why we have protected them even in these difficult financial circumstances. However, she will recognise the difficult circumstances we inherited from the previous Government. We have done our best to protect such things, and in the case of music and dance, we have been able to uplift the funding available.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Sam Ashford and the Livewire theatre in Harlow on 25 years of supporting young people into music, dance and the theatre with its hard-hitting shows? I pay particular tribute to the work it did to support young people remotely during covid.

[Lisa Nandy]

Of course, I will. I appreciate the efforts that my hon. Friend puts in not just to ensure that Harlow is referenced in this Chamber at every opportunity, but, sincerely, to change the lives of young people in Harlow and across the whole country. He really is one of the best champions for young people in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and note all his work in this area; he is a true champion for disabled people, especially since coming to this place. The opening of the Changing Places toilet in St Paul’s is incredibly welcome and, as he points out, it will open up access to that historic space for many people to enjoy. I am pleased to say that places like Blackburn cathedral already have such a facility, and Lambeth Palace, just over the river, is also soon to open a new space. I encourage all hon. Members to contact their local churches to encourage them to look into the disability project and to apply for the parish accessibility fund, so that they can improve their welcome to all their communities.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What steps the Church of England is taking to help support families with the cost of living.

[Marsha De Cordova]

The Church delivers community projects across the country to support individuals and families with the cost of living. These programmes offer practical support, companionship and advice to those facing hardship, demonstrating the Church’s ongoing commitment to serving and standing with all our communities nationwide.

[Chris Vince]

I want to pay tribute to three fantastic women in Harlow: Caroline Hatton, Alison Taylor and, in particular, the Rev. Jokey Poyntz at my local church, St Mary’s in Little Parndon, who for many years has run a church furniture fund—she has got me to move the odd sofa—providing furniture to those in need across our town. What work are the Church Commissioners doing to recognise the work of local churches, like St Mary’s in Little Parndon, and to learn from that good practice?

[Marsha De Cordova]

I join my hon. Friend in noting the incredible work in his constituency and the work of Rev. Jokey at both St Paul’s and St Mary’s churches. I believe that St Paul’s runs the Bounty café, in association with the Harlow food bank.

[Chris Vince]

indicated assent.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Wonderful! That café offers low-cost refreshments and light lunches at an affordable cost. My hon. Friend’s constituency really is a fantastic example of community support in the Church, and I know what a champion of that work he is. I encourage Members across the House, if they have not already done so, to make contact with their local churches to see the work they are doing in their community and their huge impact locally.

Sir David Attenborough: Permanent National Monument

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that David Attenborough’s brother Richard sadly passed away in 2014. I just wanted to share the last tweet that Lord Richard Attenborough put out on Twitter. He said he was very proud of his little brother, after David Attenborough received his BAFTA. I am sure that Richard Attenborough would have been very proud that my hon. Friend is having a debate about his little brother today.

[Johanna Baxter]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words.

Sir David is not just an incredible broadcaster with a passion for nature; he is an architect who shaped the landscape of British broadcasting. As the controller of BBC Two, he oversaw the introduction of colour television to the UK, beating continental Europe to the airwaves.

His eye for innovation even changed global sport. It was Sir David who noticed that traditional white tennis balls were nearly impossible for viewers to track on early colour television screens during broadcasts from Wimbledon. He personally intervened and championed the introduction of the optic yellow tennis balls that are used worldwide today. His embrace of technological advances led to him being the only person ever to win BAFTA awards for programmes across black and white, colour, high-definition, 3D and 4K television. From “The Blue Planet” and “Life on Earth” to “Galapagos” and “Frozen Planet”—I am sure everybody here today could name their favourite—each landmark production pushed human ingenuity forward.

Within the scientific community, one of the greatest compliments a person can receive is to have a species named after them. It is extraordinary, then, to think that Sir David has had over 50 species named in his honour, reflecting a staggering range of biodiversity. They range from the Euptychia attenboroughi, a black-eyed satyr butterfly found in the tropical Amazon, to the Platysaurus attenboroughi, a flat lizard native to southern Africa. Sir David is also one of very few people to have been knighted twice.

UK Biobank Data

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

Yes, I can give that assurance. This Government are giving UK Biobank all the support that it requires to resolve the immediate issue and in the short term to get the system back up and running in as secure a way as possible. Let me echo that participants in UK Biobank have done a great service to the people of this country and around the world. We owe it to them to be transparent and secure, and to ensure that their data is not only safe but advancing UK and worldwide medical research for the benefit of everyone.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will not mention Harlow Town, I promise. [Laughter.]

May I thank the Minister for his statement? I agree with others that UK Biobank is an excellent resource, and I have no doubt that its research has made a huge difference to the health of my constituents. Although this issue is not specifically a cyber-security breach, as he correctly said, will he join me in welcoming the Government’s Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill? Along with the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee. Will the Minister add to the work that this Government are doing to ensure that our data across all industries, including the charity sector and Government, is safe under this Government?

[Ian Murray]

In a previous question, my hon. Friend said that Harlow Town were the Man City of non-league football. May I simply suggest that he is the Man City of speaking in this Chamber in terms of the quality and regularity of his contributions? That may be challenged by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—let us look at the data.

I echo what my hon. Friend said in his question, because it is really important for us to impress on the public that data is secure and safe. This Government take that incredibly seriously, not just in the legislation being passed, which he has been a part of, but in the cyber-security tools available for free from this Government to businesses, organisations and institutions right across the country. We wrote to those organisations last week to inform them that those tools were available, and I continue to echo to all businesses, institutions and organisations that they should get involved in ensuring that they are as cyber-secure as possible. We are only as secure as the weakest, and we all have to be as secure as we possibly can be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

We are working with sporting bodies to make sure they get this right.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help improve outcomes for young people.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

Last month, we published our ground- breaking youth strategy, “Youth Matters”, the first cross-Government strategy for young people in England for over 15 years, to ensure that every young person has somewhere to go, someone who cares and something to do. We are determined, as we breathe life into that strategy, to ensure it continues to be driven by young people across the country. I look forward to working with him to ensure that becomes a reality.

[Chris Vince]

I am in my usual place, you may notice, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Secretary of State for her work on this really important youth strategy. How can young people in my constituency of Harlow be empowered to take part in the youth strategy? She will be aware that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Specifically, how has she worked to engage hard-to-reach groups, such as young carers, to be part of the strategy?

[Lisa Nandy]

From the outset, we were absolutely determined that the strategy would reflect all young people. It was a delight to do a workshop with young carers as part of the development of the youth strategy to ensure that their needs and concerns were met. I really do look forward to working with my hon. Friend to help ensure we empower young people. The key way in which we are doing that as a Department, as we roll out the national youth strategy, is to ensure we only fund organisations that put young people in the driving seat of decisions about how that money is spent.

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)]

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

A happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all the House staff. This is the first opportunity I have had to say that to you.

On 3 June 2024, a busy Monday morning in south-east London, criminals attacked Synnovis, an organisation that processes blood tests on behalf of our national health service. They did not turn up physically, but logged on to computers thousands of miles away and set off ransomware—malicious software that encrypts files from afar, making them unusable. The attack had a ripple effect across London hospitals. It delayed 11,000 appointments, blood transfusions had to be suspended and the company lost tens of millions of pounds.

This was not an isolated case. In the year leading up to September 2025, the National Cyber Security Centre dealt with 204 “nationally significant” incidents, meaning that they seriously disrupted central Government or our critical public services. That is more than double the 89 incidents in 2024. No one disputes that we must do everything we can to protect the UK from these attacks. The UK is the most targeted country by cyber-attacks in Europe, and it was the fifth most targeted nation in 2024 by nation state-affiliated threat actors. In 2024, it is estimated that UK businesses experienced over 8.5 million cyber-crimes in the 12 months preceding the survey, and that in that year more than four in 10, or 43%, of UK businesses were subject to a cyber-attack, affecting more than 600,000 businesses in total.

Significantly, cyber-attacks are estimated to cost UK businesses almost £15 billion each year, equivalent to 0.5% of the UK’s annual GDP, notwithstanding the wider economic effects of intellectual property theft or the experience of patients, as in the first example. The average cost of a significant cyber-attack for an individual business in the United Kingdom is estimated to be just over £190,000. There has been a 200% increase in global cyber-attacks on rail systems in the past five years, increasing the likelihood of severe disruption to the economy and to people’s daily lives.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that, as we become more and more reliant on IT systems—I am thinking in particular about the new patient registration system at the Princess Alexandra hospital in my constituency—it is more and more important that we combat potential cyber-attacks, particularly from foreign powers and enemies of this country? That is why the Bill is so crucial.

[Ian Murray]

I could not agree more. I gave the example of the Synnovis incident that brought blood transfusions in London to a halt, affecting thousands of patients. Our everyday lives are affected by this. As we modernise and digitise our economy and our Government, we have to ensure that our systems are as secure as possible, and cyber-security is right at the heart of that. This is not just a defensive issue; it is very much an economic growth issue as well, as we can see from the impact it has on our economy, our public services and the day-to-day lives of people, as in the example of our train systems that I just mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

This is about making sure that we extend the scope of the 2018 regulations into other parts of the economy, and I will come on to that later in my contribution. It is about reporting things more quickly to ensure that the attacks can be seen and action can be taken more quickly. It is also about reporting to the regulators to give the regulators confidence and powers across a wider scope of sectors in the economy, and to give businesses the confidence that those sectors have to report to the regulators when things are going wrong so that swifter action can be taken. We can see from the host of recent high-profile issues, including at Hackney council, that it is important to ensure that this legislation goes through quickly and does the job that it is intended to do.

[Chris Vince]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I apologise for intervening again. Is there a piece of work we need to do on culture? When businesses or the public sector are victims of cyber-crime, there is a danger that employees may feel embarrassed or nervous about reporting their concerns. We need to encourage people if they are victims of cyber-crime to come forward quicker and to recognise the challenges, rather than trying to hide them away and the issue becoming worse.

[Ian Murray]

While physical security and national security are issues for all of us, so is cyber-security. The Bill builds on the 2018 regulations to widen the scope into other areas of the economy where such issues have become much more prevalent—for example, data centres. I hope that doing so will give industries and sectors, including their employees, the confidence to report things to the regulators. Giving powers to the regulators will give businesses the confidence that they can report stuff; it is not a regulatory heavy hand dampening businesses. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend and the rest of the House on that.

Before that significant number of interventions, I was talking about why this issue matters and gave statistics for recent cyber-security activity in the United Kingdom. As a result of all that, one of the very first things we did as a new Government after the election was announce this new cyber-security Bill, just 10 working days in. Since then, the Department has been talking to cyber experts, businesses and regulators to turn these proposals into the comprehensive, serious and proportionate piece of legislation that we present for Second Reading today—one that protects the public and strengthens national security without placing undue burdens on businesses. I appreciate that that is a fine balance, but I think that this Bill finds that balance, so I am confident that the whole House will support it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Happy new year, Mr Speaker, and thank you for putting the heating on. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s rationale for this legislation in the Secretary of State’s stead. I do not know why the Minister was demoted either, but I want him to know that we appreciate him.

The official Opposition recognise the scale of the cyber-security challenge that the country faces. If the pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital technology at a pace we had never before seen, then the advent of artificial intelligence will embed that technology into our economy in wholly new ways that bring not only opportunity but unprecedented risk. AI and automation will not only transform productivity but equip hostile states, criminal gangs and opportunists alike with tools capable of eroding our national defences at speed and at scale. It is right that Parliament legislates to raise the collective security bar. We on the Conservative Benches support that principle. However, legislation of this kind does not come around often. Cyber law takes time to develop, and once the Bill passes, it is unlikely that Parliament will return to this territory for some years. That means that we must ask two simple but very serious questions today: will this law work and is it enough?

Before we answer those questions, it is worth reminding ourselves of the real-world consequences of failure. Cyber risk is neither abstract nor theoretical. Last year, the UK experienced what is widely regarded as our most economically damaging cyber-incident to date when Jaguar Land Rover suffered a major attack. That was not a sophisticated act of cyber-warfare against the state—although such acts are happening with increasing regularity—but was carried out by a band of hackers. The consequences were enormous, however. For five weeks, Jaguar Land Rover was unable to operate its automated manufacturing lines, cyber-related costs mounted to nearly £200 million, and national economic output was visibly affected in that month alone. The real damage did not stop at the factory gates: hundreds of small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain—many of them operating on thin margins—were pushed to the brink, workers faced uncertainty and contractors had their work paused.

Ultimately, the Government had to step in with a £1.5 billion loan guarantee to prevent wider economic fallout. When we consider the Bill, we must ask whether it would do anything to strengthen our collective resilience. That is one of the tests that this legislation ought to meet, and it is not yet clear that it does. Indeed, the attack on JLR would not have been stopped, as the Minister himself has made clear, because it would not have been in scope.

The cyber-threat landscape is evolving at an extraordinary pace. New research shows that cyber-attacks now cost our economy nearly £15 billion every year. High-profile breaches of businesses such as Marks and Spencer and the Co-op have demonstrated how quickly consumer confidence, jobs and supply chains can be put at risk. Last year alone, insurers paid out £197 million to help businesses recover from cyber-incidents. In fact, the collective cyber insurance bill of the FTSE 100 is now larger than the defence research and development budget. The Bill seeks to respond to one aspect of that reality by expanding the scope of regulation. Data centres, managed service providers, load controllers and designated critical suppliers will now fall within its ambit. That is a welcome acknowledgment that digitisation has introduced systemic risks that the original NIS regulations of 2018 did not adequately cover.

The Bill also strengthens the powers of regulators, introduces cost recovery mechanisms and tightens incident reporting requirements. Those measures are intended to modernise our cyber framework and address clear shortcomings identified in reviews of the NIS regime in 2020 and 2022. On paper, that all sounds sensible, but intent alone is not enough, which brings me back to our central concern: whether this law will work in practice in raising the standard of our collective resilience. The uncomfortable truth is that, in some of the most high-profile cases of cyber-attack, the penetration of systems was carried out by attackers using valid credentials. That means systems behaved normally. The breaches looked like legitimate access until it was too late. Human frailties were exploited: help desks were persuaded to reset passwords, and staff and contractors were impersonated. This Bill would help mainly after an attack—not before—by mandating reporting, improving intelligence sharing and increasing accountability.

[Chris Vince]

This is a friendly intervention, as I always like to get a bit of cross-party agreement where possible. I mentioned to the Minister the importance of changing the culture among employees to ensure that they feel confident about reporting cyber-attacks. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree with that?

[Julia Lopez]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is correct: this is fundamentally about culture—that is the point that I am making. We can pass as many regulations as we like, but a lot of the holes in our cyber-security systems come down to human frailties. That means this challenge is not just about new laws but about changing a number of things to make us more resilient.

It is right not to dictate technical standards in primary law that will soon be outdated in the fast-moving world of technology, so the question is whether this law has the right mix of carrot and stick to make affected firms act in a way that raises the security bar—there are several areas where we fear it may not.

First, there is potentially an enforcement paradox. The Bill expands regulatory powers and increases the scale of potential fines, but the evidence from the existing regime does not suggest definitively that fines and new regulations deliver us greater cyber-resilience. Under the current NIS regulations, enforcement has been slow, inconsistent and often toothless. Very few significant penalties have been issued. Where they have been issued, the delay between incident and sanction has sometimes stretched beyond two years. That delay matters, because it actively undermines deterrence and disconnects accountability from operational reality. Simply widening the scope of regulation without ensuring that regulators are properly resourced, empowered and required to act quickly risks creating obligations that exist on paper but lack any real-world bite.

We also have concerns about the Bill’s cost recovery model. Funding regulators through levies on the organisations that they oversee risks unintended consequences in terms of improving our resilience. For large firms, the cost burden may be manageable, but for smaller enterprises it amounts to an additional operational tax that could divert scarce capital away from cyber-defence, staff training and innovation.

There is also a structural risk here. Regulators that are reliant on fee income might face incentives to expand scope and complexity unnecessarily, creating bureaucratic drag that crowds out voluntary, market-led initiatives, which often raise standards more effectively than prescriptive regulation.

More generally, I worry that this Bill will play into tech monopolies. The companies that thrive in this kind of environment are those with big compliance and legal departments. That concentrates risk and makes our tech economy less diverse, with serious implications that I shall come on to.

There may be reporting challenges too. A two-stage reporting process within 24 and 72 hours may be achievable for large, well-resourced organisations with in-house cyber teams, but for smaller operators it risks creating a compliance culture focused on speed, not substance.

There is also the danger of duplication. Many organisations already face overlapping reporting obligations under UK GDPR, sectoral rules and existing legislation. Without simplification and proportionality, the administrative load could be significant, once again diverting attention and resource from the very cyber-threat management that the Bill seeks to improve. We need to avoid this legislation becoming a “something must be done” Bill that totally misses the mark.

The Bill also fails to grapple properly with the human factor in cyber-security, which has already been talked about by the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). Technology alone does not keep organisations safe; governance matters. Yet board-level ownership of cyber-risk is moving in the wrong direction. Only 27% of businesses now have a board member explicitly responsible for cyber-security, down from 38% just three years ago. Without mechanisms to ensure senior accountability, fines risk becoming little more than a cost of doing business. Directors remain insulated while operational teams are left to carry the can. National cyber-resilience depends not just on systems and software, but on leadership, culture and accountability at the very top.

For those reasons, ahead of Committee consideration, we on the Opposition Benches are examining how the legislation can be strengthened, while continuing to support its core objectives. In the meantime, regulators must be properly equipped with the right powers, resources and clarity from Parliament on the intent of the law. Sanctions must be applied swiftly and consistently, and guidance must be clear, so that enforcement is credible and deterrence is real.

The Government should also look at how reporting obligations are calibrated. A one-size-fits-all approach might place disproportionate burdens on smaller firms, and it might be better to ensure that reporting thresholds reflect the size, complexity and risk profile of an organisation.

Equally, the funding of regulators must be transparent and predictable. There have to be safeguards against regulatory expansion for its own sake and firm assurances that funds raised are reinvested directly into improving national cyber-resilience, not absorbed by administrative overheads. While the Bill rightly prioritises critical national infrastructure, it cannot afford to ignore high-risk sectors that sit beyond its immediate scope.

There is also a major role for market-based solutions. Cyber insurance, sector-wide intelligence sharing and collaborative resilience initiatives can all complement regulation. These tools can reduce risk and improve preparedness without adding unnecessary legislative complexity.

The review cycle set out in the Bill may be too slow for the threat landscape we face and the pace of technological change. Annual or biannual reviews might allow Parliament to scrutinise effectiveness, respond to emerging threats and ensure that the legislation remains fit for purpose.

Let me make some more general points about the Government’s approach to cyber-security and resilience, and issues about the risk of dependence and threat from adversaries. I see no evidence from this Government that they are thinking with any clarity about the risks of long-term technological dependency and lock-in—quite the opposite, in fact. Large parts of our economy now depend on secure, high-quality digital infrastructure, and that reliance will only increase as AI advances. Whoever provides that infrastructure will wield huge future leverage. It was that reality that ultimately drove the change of heart over Chinese tech sitting at the core of our 5G telecom networks a few years ago.

However, the Government are seemingly betting every chip on US hyper-scalers. They provide our data centres, supply the platforms on which Government Departments are run and, more often than not, are the ones winning all the Government contracts. These investments will provide our companies with things that they need, from compute power to increasingly sophisticated AI platforms, but the UK is doing little simultaneously to mitigate our increased technological dependency. When I say “technological”, we need to understand that technology is what we now run our defence systems, factories, energy networks and communications on. Technology is the plumbing of our nation.

During September’s much crowed-about state visit by President Trump, this Government were visibly begging for good economic headlines after the humiliating resignations of the Deputy Prime Minister and the ambassador to the US, not to mention the uncontainable mess of the Chancellor’s first Budget and the threat of her second Budget. The US-UK tech partnership was the result, with a huge amount of smoke and mirrors deployed over what it actually contained. Whatever substance lay within it, we heard just before Christmas that it had been paused, used as leverage by the US while other trade negotiations were under way.

I am not criticising the US Administration for skilfully playing their hand in their national interest; I am asking this Government rapidly to wake up to the reality of a new world in which the post-war settlement is coming to an end—one that has been giving clues to its existence for many years, since long before President Trump came into office. The United States remains a vital ally, but in this new era Britain must be very clear-eyed about risk, the reality of hard power and the need to protect our sovereign interests.

Cyber-risk requires as much thought about the fundamentals of plumbing as it does about the laws that try to manage how humans use or exploit technology. The UK Government have a vast procurement budget for which our own firms ought to be able to make a successful bid, but UK tech tells me consistently that, for all the talk in the Government’s AI strategy of sovereign tech capability, it has not got a look-in since Labour has been in power. I am concerned that this Bill should not introduce new, burdensome regulation for UK firms in a way that benefits non-UK incumbents with giant compliance teams and legal resources in a way that would exacerbate the risk of vendor lock-in.

Let us turn to another risk. The private sector will have noticed that the new obligations in this Bill broadly do not touch the public sector, where cyber-risk remains red-light-flashingly large, notwithstanding the public cyber strategy that was thrown out today in implicit acknowledgment of that gaping hole. Knowing that the public sector holds such enormous cyber-risk, this Labour Government choose not to minimise it, but to create a brand-new one—a hulking great identity system mandated for anyone who wants a job and, we now hear, possibly for new-born babies. It is mandatory identity by stealth, not consent, and with no honesty about it.

It is not to be against the ability of people to verify themselves digitally for banking, to access certain online services or to stop fraud to think that Labour’s mandated digital identity plan is a complete rotter. The Association of Digital Verification Professionals called what Labour inherited on digital identity a

“world-leading model for data sovereignty that digitised liberty rather than diluted it”.

The citizen, not Government, would be in control. This naive Government are crowding out private sector expertise and making everyone have one of these identities by stealth. They have no idea what this system will cost, and they will not be honest about what it will be used for.

What of the cyber-security of this system? The system on which this digital identity will be run was breached during red team testing last year. When I asked the Secretary of State if that system has now met the National Cyber Security Centre’s cyber-security standard, no answers came. Whistleblowers have continued to speak out about the vulnerabilities of the system, and there is no sense whatsoever from Government that the dodgy digital identity plan will be paused until such a point when they are confident about cyber-security.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What steps the Church of England is taking to support people on low incomes in rural communities.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)]

Our most recent figures show that the Church of England was involved in more than 31,000 community projects across the country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Harlow. In addition, funding for churches in the lowest income communities is set to increase from £91 million in the past three years to £133.5 million.

[Chris Vince]

In the local authority of Harlow, 30% of children are living in poverty, according to research by Loughborough University and the End Child Poverty coalition. Poverty also exists in rural areas of my constituency, such as Sheering and Nazeing. Many families turn to their local place of worship for support. Luckily, Harlow has several places of worship of different faiths and denominations offering help. Can my hon. Friend say a little more about what the Church is doing in the area to support families struggling with the cost of living?

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend is a good representative for the people of Harlow. In his constituency, St Mary Magdalene church runs a vibrant Sunday school and mothers’ union, with lots of events and activities for all the community. St Stephen’s church runs a parent and toddler group while also supporting local care homes. St Paul’s and St Mary’s churches partner with the local food bank and run a Bounty club with the Michael Roberts Charitable Trust, offering good, healthy food at a low cost.

Youth Services

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

When we talk about youth services, we are really talking about the kind of country we want to be. We often discuss crime prevention, education and mental health in silos, but the thread that runs through all those issues is clear: we need to invest in our young people through properly funded, long-term youth services.

Scotland has a proud tradition in youth work. In my constituency, youth work takes many forms, from council programmes to community-led projects in our towns and villages. In every case, the services work to address inequality, isolation and opportunity gaps. Let me highlight two examples. The Callander youth project has turned a former hotel into a thriving hostel and social enterprise, and offers employability programmes and training opportunities to young people. In Bannockburn, the Eastern Villages sports hub delivers sport and community activity in partnership with Milton football club, Bannockburn rugby club and St Modans cricket club. That shows how sport, youth work and community development can go hand in hand.

Those are fantastic examples of grassroots ambition, but behind the energy and creativity lies a deep sense of fragility. Too many projects rely on a patchwork of short-term funding. I want to recognise the role of organisations such as the National Lottery Community Fund and many others that have stepped in to keep services running.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech, and is showing why Scotland produces some of the greatest footballers of all time, like Billy Bremner. He mentioned the short-term funding of youth projects. My experience from my work with young carers is that part of the issue is that new projects need to be funded. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need long-term funding for not just existing projects, but new ones, too?

[Chris Kane]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for recognising Billy Bremner—a very good Stirling man.

As I was saying, many projects rely on a patchwork of short-term funding, but that reliance points to a deeper problem: the retreat of local government, especially under the SNP Government in Holyrood, who have delivered a real-terms cut of over 15% to core budgets for local authorities. That makes it near impossible to deliver on statutory obligations, let alone expand services for the future.

When youth services are cut, the impact is not abstract. We see it in worsening mental health, rising youth crime and lost opportunities. We know what works. Youth services build confidence, boost attainment, improve wellbeing and support employability, and those are generational investments, not optional extras. That is why I welcome the UK Labour Government’s commitment to embedding youth services alongside mental health and careers support in communities. However, Westminster action only goes so far when Holyrood is pulling in the opposite direction. If the SNP is serious about equity and opportunity, it must properly fund councils and commit to long-term support for youth services. This is not just about budgets; it is about hope, and acting on our belief in the potential of every young person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) on securing this important debate. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate a leading youth provider; I congratulate Aspire in Arts in Nuneaton on its 10-year anniversary. From numerous conversations with the leader of the youth group, Amina, I know about the organisation’s struggle over the past 10 years. The success of its projects is truly a testament to the dedication of the staff; it is a true labour of love. Given that the YMCA has estimated that Warwickshire county council has cut a staggering 84% from our youth budget since 2010, it is amazing that Aspire in Arts has developed a fantastic local asset that provides support for hundreds of young people. It adds value to our young people’s lives with art, games, cooking and health provision and education. The music provision is incredible and is about to get even better, as performance spaces and a recording studio are established. The organisation is building the capital culture and creative industry talent that we need for the future, while truly enhancing lives and broadening horizons.

Crucially, Aspire in Arts provides a safety net, an open door and a safe place for young people who have nowhere else to go; those who need support and those at risk of bullying, harassment and exploitation. It also gives a positive choice to those at risk of entering into criminality. Indeed, we already know that youth provision reduces the rate of youth reoffending by 13% and reduces the severity of the crimes.

The positive impact of youth services transforms lives and maps out a pathway to embracing passions and nurturing talent, supporting young people to learn the skills that they need to live successful lives in the future. In Nuneaton, more than 20% of our young people are economically inactive. Youth crime, antisocial behaviour and youth violence are enormous issues that have resulted in tragic outcomes in recent weeks. Aspire has been holding the frontline, supporting these young people through unmet mental health and SEND needs and providing alternative provision when the barriers to attending school are just too great.

[Chris Vince]

I was waiting for an opportunity to mention young carers, who are a hugely important part of the greater picture of young people and who often face many barriers to education. Does my hon. Friend agree that any consultation with young people should include young carers, as has my consultation in Harlow?

[Jodie Gosling]

Absolutely. It is clear from interactions with young carers and parents of children who are not in school that the gratitude for youth services and the value they add is immense.

The casework stories from youth provision in Nuneaton are often harrowing: young people in crisis and on the edge of suicide, self-harm and mental health episodes, and victims of violence and abuse. The open-door policy means that we have a safety net to catch and support them. The net that the organisation provides saves lives, helps them rebuild and offers support for a brighter future.

Evidence suggests that £1 invested in youth provision results in £3.40 to £6 for the taxpayer, but I think the value it adds is incalculable, especially when we consider the impact on other services, such as health, education, policing and justice. Aspire in Arts works collaboratively with other youth groups to provide services across the north of Warwickshire and to establish ambitious, inspiring plans to support our young people. It would like to do more, and with secure funding instead of piecemeal, day-to-day, hand-to-mouth funding, it would be able to secure a place for young people across Nuneaton and to support everyone.

Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her excellent speech and welcome all that the Government have done in preparation for VE Day and VJ Day.

The 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day are a time for the nation to come together and celebrate the conclusion of the second world war—a war in which good triumphed over evil and liberated millions of people from the horrors of fascism. On VE Day, millions rejoiced across the western world, relieved that years of conflict and immense hardship were finally coming to an end. On 8 May 1945, British people—including Her Royal Highness, the then Princess Elizabeth—flocked to the streets to celebrate the defeat of Nazi Germany and the liberation of Europe. People danced long into the night, attended street parties and looked forward to a brighter future.

We must not forget, however, that as those parties wore on, troops from Britain and the Commonwealth, as well as our allies, continued to take the struggle to Japan. It was not until August 1945 that there was victory over Japan. VJ Day marked the conclusion of the war in the far east, and we must never forget the sacrifices of the troops who helped to liberate millions of people from imperial Japan.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of my constituents, Pam Gillespie, often leads the VJ Day commemorations in Harlow because her father, George Money, was a far east prisoner of war. Will the shadow Minister join me in thanking people like Pam? Does he agree that it is hugely important that we recognise VJ Day and that, while the war in Europe may have been over, there was still a war going on and many servicemen were still giving their lives?

[Saqib Bhatti]

On this point, the hon. Gentleman and I are friends; I thank Pam and her family for their sacrifice and for all that happens on VJ Day.

VE Day and VJ Day must forever be remembered and etched into our memories. I am sure this whole House will agree that it is important that we remember these historic days for years to come. This year, 2025, is especially important, as it may well be one of the last years troops who served in the second world war are still alive.

I want to ask the Minister, on behalf of the shadow Secretary of State, if she will comment directly on his campaign to bring home a statue of Vera Lynn. The late Sir David Amess launched an appeal to create a lasting memorial to Dame Vera Lynn, whose songs kept our troops’ morale high, often in times of huge uncertainty and great peril. During the battle of Britain, when it looked like the Nazis might invade Britain at any moment, she really did keep the bluebirds singing over the “White Cliffs of Dover”. The committee need to raise £350,000 to complete the bronzing process and bring the memorial home from the Czech Republic. Could the Minister confirm that this fitting tribute will indeed be brought home?

Every man and woman who served and serves in our armed forces stood and stands up for Britain and the precious values and rights for which we have fought for generations: democracy, liberty and the rule of law. We are forever in debt to the brave souls who fought to defend this country—as the saying goes, freedom is not free. To all those serving, those who have served and those who have sacrificed, we say thank you.

Yesterday, thousands of people descended upon the Mall to watch all three services march in the excellent VE Day parade. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to everyone who took part, but especially to the veterans who made the occasion so special. Today, Her Majesty the Queen will visit the Tower of London to see the 30,000 poppies on display to mark and reflect the sacrifices made by so many in the second world war. Here in Parliament, there will be a celebratory concert in Westminster Hall, where the fantastic parliamentary choir will perform alongside some special guests. On VE Day itself, nearly 2,000 people, including Their Majesties the King and the Queen and a host of veterans, will mark the 80th anniversary with a special service at Westminster Abbey.