[Esther McVey in the Chair]

I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to Hansard and to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I remind all Members, particularly the Minister and the Shadow Minister, to speak loudly, slowly and clearly in support of others in the room.

On a point of order, Ms McVey. I seek your advice with reference to the debate on Clause 43, on 10 February. I draw Members’ attention to my question to the Minister in Hansard about parliamentary scrutiny of directions:

“Even where they are redacted because of national security concerns, somebody, or some mechanism of Parliament, will be able to scrutinise them. Can the Minister confirm that?”––[Official Report, Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2026; c. 212.]

The Minister responded: “Yes.”

We received a letter over the recess dated 19 February—we are very grateful to the Minister for writing to us—which states something slightly different:

“The Government’s default position is that copies of directions will be laid in Parliament, to enable all parliamentarians to scrutinise the Government’s use of…powers. Where this is not possible for national security reasons, alternative options for scrutiny could be used, such as allowing for directions to be read in private reading rooms or briefing individual Shadow ministers. As such, we are confident that alternative options are available for scrutiny when directions cannot be laid in Parliament for national security reasons.”

“Will” is different from “could” and “are available”. Given that we have moved beyond the debate on clause 43, what options are there for the Minister to either clarify those remarks or correct the record?

I thank the Shadow Minister for getting those comments on the record. Would the Minister like to address those points?

I am happy to write to the hon. Member.

The Shadow Minister can keep us updated on whether that has happened.