WHILE YOU WERE WATCHING THEM MOO

Think MPs just moo at each other all day?

Apparently not.

Stuff does get done - just not usually as performance art for the cameras.

So while everyone else was watching the political theatre, we went looking at what Parliament actually did.

Here’s what you might have missed.

THE IMPORTANT STUFF

The Hackers Have Been Through the Archives

You may not be aware of the Legal Aid Agency cyberattack. Well, you are now. Here’s the latest update:

The Ministry of Justice previously said the affected information dated from 2007 to May 2025. On 14 October, it told Parliament that some stolen records were older.

The earliest verified record dates from 1978.

The year Grease came out, the first test-tube baby was born, and some government records apparently began a very long wait to be stolen by hackers.

Most affected data still falls within the original period; only a very small number of records extend back that far. Depending on the record, stolen information may include names, addresses, dates of birth, financial information and sensitive legal aid details. Some limited probation information was also caught up in the breach.

The Ministry says no complete legal aid case file was taken, and it has no indication that the stolen data has been published or shared.

It has allocated £200 million to recovery, transformation and replacing legacy technology.

Which raises the question of why it took criminals getting in to make upgrading the system quite so urgent.

The attack happened in 2025. In October 2026, we’re still learning what was stolen.

The Moo question: How many people can the Government identify and notify? And how long must they wait to find out?

Source: Ministry of Justice statement to Parliament, 14 October.

MEANWHILE, IN COMMITTEE ROOM 6…

884 Rejections Overturned. And a Government Response.

In February 2022, the Ministry of Defence suffered a data breach involving Afghans who had sought relocation to Britain.

The information was extraordinarily sensitive. Some of the people involved had worked alongside British forces and faced potential danger because of that association.

The Government’s response was conducted under a super-injunction, restricting public knowledge of both the breach and the measures being taken.

In July, Parliament’s Defence Committee published its investigation.

On Friday 16 October, the Government’s formal response appeared.

First, the Government acknowledges that the original breach was unacceptable and that inadequate systems and processes contributed to it.

It also accepts that responsibilities between departments were not sufficiently clear.

The response also addresses the wider resettlement failures. By March 2026, a review of applications from former Afghan specialist units had overturned 884 rejection decisions.

Eight hundred and eighty-four.

People who had initially been told they weren’t eligible for relocation were subsequently assessed as eligible.

The Government acknowledges its responsibility towards them and says their remaining relocation and family cases are being prioritised.

But the Committee also raised a fundamental question about safeguarding.

When people were finally informed that their data might have been exposed, were they given enough information and individual support to understand their danger?

The Committee thought not.

The Government’s response says its information service was never intended to provide personalised security advice to everyone affected. It argues that doing so would have been impractical and could itself have created risks.

There is a genuine difficulty here. Giving detailed information about a security breach can sometimes increase the danger to the people involved.

But it leaves an uncomfortable question.

What is someone supposed to do when they’re told their information may have been compromised, but cannot obtain advice specific to their circumstances?

The Committee also requested a single action plan, with named people responsible, deadlines and six-monthly progress reports.

The Government has promised regular reporting and described improvements already made.

What it hasn’t provided in this response is the specific action plan requested.

So there has been an investigation. There have been admissions. There are commitments to improvement.

But the most important measure of success won’t be another document.

It will be what happens to the people still waiting for safety.

Source: House of Commons Defence Committee, Government Response, HC 674, published 16 October 2026.

The Children Have Some Questions. Rather Good Ones, Actually.

Remember the Online Safety Act inquiry we mentioned in Issue 01?

The Lords Communications and Digital Committee returned to the subject on 13 October, hearing from children’s online safety experts. The transcript wasn’t listed when we checked for this issue, so a fuller account will have to wait.

Meanwhile, over in the Commons, the Science and Technology Committee published Under the Microscope, a report drawing on more than 300 submissions from schools, young people, researchers and members of the public.

And the children’s contributions deserve particular attention.

Pupils at Shenley Brook End School weren’t simply complaining about screen time.

They wanted to know whether AI was intensifying emotions, encouraging polarisation and turning human feelings into commercial opportunities.

They asked what that might mean for their psychological development and their relationships as adults.

That’s a rather more sophisticated question than “Have you tried switching your phone off?”

Meanwhile, pupils at Witton Middle School wanted to be able to explore the internet without worrying that the information they encountered was false or inappropriate.

Not an unreasonable ambition.

The Committee found that young people were concerned about AI, cyberbullying, mental health, misinformation and whether their education was preparing them for a world increasingly shaped by technology.

And these weren’t just suggestions dropped into a parliamentary suggestion box and forgotten.

The Committee says the submissions have already helped shape its work on harmful algorithms, digital childhoods and online safety.

Taken together, their concerns raise a rather fundamental question:

Why are children expected to navigate systems designed to influence them, when even the adults haven’t fully worked out what those systems are doing?

Perhaps we should invite a few of them to question the technology companies.

They appear to have prepared rather thoroughly.

Sources: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Under the Microscope (HC 64), published 15 October 2026; House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, Online Safety Act inquiry, evidence session 13 October 2026.

ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION

How Many Patients? We’re Going to Talk About a Strategy.

On 12 October, Suella Braverman asked what data the Department of Health and Social Care holds on patients refused shared care for ADHD medication following a private diagnosis, broken down by local NHS area.

Shared care is an arrangement in which a GP takes on agreed prescribing and monitoring responsibilities alongside a specialist.

A question about numbers.

Not a five-year vision for integrated transformational stakeholder excellence.

Numbers.

On 15 October, Health Minister Alison McGovern replied with an independent review, the Government’s initial response, a forthcoming Mental Health Strategy and the possibility of extending an autism strategy to include ADHD.

What she didn’t provide was the breakdown, or an explicit answer about whether the Department holds the data.

Two other questions, about shared-care policy and guidance, received substantially the same response.

Three different questions. One remarkably versatile answer.

Perhaps the figures aren’t collected nationally. Perhaps individual NHS organisations hold them. Either would be useful to know.

A forthcoming strategy doesn’t tell us what information the Department possesses now.

The Moo question: Does the Department have the figures or not?

Sources: Questions 34017 — patient numbers; 34012 — shared-care policy; 34014 — national guidance.

COMING DOWN THE TRACK

New Towns. Minor Snag: We Need Things to Build Them With.

The Government wants new towns. Houses, schools, streets and presumably somewhere to buy a pint of milk.

On 14 October, the Lords Built Environment Committee supplied a small reality check.

Britain has lost some construction-material manufacturing capacity. Utility providers may struggle to supply developments. Important trades lack workers. And the industry needs confidence that the programme will happen before investing in more capacity.

Building towns, it transpires, requires more than announcing towns.

The Committee recommends stronger infrastructure planning, better training and apprenticeships, and support for modern construction techniques.

The Moo question: Will infrastructure arrive with the houses, or will residents be invited to admire the architectural vision while waiting for water?

Source: House of Lords Built Environment Committee, 14 October — New Towns: Commit and Build.

MOO OF THE WEEK

Five Million Wet Wipes. And Somebody’s Teeth.

There are things you expect to find in the Thames. Fish. Mud. Shopping trolleys.

An island made of wet wipes is pushing it.

Near Hammersmith Bridge, millions of flushed wipes had accumulated on the foreshore in a mass approximately 250 metres long.

A September 2025 clean-up removed around five million wipes, together with other rubbish, weighing a combined 114 tonnes.

Among the finds: trousers, towels, a car engine timing belt and a set of dentures.

Somebody’s teeth were participating in an unauthorised land-reclamation project.

Which brings us to Parliament.

On 14 October, Labour MP David Burton-Sampson introduced the Wet Wipes (Labelling, Sale and Marketing) Bill, seeking clearer disposal instructions and stronger evidence for claims that wipes are flushable.

Because “flushable” doesn’t necessarily mean “breaks down safely in a sewer”. Wipes can block pipes, damage infrastructure and end up in rivers.

This is separate from the planned ban on plastic-containing wipes. Removing plastic doesn’t automatically make something suitable for flushing. See also: towels. Teeth.

The Bill received its first reading, with a second scheduled for 13 November. Parliament hasn’t banned all wet wipes; it has begun considering whether manufacturers should stop encouraging people to send them through Britain’s plumbing.

A modest proposal. But having already constructed an island out of the things, perhaps we should act before someone applies for planning permission.

Moo.

Sources: Hansard — Wet Wipes Bill, 14 October; Parliamentary Bill tracker; Thames21 — five million wet wipes removed, September 2025.

While You Were Watching Them Moo is an irreverent look at what the UK Parliament actually does when the cameras are pointing elsewhere.

The jokes are ours. The facts come from published parliamentary and official sources, linked throughout.

No party gets special treatment. If it’s consequential, peculiar, revealing or buried in a parliamentary PDF, it’s fair game.

More from Crowdecks: www.crowdecks.co.uk