WHILE YOU WERE WATCHING THEM MOO
What Parliament Actually Did This Week
Issue 04 | 17–23 October 2026
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 Government Is Going Digital. The Spending Figures Aren’t Keeping Up.
Government departments are modernising services, investing in technology and promising greater efficiency.
Excellent.
How much is all this costing?
Well.
On 22 October, the Commons Science and Technology Committee published the Government’s response to its digital-government inquiry.
MPs had asked for annual spending figures across departments and public bodies. Ministers said existing finance systems could not produce consistent, reliable and comparable totals. They would work with the Treasury to consider how this could be developed over time.
There is a qualification: the Government says its reporting of major digital projects already captures approximately 90% of digital spending. This is a gap in comparable reporting, not an admission that every penny has vanished into a server cupboard.
The Committee also challenged dependence on technology suppliers, including Palantir’s NHS Federated Data Platform.
Ministers agreed to develop a strategy against supplier lock-in, but neither committed to nor ruled out using the Palantir contract’s break clause.
So: how much are we spending, are we getting value, and how dependent are we becoming?
The Government will consider improving its answer to the first question. Which would presumably help with the other two.
Source: Science and Technology Committee, Government response to Rewiring the State, 22 October 2026.
MEANWHILE, IN COMMITTEE ROOM 6…
Water Companies: A £1.5 Billion Head Start
On 20 October, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee examined water-company ownership and finance.
The starting conditions deserve remembering.
Hugh Goldsmith, formerly head of water and waste management at the European Investment Bank, told MPs that the companies privatised in England and Wales in 1989 began debt-free, with £1.5 billion in government working capital.
Not a bad starting position.
The money investors paid for shares went to the Government, he explained, rather than into the companies to build infrastructure. With clean balance sheets, borrowing became the attractive route to investment.
Borrowing to build pipes is normal. Goldsmith stressed that infrastructure across Europe is financed this way.
The question is whether the ownership and regulatory arrangements delivered for customers.
Another witness, Dr David Lloyd Owen, argued that regulation had shifted from prioritising investment and maintenance towards keeping bills low.
Those are witnesses’ assessments, not the Committee’s verdict. But the historical starting point is striking.
Debt cleared. Working capital supplied. Infrastructure already in place. Thirty-seven years later, Parliament is still trying to work out the best way to pay for the pipes.
Source: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Reforming the water sector, oral evidence, 20 October 2026, particularly questions 122–124.
THEY VOTED ON WHAT?
The Lords Changed the Bill. Twice Against Ministers’ Wishes.
On 20 October, the Government lost two Lords votes on the Armed Forces Bill.
First: military housing.
Baroness Smith of Newnham proposed minimum accommodation standards, including for single personnel, tied to specified civilian requirements. Ministers argued that civilian standards were unsuitable for shared military accommodation and pointed to a review and planned investment.They also confirmed that £950 million was being deferred this Parliament, with approximately 10,100 single-living bed spaces affected under current planning assumptions.
The Lords backed the amendment: 259–173.
Then came plans to combine the Reserve Forces and Cadets’ Associations into one public body. Opponents feared damage to their independence and voluntary character.The Earl of Minto moved to remove the relevant clause.
The Lords agreed: 243–168.
A third amendment, seeking to exempt personnel on overseas operations from the European Convention on Human Rights, was rejected: 67–168.These are changes to a Bill, not new laws. The Commons can still challenge them. But the Government wanted its housing provisions left alone and its reorganisation retained.
The Lords said no.
Twice.
ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION
An Illegal Dump. A Question About Enforcement. An Answer About Everything Else.
On 22 October, St Ives MP Andrew George asked about Trevoole Moor in Cornwall.
He described it as the country’s fifth-largest illegal dump, affecting a nature reserve, and said the Environment Agency had decided against enforcement action. The agency had told him decisions were made case by case.
So would Environment Minister Emma Hardy ensure its decision-making guidance was published?
Her reply covered the Government’s waste-crime action plan, an extra £45 million for frontline enforcement, new powers, an expanded joint unit and making polluters pay for clean-ups.
All relevant to waste crime. None answered the request.
The exchange doesn’t prove the agency acted improperly - or establish whether relevant guidance is already publicly available. It does show the Minister failed to explain which guidance governed this decision or commit to publishing it.
Question: Will you publish the guidance?
Answer: We’re doing lots of things about waste crime.
Question answered?
No.
WELL, THAT TOOK A TURN
Thirty-Two Government Services Offline. Parliament Gets a Nod.
On 22 October, the House of Lords was discussing a serious cybersecurity problem.
A critical vulnerability had been discovered in PHP, the programming language used by countless websites around the world.
The National Cyber Security Centre had issued an alert, and organisations were scrambling to patch their systems.
Some took services offline as a precaution.
The Government confirmed that 32 government services were unavailable and another four partially unavailable.
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s website was among those affected. Several local councils had also experienced disruption.
Ministers stressed that the shutdowns were largely precautionary. At the time, they were not aware of any confirmed compromise of central government systems resulting from the vulnerability.
Naturally, the Lords wanted to know whether Parliament itself was safe.
Earlier that morning, Lord Harper had asked the Senior Deputy Speaker whether the House’s IT systems had been patched and the security flaw fixed.
The Senior Deputy Speaker confirmed that they had.
And explained how he knew.
“The Clerk of the Parliaments nodded at me while the noble Lord asked his question.”
There you have it.
A worldwide cybersecurity emergency. Government services offline. Experts issuing urgent warnings.
And Parliament’s own security assurance delivered by a bloke nodding across the chamber.
Sources: House of Lords Hansard — Procedural Flexibility: Scrutiny of AI and Emerging Technology, 22 October 2026; House of Lords Hansard — Cyber Security: PHP Vulnerability, 22 October 2026.
COMING DOWN THE TRACK
Shetland Wants to Dig Its Way Out of the Ferry Timetable
A late discovery from the previous week: the Scottish Affairs
Committee’s report of 16 October examines permanent links between islands.
Including tunnels.
Not one enormous tunnel from mainland Scotland to Shetland. We’re talking about individual crossings.
Shetland’s proposals include Unst–Yell and Yell–Mainland Shetland, with Bressay and Whalsay links envisaged longer term.
Four links. Estimated cost: around £1.5 billion.
An engineering study found the proposals technically feasible and potentially attractive to investors. That is not a funding agreement.
For islanders, unreliable ferries can mean missed work, disrupted appointments and businesses struggling to operate. Permanent links could help communities retain residents and support energy and space industries.
The trade-offs include construction and maintenance costs, pressure on local infrastructure and concerns about island identity.
The Committee endorses no individual project: communities must lead those decisions. It wants the UK Government to engage seriously where wider UK interests are involved, despite transport being devolved.
A response is due within two months. Ferries still need urgent attention.
But somewhere in Shetland, people are seriously considering whether the long-term answer to an unreliable boat is to dig underneath the sea.
Source: Scottish Affairs Committee, Fixed link connectivity in Scotland’s islands, published 16 October 2026.
A Landlord Database. One Property at a Time.
England’s planned rental-property database should help tenants get information and councils enforce housing standards.
The Lords’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee examined the machinery in a report published on 22 October. The draft regulations were laid on 9 September.
One practical snag: no bulk property uploads at launch. Landlords must register individual dwellings, even when they own thousands.
The Government says each property needs its own information, and bulk uploads presented problems with matching data, handling errors and uploading certificates. But individual records and individual manual entry are not the same requirement.
The Committee thought the case for bulk uploads of largely identical properties was strong.
Ministers say organisations can have several users registering properties simultaneously. Integration with landlords’ existing software, and possible bulk payments, will be explored after launch.
The phased rollout is intended to start in the West Midlands on 15 December.
A digital service designed to improve efficiency.
Bring extra people to do the typing.
Source: House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Thirteenth Report, Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026, paragraphs 25–40.
MOO OF THE WEEK
THE BISCUITS HAVE WHEELS. WHO GETS RIGHT OF WAY?
Another late discovery from the previous week’s answers, dated 12–13 October.
Small delivery robots are appearing on pavements, carrying shopping without a human walking alongside.
Olly Glover, Liberal Democrat MP for Didcot and Wantage, had questions.
Could they be hijacked? Carry illegal goods? Obstruct emergency responders? What cybersecurity standards would apply?
The Department for Transport said trial policy would require secure cargo access, plans to avoid hindering emergency responders, and robots that give way without blocking pedestrians. Cybersecurity requirements were still being considered.
Glover also asked about disability organisations and an equality impact assessment.
The Department said officials had engaged with RNIB, Guide Dogs and Living Streets about obstruction, safety and accessibility. An equality impact assessment was being developed.
The Department therefore reports that consultation has taken place. The remaining question is how those concerns translate into workable safeguards.
Because pavements are not simply convenient strips of tarmac for delivering someone’s emergency packet of biscuits. They’re shared by people with impaired vision, limited mobility, walking aids, wheelchairs and guide dogs.
Teaching a robot to recognise a pedestrian is only half the job.
The pedestrian needs to be able to get past the robot.
Moo.
Sources: DfT answer 29825, 13 October 2026; accessibility answer 29824, 12 October 2026.
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