WHILE YOU WERE WATCHING THEM MOO

Issue 05 | 24–30 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 Has Started Using Its Bank-Checking Powers. Your Account Might Be Covered.

Remember those new powers allowing the Department for Work and Pensions to check whether people are receiving benefits they’re not entitled to?

Well, they’ve started using them.

On 26 October, the DWP announced that it had issued its first notice requiring banks to check accounts against certain benefit rules.

The checks cover people receiving Universal Credit, Pension Credit or New Style Employment and Support Allowance. Banks will look for things such as savings above permitted limits or evidence of extended stays abroad, depending on the benefit rules that apply.

Before anyone panics, this doesn’t mean the DWP can sit there watching you buy biscuits at Tesco.

Banks do the checking and report limited information when something flags up. A match isn’t proof of wrongdoing, and the Government says no one’s benefits will be changed automatically.

There will be further checks by staff, independent oversight and an initial testing phase.

The Government reckons the scheme will save £1.2 billion over five years.

That’s a prediction, mind. Not £1.2 billion already retrieved from behind the nation’s sofas.

The real test will be how accurately the system identifies mistakes and fraud without dragging innocent claimants into an administrative nightmare.

The first notice is out. Now we find out whether the safeguards are as good as the promises.

Sources: DWP ministerial statement, 26 October · DWP guidance on eligibility verification and safeguards

Four Olympic Swimming Pools and a Bottle of HP Sauce

Last week, we looked at evidence about how the water companies in England and Wales began life after privatisation debt-free, with government working capital.

This week, things got considerably more saucy.

At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, York Outer MP Luke Charters described giving a BBC interview about sewage pollution while watching sewage pour into the River Ouse.

You couldn’t have arranged a more helpful demonstration.

He then offered another statistic: during the average Budget speech, Yorkshire Water’s network would lose the equivalent of four Olympic swimming pools of water through leaks.

That’s his calculation, not an independently verified figure. And we’re talking about leaking water here, not four swimming pools of sewage being discharged into the river. Two different problems. Neither particularly encouraging.

Charters suggested that Yorkshire Water should guard its assets as carefully as the Chancellor apparently guards the HP sauce in his Red Box.

The Prime Minister responded by promising a stronger Water Bill, including changes that could make public ownership easier.

No, Yorkshire Water hasn’t been nationalised. And no, a promise of legislation isn’t legislation.

But we’ll be watching for that Bill.

In the meantime, the HP sauce appears to be in safe hands.

The water? Less certain.

Source: Prime Minister’s Questions, 28 October

MEANWHILE, IN COMMITTEE ROOM 6…

Remote Hearings Went Offline. Parliament Wants to Know What Happened.

Britain’s courts have a backlog problem.

One way to get through more cases is to hold hearings remotely. Less travelling and, potentially, fewer logistical headaches.

Excellent idea.

Until the technology breaks.

On 20 October, a Google cloud failure disrupted the video platform used for remote court and tribunal hearings.

The services were restored fairly quickly, but that left some rather important questions.

How many hearings were delayed? How many had to be adjourned? What happened to the people waiting for their cases to be heard? And what’s the backup plan if the next outage lasts longer?

The Justice Committee wrote to Courts Minister Sarah Sackman on 26 October asking how long the disruption lasted, how many hearings were affected and what contingency arrangements were in place.

It wants answers by 5 November.

This wasn’t the same technical problem that took government services offline in last week’s Moo. Apparently Britain’s public-sector IT systems have been providing enough material for a series.

For someone who’s already spent months waiting for a hearing, though, an outage isn’t merely inconvenient.

The committee wants to know how much damage was done.

So do we.

Source: Justice Committee letter, 26 October

BORING BITS THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY CHANGE SOMETHING

Cybersecurity Secrets: Perhaps Don’t Share Them With Absolutely Everybody.

Sharing information can help regulators investigate a cyber incident.

It can also help the wrong authorities identify the people involved.

The recipient matters.

On Monday, the House of Lords agreed amendments to the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, tightening the rules on which foreign law-enforcement authorities can receive certain sensitive information from UK regulators.

The permitted countries include Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, the United States and countries in the European Economic Area.

The concern was that sharing information with less trustworthy authorities could put people at risk, particularly where fair trials and legal protections cannot be relied upon.

This isn’t a blanket ban on sharing cybersecurity information with other countries. It applies to a specific set of regulatory powers.

And it’s not law yet. The Bill still has parliamentary stages to complete.

But it is a useful reminder that legislation isn’t just made in dramatic Commons votes.

Sometimes the important work is deciding exactly who gets access to information that could cause a great deal of trouble in the wrong hands.

Sources: Lords debate, 26 October · Parliamentary Bill stages

WELL, THAT TOOK A TURN

£700,000 of Defence Funding. Nowhere to Put It.

Two former Army officers developed technology to counter drones.

They secured a £700,000 government innovation grant.

Excellent. Britain needs defence innovation. The funding’s there. The technology’s there.

Just one tiny problem.

They couldn’t get a bank account.

According to Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who raised their case in the Lords on Monday, banks were refusing to take on the business because it operated in the defence sector.

Which rather complicates the business of receiving £700,000.

The Treasury minister agreed that legitimate defence companies shouldn’t be excluded from banking simply because of what they do, and said the Financial Conduct Authority would contact financial firms that day.

The regulator’s own review, published the same day, found that some defence businesses faced unnecessarily complicated and lengthy account-opening processes.

It also said there was no regulatory rule preventing banks from serving lawful defence companies.

So the particular startup’s predicament remains Lord Sharpe’s account, and we don’t yet know whether it has been resolved.

But consider the sequence.

Counter-drone technology: developed.

Government funding: secured.

Bank account: apparently beyond the capabilities of modern civilisation.

Sources: Lords debate on defence banking, 26 October · FCA review of defence businesses’ access to banking

ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION

Who Did You Consult? People.

Lord Black of Brentwood asked the Government a fairly straightforward question.

While developing its voluntary code for prize-draw operators, which specific organisations and regulators did it consult?

The department replied.

Operators.

Broadcasters.

Regulators.

An industry body.

A trade association.

Web developers.

Splendid. An impressive range of categories.

Any names?

No.

The department also assured him that extensive engagement had taken place and that a substantial proportion of the market had been covered.

Which may well be true.

But the question wasn’t what sorts of people did you speak to?

It was who?

Who attended the meeting?

People.

What sort of people?

Different sorts.

Source: Written question HL4302, answered 26 October

COMING DOWN THE TRACK

One Patient. One Medical Record. Even If You Went Private.

Anyone who’s ever had treatment at more than one hospital or clinic knows the routine.

You arrive for an appointment.

The clinician asks about a previous investigation.

You explain that it was done somewhere else.

Nobody has the results.

You attempt to remember what the letter said.

Everyone sighs.

The Government wants to change that with its planned Single Patient Record.

And on 28 October, two written parliamentary answers confirmed something important: the intention is to include private healthcare as well as NHS care.

That means information from treatment you paid for yourself could eventually form part of the same record as your NHS treatment.

Which makes sense. Your medical history doesn’t magically become irrelevant because you used a different payment method.

It doesn’t mean every private clinic will have unrestricted access to everyone’s records. The Government says access will depend on legal permissions, professional roles and involvement in a patient’s care.

The detailed rules still need to be written, and the system isn’t suddenly up and running.

But it’s a significant part of the plan.

Imagine arriving for an appointment and the clinician already having the information they need.

Steady on. Let’s not get carried away.

Sources: Written answer HL4382 · Written answer HL4383

AI in Schools: The Approved List That Doesn’t Exist Yet.

Schools are being encouraged to explore artificial intelligence.

Teachers are already using technology to help with lesson planning, administration and learning.

But how does a school know whether a particular AI product is safe for children?

At the moment, that’s not always straightforward.

On Monday, ministers told the Lords they were developing a certification scheme for child-facing generative AI tools.

The idea is to publish a list of products that meet safety standards, giving schools something more useful than a sales brochure and a reassuringly cheerful company website.

The list doesn’t exist yet. Consultation was promised for the autumn.

There was also an awkward reminder of why this matters.

An Information Commissioner’s Office audit of 28 education-technology providers found that around 70% had contracts missing important legal information.

To be fair, those audits covered education technology generally, not generative-AI chatbots, and the providers had accepted almost all the regulator’s recommendations and put improvement measures in place.

Nevertheless, schools shouldn’t need a legal department to work out whether a classroom app handles children’s information properly.

Teachers have enough to do.

Sources: Lords debate, 26 October · ICO, Edtech examined

MOO OF THE WEEK

Cask Ale: A Matter of National Heritage. And Personal Sacrifice.

There are moments when Parliament reminds us what it is to be British.

On Tuesday, MPs gathered in Westminster Hall to discuss whether traditional cask ale should be recognised as part of Britain’s intangible cultural heritage.

That’s the official term for traditions and skills passed down through generations.

Things like brewing, keeping and serving proper cask ale.

The concern is that as pubs and breweries struggle, we’re not just losing businesses. We’re losing the knowledge and traditions that go with them.

A perfectly respectable subject for parliamentary debate.

The minister confirmed that an application from Cask Ale Culture had been submitted and was being assessed for inclusion in Britain’s developing cultural heritage inventories.

No recognition was granted during the debate. And national recognition isn’t the same thing as international UNESCO recognition.

Still, MPs were enthusiastic.

James Wild, MP for North West Norfolk, mentioned that the Norwich beer festival was taking place that very week.

He intended to attend.

Not merely as a visitor, you understand.

His mission? To judge the champion bottled beer of Britain.

A duty that would require him to sample and assess beer.

For the good of the nation.

As he explained to Parliament:

“It is hard work, but someone has to do it.”

Moo.

Source: Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage — Westminster Hall, 27 October

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