WHILE YOU WERE WATCHING THEM MOO

Issue 06 | 31 October–6 November 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.

This week, Parliament considered a renovation that could take up to 84 years, while the government revised its estimate of forgotten savings belonging to deceased customers to a rather alarming £181.9 million.

Elsewhere, MPs heard that a ballpoint pen can be more tightly regulated than some facial fillers, major retailers declined an invitation to discuss their Black Friday bargains, and the government announced plans to tighten the rules on facial recognition.

And stick around for Moo of the Week, where a perfectly sensible attempt to make cancelling subscriptions easier runs into an unexpected obstacle.

A chicken. On the M5.

THE IMPORTANT STUFF

Restoring Parliament Could Take 84 Years. Moving Out Could Get It Done in 24.

The Palace of Westminster is falling apart.

Not metaphorically. Although there are days when that distinction becomes difficult.

The building itself needs extensive work to its ageing electrical systems, plumbing, heating and fire safety infrastructure.

And Parliament has a decision to make.

One approach would divide the Palace into 14 zones and renovate them while MPs and peers continued sitting in their usual chambers.

The estimated cost?

£23.3 billion to £56.3 billion.

The estimated timescale?

52 to 84 years.

Eighty-four years.

Someone could be born, grow up, go to school, get a job, raise a family, retire and develop a passionate interest in daytime television before the builders finally packed up.

There is another option.

Move both Houses out for much of the work, and the estimates fall to 19–24 years, costing £11.1–£15.6 billion.

Still an enormous undertaking. But rather less likely to become a family heirloom.

The 84-year option isn’t one of the two recommended for further development.

Instead, the restoration programme wants approval for up to £3 billion of initial work over seven years, while developing two approaches: moving both Houses out for much of the renovation, or keeping the Commons in the Palace.

That second approach is estimated to take 38–61 years.

And every year Parliament delays making a decision could add approximately £420 million to the bill.

None of these figures represents expenditure already approved for the full renovation.

But the underlying problem isn’t going away.

The longer Parliament spends deciding whether to move out, the longer it will have to live with a building that needs rebuilding around it.

At this rate, the scaffolding may qualify for heritage status before the renovation is finished.

Source: Public Accounts Committee report, 4 November

The Government Found £181.9 Million Down the Back of the Sofa. Unfortunately, It Wasn’t Theirs.

You may know National Savings and Investments, or NS&I, as the people behind Premium Bonds.

It’s the government’s own savings provider, where millions of Britons keep their money, backed by HM Treasury.

Unfortunately, being very good at keeping people’s money safe isn’t quite the same as being very good at finding it again.

When some customers died, NS&I didn’t always identify all their savings.

Families could settle an estate, distribute the inheritance and move on, completely unaware that some of their loved one’s money was still sitting in a government savings account.

And we’re not talking about a few forgotten fivers.

On 4 November, the government announced that it had revised its estimate of the savings affected from £367.5 million to £181.9 million across approximately 30,300 deceased customers’ estates.

The problem was already known, and NS&I began contacting affected estates in May.

By the time of this latest update, it had paid more than £3 million in repayments and compensation to 613 estates.

The aim is to complete the repayment programme in the first half of 2027.

So this isn’t £181.9 million suddenly discovered in a cupboard last Wednesday, nor does it mean the entire amount remains unpaid.

For the families involved, this isn’t simply an accounting embarrassment. It’s money that should have been identified when someone died, sometimes years ago.

There’s something particularly unfortunate about discovering that the government has been looking after your inheritance so carefully that nobody remembered to tell you it existed.

Sources: Ministerial statement, 4 November · NS&I bereavement update

MEANWHILE, IN COMMITTEE ROOM 6…

Beauty and the Biro

If you want to manufacture and sell a ballpoint pen, there are product safety rules to follow.

Fair enough. Nobody wants a biro that explodes halfway through a shopping list.

But if you want to offer certain non-surgical cosmetic treatments?

Well, things become rather more complicated.

If you book a filler treatment in Great Britain, the stuff that goes into the syringe can face fewer safety rules than an ordinary ballpoint pen. That’s the comparison the Commons Science and Technology Committee heard.

And unlike a biro, an injectable filler can cause serious injury.

The committee examined gaps in the oversight of non-surgical cosmetic procedures, including both the products being used and the people administering them.

These are two separate issues.

Some injectable products face regulatory gaps, while the rules governing who may perform certain treatments can also be inconsistent.

Registered healthcare professionals must work within professional standards, training requirements and their scope of practice. But some procedures can be offered outside an equivalent professional regulatory framework.

The committee has called for stronger regulation, including licensing arrangements.

That doesn’t mean every beautician is unqualified or every treatment is dangerous.

It means the safeguards can depend on who is providing the treatment, what they’re injecting and where the procedure takes place.

The committee thinks the current arrangements in Great Britain aren’t good enough.

We agree.

Imagine going for a filler treatment and finding the law takes a firmer interest in the pen you sign the consent form with than in the filler going into your face.

Source: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, 4 November

Black Friday. The Discounts Are Questionable. The Retailers Are Unavailable.

Black Friday is approaching.

That magical time of year when a television that cost £499 in September is advertised for £499 in November, accompanied by an enormous red sign announcing that you’ve saved a fortune.

Not every deal is misleading, of course.

But consumer organisations have repeatedly raised concerns about reference prices, confusing discounts and offers that aren’t quite as special as they appear.

So Parliament’s Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee decided to ask some questions.

It invited Amazon, TikTok and John Lewis to give evidence about consumer protection ahead of the shopping season.

All three declined to appear.

Amazon offered to answer questions in writing.

TikTok cited capacity constraints.

It’s currently unclear from published information why John Lewis declined.

Who did attend the committee's evidence session on 3 November? Representatives from Which? and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute.

Which? discussed research showing that some supposed Black Friday bargains had been available at the same price, or even cheaper, at other times of the year.

That doesn’t make every Black Friday offer a con. But it does suggest that a large percentage sign isn’t necessarily a reliable guide to how much you’re saving.

The committee wanted to question major retailers about their practices.

The retailers, unfortunately, weren’t available.

Sources: Committee hearing, 3 November · Committee announcement

BORING BITS THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY CHANGE SOMETHING

The Police Are Getting a New Rulebook. So Might the Shops.

Facial recognition technology is becoming increasingly capable.

It can compare faces captured by cameras against stored images, potentially helping police identify people they’re looking for.

It also raises some fairly obvious questions about privacy, accuracy and who gets to decide when it’s appropriate to use it.

On 4 November, the government announced plans for a new legal framework covering police use of biometrics, facial recognition and overt surveillance technologies in England and Wales.

Its consultation attracted more than 13,800 responses, and the Home Office published its response on the same day as the ministerial announcement.

The proposed framework would be introduced through the Police Reform Bill, supported by a statutory code of practice and independent oversight.

So far, so understandable.

But there’s another part worth noticing.

The government also intends to introduce measures addressing private-sector use of facial recognition for preventing and detecting crime, where appropriate.

In other words, this isn’t necessarily just about police cameras.

It could also affect the rules governing certain uses of facial recognition by shops and other private organisations.

Exactly which businesses would be covered, what they would be allowed to do and what safeguards would apply remain questions for the detailed legislation.

For now, this is a legislative plan, not a new set of powers already in force.

But who gets to identify you from a camera image while you’re doing your shopping is a question worth asking.

Sources: Government statement, 4 November · Home Office consultation response, published 4 November

ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION

Twenty-Eight Recommendations. Not One Straight Answer.

Imagine working full-time, earning the legal minimum wage, and discovering that you earn too much to qualify for criminal legal aid in the magistrates’ courts.

That’s the situation the House of Commons Justice Committee highlighted in its latest report.

The financial threshold for eligibility hasn’t kept pace with inflation since 2009.

As a result, an adult working full-time on the National Living Wage, with no dependants, can earn too much to qualify.

Legal aid exists to help people who cannot otherwise afford legal representation.

Which makes that particular calculation rather awkward.

The committee previously made 28 recommendations about the legal-aid system and the changes it believes are needed.

The government responded.

Unfortunately, the committee wasn’t impressed.

It concluded that ministers had effectively rejected or declined to comment on all 28 recommendations without clearly explaining which they accepted, which they opposed and why.

Take family mediation, for example.

The number of mediators offering legal aid had been falling year after year. MPs asked the Ministry of Justice to work out how many it needed.

The Ministry explained that it counts contracts and offices. It also pointed out that one mediator can work for several organisations. Fair enough.

But…how many mediators does it need?

The reply gives no figure.

Twenty-eight recommendations.

A government response.

And Parliament still wants to know what the answers actually are.

Source: Justice Committee report

COMING DOWN THE TRACK

Made With Forced Labour? The Government Wants Receipts.

When you buy a cheap T-shirt, a phone accessory or something for the house, you probably don’t know much about the people who made it.

Where they worked. What they were paid. Whether they were free to leave.

Britain already has legislation addressing modern slavery, including reporting requirements for certain businesses.

But on 4 November, the government acknowledged that its approach to preventing forced labour in supply chains remains fragmented and too dependent on voluntary action.

It now intends to introduce mandatory human-rights due diligence for the largest businesses.

The proposed rules would apply to UK businesses with global turnover above £350 million, and overseas businesses generating more than £350 million in the UK.

Those businesses would have to identify, assess and address risks of exploitation in their operations and supply chains.

The proposed due-diligence requirements would cover services across the UK, and also goods in Great Britain. Northern Ireland would operate under the EU Forced Labour Regulation for goods.

And there’s a second proposal with more immediate implications for consumers.

A regulator would be given powers to order the withdrawal of goods from the Great Britain market where it identified both forced labour in their production and a failure to comply with the relevant due-diligence duties.

That could mean products being removed from sale rather than businesses merely publishing statements about their commitment to ethical sourcing.

There are important questions still unanswered.

Who will enforce the rules? What penalties will apply? How effectively will businesses be expected to investigate suppliers several steps removed from their own operations?

And when will any of this happen?

The government says legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Which, in Westminster, is not quite the same thing as putting a date in the diary.

For now, this is a promise of stronger action, not a new law.

We’ll be watching to see whether the eventual legislation has the teeth the announcement suggests.

Source: Government statement on forced labour, 4 November

MOO OF THE WEEK

Your Chicken Is Already on the M5.

The government wants to make cancelling subscriptions easier.

No more navigating seventeen menus, three retention offers and a desperate plea from someone called Nathan in Customer Services.

Excellent news for consumers.

But when the proposed regulations came under parliamentary scrutiny, meal-kit companies, including HelloFresh and Mindful Chef, raised a rather practical objection.

What happens if you cancel during the cooling-off period and your dinner’s already been dispatched?

The customer could be entitled to a refund. Meanwhile, the ingredients have already been prepared and packed, delivery arranged, and the box sent on its way.

Unlike a streaming subscription, a box of fresh chicken and vegetables can’t simply be switched off.

The companies argue that the proposed arrangements could leave them paying for food they cannot retrieve or resell.

The House of Lords committee questioned whether the particular difficulties faced by perishable-goods businesses had been adequately considered.

The government, meanwhile, worries that allowing broad exemptions for perishable goods could undermine the consumer protections the regulations are supposed to provide.

To be clear, these are draft regulations concerning specific cooling-off rights. They don’t mean you can cancel any meal delivery whenever you fancy and demand your money back.

You can cancel your subscription.

You can’t recall a chicken from the M5.

Moo.

Source: House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report

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