My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Report stage. I declare my technology interests as set out in the register as adviser to the Crown Estate and Simmons & Simmons LLP. I support all the measures in this group. They are practical and proportionate and, as a package, will make a real difference not just to the Bill but to all those working in cyber security and all of us whom they seek to protect.

To take quantum first, does the Minister believe that the current NCSC timetable still looks right in the face of the threats we are now up against and the speed of advancement of quantum compute? On the workforce issues to which my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred, we know there is a significant, chronic and worrying shortage of cyber professionals. Are the Government satisfied that the measures in the Bill will do everything required to address this? In later amendments we will come on to other ways to protect those who work in cyber and seek to keep us safe, but the workforce question is more than pressing.

My Amendment 5 in this group goes to the heart of so-called data poisoning. The Bill has much to commend it in terms of cyber events, but what about where the data itself has been interfered with or poisoned? There are no reporting requirements in the Bill. If there is an interruption in service, that is critical. Sadly, we have seen plenty of those in recent history, but what about circumstances where there is no interruption in service but the data has been corrupted, manipulated or poisoned? Imagine those who seek to work or invest in financial markets or those who seek to work in education, health or any sector of our society or economy. If they cannot rely on the data being presented to them, because data poisoning is not set out in the Bill, is that not as serious—perhaps in some ways more serious—than the more obvious circumstances when there is a break, a breach or an interruption in the service? I look forward to the Minister’s response.