Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate(6 days, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I shall also speak to the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025.
I am pleased to be speaking to these regulations, which were laid before the House in draft on 13 October 2025; they were recently debated, and subsequently approved, in the House of Commons on 3 November 2025. The regulations have also been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Neither committee raised any concerns about the legislation.
How audiences access TV content has fundamentally changed with the introduction of streaming services, so it is important that regulation keeps pace with these changes. Our public service broadcasters have, prior to the Media Act 2024, been governed by laws written over 20 years ago, so the implementation of the Media Act is vital both to reform outdated broadcasting laws and to ensure that our public service broadcasters can compete in the digital world and continue to deliver for audiences.
Specifically, the Act seeks to modernise the public service broadcasting remit and PSB quota system; it is the quota system to which these regulations relate. Quotas are an important regulatory tool to ensure that our PSBs make and broadcast a range of content. This includes: requirements for PSBs to commission a certain amount of programming from independent producers, known as the independent productions quota; requirements to broadcast programmes commissioned by the PSB, typically called the original productions quota; and requirements to produce programming outside London, referred to as regional programme-making or the regional productions quota.
PSBs are required to comply with these quota obligations in exchange for certain benefits, such as prominence on TV guides. Currently, PSBs can deliver against these quotas only via their main linear broadcast channel. However, once fully commenced, the Media Act will permit their delivery via a wider range of services, including on-demand services. This is in recognition of the fact that audiences are increasingly choosing to watch PSB content via on-demand content.
Historically, our PSBs generally meet—and often surpass —these quotas, so our overall ambition is to replicate the effect of the existing quotas, enabling them to be fulfilled by making on-demand content as well as traditional linear broadcasts available. To make this operable, the Act amends the quota system by converting the existing percentage quota to a specific number of hours so that they can apply to on-demand programming. Although the Secretary of State sets the minimum level of the independent productions quota, as set out in the Schedule to the SI, the responsibility for setting the levels of the original and regional productions quotas is delegated to Ofcom.
With this in mind, this Government took the decision to use the power to delegate responsibility for determining the treatment of repeats for these quotas to Ofcom, in order to make sure that any decisions it makes regarding these quotas are made in the round and operationally make sense. Ofcom leads this process and has been engaging with the PSBs on their approach to determining quota levels, as well as the treatment of repeats. More widely, Ofcom has overall responsibility for monitoring the delivery of the public service broadcasting quotas.
These regulations bring forward the necessary amendments to implement all of the changes that were set out in the Media Act. For example, the draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 will, if approved, update relevant definitions in the Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004 to align with the amendments made by the Media Act, as well as introducing a requirement on Ofcom to determine whether repeats may be counted towards the original and regional productions quotas.
Meanwhile, the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025 will, if approved, revoke and replace the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 and update relevant definitions, as well as setting the level of the modernised independent productions quota for each PSB.
As required by the Communications Act 2003, the department has consulted the BBC, S4C and Ofcom, as well as the other PSBs and PACT, throughout the drafting process. An initial draft of both instruments was shared with the statutory consultees and all other PSBs on 19 March this year. Both draft regulations were then published in draft on 6 May 2025. We have used this engagement with industry to inform the drafting of these regulations. No substantive concerns were raised; I want to take this opportunity to thank the PSBs, Ofcom and PACT for their constructive engagement throughout to ensure that the regulations work.
DCMS is continuing to progress the implementation of the other remaining provisions in the Act, recognising that the Act delivers important reforms to support the future sustainability of our PSBs. A key priority is to ensure that our PSBs are equipped to face the challenges posed by changes in technology, consumer behaviour and increased competition on demand. The commencement of the modernised PSB remit and quota system on 1 January 2026, alongside bringing forward these draft regulations for debate today, is an important part of this work. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, in preparing for what will, in general, be a very short contribution—with one or two questions for the Minister —I went back to 1955 and the establishment of ITV in Britain. When it was established, it came in the form of a great number of companies all over the country—admittedly running analogue services, but nevertheless very much based on the regions that those companies wished to represent, with a real flavour.
I emanate from Newcastle, where I had Tyne Tees Television on channel eight—it was a very good television company—and subsequently moved to Yorkshire, where Yorkshire Television still is a substantial regional company, together with the BBC and the regions that have been set up for it. I was also involved as a director of ausb company that applied for a commercial radio licence in the early 1970s. Again, that was very much a company based not only on regional interests: the content to be put out was required at that time by the IBA to be sufficiently broad, not simply playing records one after another. Over many years, I have seen a drop in the regional nature of productions. Luckily, in a region such as ours, in Yorkshire, we are still left with local programming—from the BBC and ITV, of course, as well as some commercial radio stations—although, as I say, this has been massively diminished.
I have a great concern about this whole question of regional output being maintained. With the current threat to ITV—it looks as if it could be sold to a contractor that may not feel so strongly about having the regional identities of different programme-makers and companies—we might lose Yorkshire Television, Tyne Tees, Granada and companies in the south of England. I am really worried about this.
In that context, I want to ask the Minister one or two quick questions. The Minister referred to the fact that we are moving away from free-to-air TV to on-demand services, but, as she knows—indeed, as we all know—on-demand services have to be paid for. I know that free-to-air TV is also paid for in certain ways, but we have here a situation where a different audience, who can financially afford to move to one of these on-demand services, will be established. Therefore, there does not seem to be a level playing field here.
As far as the regional component is concerned, therefore, I would like to know whether there has been any comment from Ofcom, from the Government or from elsewhere about the balance that has to be drawn between regional programming on free to air and those for which a subscription is necessary. Is that going to be clearly defined between the two so that we continue to have sufficient regional programming, hopefully through the retention of regional television stations? That is an important question.
Secondly, I am confused about the question of repeats. They can be counted against quotas in some cases, but what is the position where a programme is first seen free to air and then consigned to on demand, or never intended for free to air showings? What happens with the repeat situation there?
The third question concerns the definition of regions. As I said, it was very clear in 1955, when the television regions were created, although there have been consolidations since. Are we simply stating, as the Minister did, that anything regional just means outside London? Is there no division here between different regions as to what components? I think there is in the case of the Welsh, with S4C, for instance, where there is a separate arrangement, but is there anything that determines different regions, as opposed to one amorphous thing?
The other thing I would like to ask about is the difference between programmes that are commissioned and paid for by a PSB and those that are simply bought in from an intermediary company. There is a reference here to intermediary companies. Are those intermediary companies subject to the same rules as to regional content as those that are actually commissioned directly by a PSB? I think that is important too, because we have, burgeoning around our country— I know there is one in Sunderland, for instance—companies that are now producing a lot of good regional material. Where that goes and how it is utilised is another matter. Are we therefore looking at the emanation of the regional programmes or the actual putting out of those programmes, either free to air or on an on-demand service? I hope those odd questions are of help.
I finish by saying again that I am deeply worried. Most of us in this House benefit from appearing from time to time, if we wish to, on regional programmes. Certainly, the BBC is very good at giving the views of politicians and so on, and allowing them to speak. ITV does this, but not quite as regularly as it used to do in the regions. I just do not want anything to happen here that further diminishes the way in which the public can enjoy programmes that have a clear regional content or regional basis. I hope that these measures will not affect that and I hope that the Minister will not mind me asking her those questions.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I think I am right in saying that despite the lack of numbers in Grand Committee today, this has been an important and useful debate with interesting points made. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon.
It is clear from the contributions that we all recognise the important role our public service broadcasters play, both on and off screen, in their contribution across the country and in our day-to-day lives. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, gave an insightful contribution on some of the background and the value of regional output, reflecting the conversation earlier where he also gave some of the broad texture around it. There is a value to having such insights and it is hugely important for people across the country to recognise their own region in the output of public service broadcasters—I will come to that later when I respond to the noble Lord’s questions.
I also recognise the validity of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on the importance of regional media in the context of an age of devolution of decision-making, and the importance of making sure that we have an appropriate level of coverage where the decisions are made at a regional and local level. As the noble Lord will be aware, given how speedily he and others made sure it received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024, the Media Act 2024 makes much-needed changes to the regulation of public service broadcasting, which was last substantively updated in 2003.
Since then, as I mentioned, internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access content. We are aware that the media landscape is going through a period of rapid change, which is why we are getting on with implementing the provisions in the Media Act designed to modernise the public service broadcasting system, including the PSBs’ quota regime. These regulations simply update and replace existing secondary legislation to implement the changes introduced by the Act, such as permitting the delivery of certain quotas via a wider range of services.
I come to the points and questions raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, asked a number of questions about regional commissioning and the extent to which public service broadcasters are doing enough in this area. I will go through a number of those points. We think PSBs are leading the way in this area. On average, they spent 62% of their external production budgets outside the M25 last year, and they are among the largest employers outside London. For example, 69% of ITV staff are based outside the capital. However, we want them and the rest of the sector to go further by investing more and opening up more opportunities for people across the country beyond just these quotas.
The noble Lord also asked about repeats and whether they would count towards the regional production quotas. As with original productions, decisions on whether repeats can count towards the regional production quota sit with Ofcom. Following consultation, Ofcom has proposed excluding repeats from regional production quotas, as is the case currently. Its decision reflects the importance of regional programming and the continued investment in productions in the nations and regions.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, asked about the extent to which “regional” is classed as just outside London. Ofcom guidance sets out the definition currently of what can count towards the regional production quota. To qualify as a regional production, at least two of the following three criteria must be met. The production company must have a substantive business and production base in the UK outside the M25; at least 70% of the production budget, excluding some specific costs, must be spent in the UK outside the M25; and at least 50% of production talent by cost must have their usual place of employment in the UK outside the M25. I do not have a more nuanced detail on regional breakdown beyond this. However, I am happy to commit to contacting Ofcom and raising the points the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, raised, because for large parts of the country, outside the M25 does not necessarily count as being close to where they are regionally.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
This is important. If we simply talk about “regional” output, it could all be just in Hertfordshire, which would have no effect whatever on the north-east of England, Yorkshire, Lancashire or, indeed, anywhere else. That is what we are looking at here—how this is divested downwards, as it were. I should be grateful if the Minister can find out for me the proportions.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Absolutely. I will get in touch with Ofcom about the noble Lord’s point, which was well made. As somebody who has spent a large part of my life in London and the south-east, the one thing I would say is that outside the M25 is not the same as outside London, but, at the moment, it is quite clear that not all the remaining production takes place in Hertfordshire, for example, albeit some of it will. I take some comfort from that, but the noble Lord made the point extremely well. We will get in touch with Ofcom, and I will share the letter with him and others taking part in this debate.
BBC Sounds: Access from Abroad
Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, for the BBC to deliver on its obligations, it needs continued sustainable funding. We are keeping an open mind about the future of the licence fee and will consider the best funding model during the charter review. Our priority is that there will be sustainable funding for the BBC.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, many of us in this House may just about be old enough to remember the shortwave broadcasts coming from Hungary in 1956 when it was invaded by the Russians. One of the few ways in which countries around the world can communicate or obtain information through radio is by using frequencies that have now gone in this country. Can the Minister confirm that, whatever the BBC does in order to have a long reach around the world, it is taking into account the fact that the way in which people receive radio is not always as sophisticated as the way that we are able to benefit from it here?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a really important point. The way that this whole agenda gets taken forward is clearly key. I recommend that noble Lords read the speech by the director-general, which I thought was very thoughtful about where he sees the BBC going. I hope noble Lords will take some reassurance that he sees the responsibility of the BBC in both a national and a world context. The Government also see the significance of issues such as that. I am afraid I was not old enough to remember the 1956 conflict that the noble Lord mentions—in fact, I was not born—but I will feed his points back to both DCMS and FCDO colleagues.
Gambling Levy Regulations 2025
Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate(9 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. Both sets of regulations were laid before the House in draft on 12 and 10 December 2024 respectively.
Two decades have passed since the Gambling Act 2005 was introduced. Leading gambling firms operating in this country are now some of the world’s most successful companies. With cutting-edge technological capabilities and deep insight into customer behaviour, the gambling industry and gambling behaviours have undergone monumental change, from the smartphone to the huge increase in online gambling. Our manifesto set out a commitment to
“reducing gambling-related harm … strengthening protections”
for those at risk. We know that harmful gambling can have massive financial, emotional and mental health impacts on individuals, families and communities across our country.
The 2023 gambling White Paper laid the foundations for what is before us today as we introduce draft regulations for stake limits on online slots and a statutory gambling levy to fund research, prevention and treatment. The Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 introduce statutory maximum stake limits on online slots games of £5 per game cycle for adults aged 25 and over, and £2 per game cycle for young adults aged 18 to 24.
Online slots are the highest-risk gambling product. They have the highest rate of binge play and the highest average losses of any online product, and are associated with long playing sessions and high levels of use by people experiencing gambling harm. Online slots are also the fastest-growing gambling product. In the past five years, this yield has grown by 61% and growth is not slowing down. However, there are currently no statutory stake limits for online slot games, unlike their land-based counterparts. As the popularity of slots grows, so does the risk for vulnerable people. Now is the time to act and stem the growing tide of unaffordable losses for people most at risk of gambling harm.
We have designed these stake limits to target those most at risk of harm while ensuring that the impact on operators is proportionate. The lower staking limit for younger adults is an important intervention, as our research showed that younger people may be at an elevated risk of gambling harm. The industry’s trade body, the Betting and Gaming Council, welcomed the decision to introduce stake limits. If these regulations are agreed, there will be a transitional period to ensure that gambling operators have sufficient time to implement the changes.
Today, we are also proposing draft regulations for a statutory gambling levy. From April, all licensed operators will be required to pay an annual levy to the Gambling Commission. The rates at which licensed operators pay the levy are set down in the legislation and licensees are at risk of losing their licence if they do not pay. The levy represents a watershed moment: a significant uplift in the investment dedicated to this area; greater government oversight; and a renewed commitment to further understanding, tackling and treating gambling harms.
The significant contributions that the gambling industry has made to support research, prevention and treatment since the introduction of the Gambling Act 2005 have been crucial. This has allowed an expansion of the support and treatment options available for those in need. I am clear that the third sector will continue to play a key role in the future of research, prevention and treatment, but we now need a sustainable and equitable funding system so that all licensed gambling operators are paying their fair share. The levy provides us with an opportunity and the resources to put in place the right projects and services, clear objectives and robust governance.
To create a world-leading funding and commissioning system, we are mobilising existing expertise and infra- structure. Working with UK Research and Innovation, NHS England, appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales, the Gambling Commission and the third sector, we are transforming the current system to deliver better access, outcomes and services for people across our country. To ensure that there is sufficient trust, expertise and authority in the use of the levy funding for prevention, I confirmed to the House this morning that we will appoint the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities in the Department of Health and Social Care to take on the role as lead commissioning body in this area for England, alongside appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales.
Prevention remains a crucial part of the government’s efforts to tackle gambling-related harm. An effective prevention plan seeks to identify the right mix of interventions to be applied at both the population and individual level. That is why the Government are increasing dedicated investment, allocating 30% of levy funding to the prevention stream, alongside the significant funding allocated for research and treatment. Ring-fenced investment in this area will help to encourage innovation and support a strengthened, integrated and co-ordinated approach to prevention in Britain. Working closely with appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales, OHID will develop a comprehensive approach to prevention and early intervention, supporting improvement across the respective nations.
I want to recognise the leading role that GambleAware has played. Its work to raise awareness of gambling harm and provide support for those in need has been invaluable. We want to build on the successes of the current system while improving and expanding the system to better serve those at risk. Until now, financial contributions from operators have been the only source of funding for the sector. This funding has established the National Gambling Support Network, overseen by GambleAware, which has helped people in need across the country. However, the levy will mean that there is sustainable, ring-fenced and trusted funding for the first time. This will be used across Great Britain for vital treatment, better understanding of the causes of harm and early intervention to support greater awareness and reduce stigma.
My decision on prevention is about building the future system on the strongest foundations. Through the levy, we are investing £100 million of public money to tackle gambling harm and it is right that key commissioning decisions on research, prevention and treatment are made by statutory bodies to ensure that funding is spent appropriately. This is why we are appointing OHID alongside UKRI and NHS England.
Robust government oversight will ensure that levy funding is getting to where it is needed most. The Government will set clear objectives for the system to maximise value for money. We will establish a levy board as the mechanism for the Government to closely monitor spending and the overall effectiveness of the levy. We want to be led by the evidence of what works across the system and so, alongside the levy board, we will organise an advisory group.
We are confident that we have designed the levy in an effective and proportionate way. It has been a priority to strike the right balance between managing impacts on licensees and ensuring that operators are paying their fair share. I recognise that some gambling businesses are facing a tough fiscal environment. These regulations reduce levy rates for a number of licensees compared with the rates proposed in the previous Government’s consultation. Both the Tote and on-course bookmakers will also pay the levy at rates much lower than other land-based operators such as casinos and bookmakers. Online operators will be required to pay significantly more.
These regulations represent the beginning of a new phase for gambling harm reduction, one where people in our country are better protected and aware of the risks of harmful gambling. The levy is a crucial first step to delivering this and I look forward to discussing it further in the debate today. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, first, I confirm that I have not been promoted and nor am I even a Whip who is able to take over in certain circumstances. I am not sure whether a colleague of mine will be here to answer this debate from the opposition point of view.
I would just like to say a few words because I know others wish to speak who are far more up to date in many ways than I am. I was the Minister in the Home Office responsible for gambling—or controlling gambling, I should say, perhaps—back in the mid-1990s. I welcome in general anything that improves the services available to those who have addiction or who are likely to be vulnerable to gambling, but I always took the view when I was Minister that we could develop these matters in a simple, one-by-one regulation way rather than in a great way. I was therefore very disappointed when the Labour Government came in in 1997 to see that they took a very strong and comprehensive approach towards gambling, which I never thought was appropriate.
I have worried ever since about its effect. I spoke in the House on an Oral Question earlier this week and said how disturbed I was at the level of gambling in front of all of us, particularly young people, today, both in television advertising, which I would not accept was sensible or proper, and, as we all know, in the burgeoning amount of advertising in sport, such as at sports grounds and in sponsorship. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of gambling in this country, which has been deleterious and unacceptable. Therefore, I welcome anything that is going to help. I want to ask a couple of questions, if I may, on this.
First, the use of the levy—directional and focused—seems to be correct, but we need a little more flesh on the bones regarding the delivery of support. We have talked about organisations. A number of organisations, some known to the Government and some in the charity sector and so on, are there to look after people who have fallen for gambling in the wrong way and are looking after their addictions and so on. Will the dispensation of the money raised on this levy be wide enough and comprehensive enough to cover all the areas in which people are vulnerable and suffering? I am not sure that that is the case, so I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurances. I must say that I am not happy with that element.
Secondly, is the administering of the levy sufficiently watertight, or are there ways in which it can be avoided? The list of specifics where the levy will be applicable is fairly comprehensive, but I still feel that we need to be clear that this is an obligatory levy that cannot be avoided by various means that might be used.
Finally, am I wrong to assume that the Government will not be doing much else about gambling advertising? I would like to know because, as I have pointed out and as other people have raised with me on many occasions, this level of advertising is unacceptable, but we never seem to deal with it—indeed, it burgeons even more.
National Lottery: Contribution to Good Causes
Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Allwyn is introducing further measures compared to the previous licence. The noble Lord will be aware that while some players do experience gambling harm, that experienced by National Lottery players is the lowest of all gambling products. Allwyn is also implementing further protections. As was noted, this includes introducing a maximum of 10 scratchcards per transaction, as of last October, and an extensive mystery shopper programme to test retailers’ enforcement of the age-verification measures. We are clear that protecting participants is an overriding statutory duty of the Government and the Gambling Commission. It is embedded within the fourth licence, with a significantly strengthened requirement on the operator to protect people exposed to the National Lottery as well as those directly participating in it, which goes further than under previous licences.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, when I was Minister for Gambling in the Conservative Government, we turned our backs very much against the idea of increasing gambling advertising, particularly on television and at sports facilities during games. I put it to the Minister that matters have got completely out of hand, and that there is far too much of this visual advertising of gambling, which is doing much damage to a lot of people, particularly the younger people in our country.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a good point about the need to protect children from gambling advertising. As he will be aware, operators are prohibited from targeting advertising at children. The Advertising Standards Authority strengthened the rules in 2022 to ban content of strong appeal to children from gambling ads. The wider issue of advertising involves the Gambling Commission introducing new requirements for operators to allow customers to have greater control over any direct marketing they receive. I have personally set the industry a clear task to raise standards further in this area.
European Union
Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is important to recognise that the mood music is hugely important and has been very much welcomed by the EU. The meeting that the Prime Minister held will be followed by further summits and meetings. As I am sure the noble Baroness understands, this is a precursor to making sure we get things moving.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has spoken about the importance of Ministers meeting. The Parliamentary Partnership Assembly did a lot of good work in the previous Parliament to give a relationship between the United Kingdom Parliaments and the European Parliament. Can the Minister confirm that this assembly will be reconstituted in the near future, as it has proved very useful in the past?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
To keep my answer as succinct as my noble friend the Chief Whip suggested: yes.
Ticket Sales: Dynamic Pricing
Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Dynamic pricing is not illegal. Businesses must follow consumer protection law when they engage with their consumers using dynamic pricing.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, a number of us have been very disappointed at being unable to obtain tickets for Oasis concerts, yet we are concerned that a number of members of the Front Bench of the Government elsewhere have appeared on television claiming that they have obtained tickets. Can the Minister kindly confirm that no special provisions were in place to give those people an advantage over mere mortals like ourselves?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I cannot speak for Front-Benchers to whom I have not spoken, but I know that a number of my noble friends on the Government Benches in this House spent, as I said, a ridiculous amount of time trying to get tickets on the day and failed miserably.
Global IT Outage
Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will discuss my noble friend’s point with colleagues and will write back to him as soon as possible.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, a member of my family returning to the United States in the last few days has been very inconvenienced by what occurred. I ask the Minister to adequately look at the question of redress in any legislation that we now pursue in relation to data protection generally, and to AI for that matter. It is a vital component of the GDPR. I therefore ask her to look carefully at this and make sure that adequate redress is available across all these matters.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government are reviewing what happened and will implement any lessons learned as a matter of urgency. We appreciate the significant inconvenience caused to those affected, but it is a matter for individual operators. The consumer rules cover specific compensation entitlement. From my view, the essential point arising from the issues caused by CrowdStrike is the need to strengthen our resilience, which is what this Government intend to do.