Jodrell Bank Observatory: Funding

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath

Thursday 10th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

I assure the noble Earl that the Government have put a record £86 billion into research and development between this year and 2029-30, with £38.6 billion allocated to UKRI, supporting curiosity-driven research in universities through to business innovation and commercialisation, including the creation of many jobs.

On jobs, the SKAO will return £225 million of foreign direct investment and £280 million of additional UK economic value. We continue to invest significantly in the north of England, including over £5 billion over the previous spending review and £7.4 billion over the current one, running to 2029-30.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, when we heard the Prime Minister say on 1 September that Jodrell Bank was safe, I am sure that many people breathed a sigh of relief. But as we saw, the Written Answer from the Government on 7 September said that Jodrell Bank would remain as a heritage and education centre, with alternative funding sources. I just want to be clear: when the Prime Minister says it is safe, is he really saying that it is not safe as a government-funded scientific research centre and more that it will be kept as some tourist theme park?

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

I repeat that Jodrell Bank is not closing, and nor is scientific research on it closing. UKRI is focusing resources on the future with the SKAO and its global HQ at Jodrell, investing over £300 million from 2021 to 2030. Jodrell Bank, including the Lovell telescope, which is owned and operated by the University of Manchester, is exploring alternative funding arrangements for delivering on that. Finally, on that point, I emphasise that the SKAO will have a vastly more powerful and broader science range than e-MERLIN when it becomes fully operational.

Data Security: UK Citizens

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

Our priority is the protection of UK citizens’ personal data, and we will monitor our adequacy decisions with this in mind. The DCMS has a statutory duty to monitor all our data adequacy decisions and a duty to amend or revoke them if the Secretary of State becomes aware that the standard has fallen below that of the UK GDPR. Officials are monitoring all existing adequacy decisions on an ongoing basis and the DCMS Secretary of State must be satisfied that the level of data protection afforded to UK data subjects in a given country or territory is not materially lower than that of the UK GDPR.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, given that the UK-US data bridge is estimated to be worth almost £1 billion to the UK economy and that, twice before, transatlantic data arrangements have collapsed following successful legal challenges, what are the Government doing proactively, with the US Administration, to strengthen the bridge now, rather than waiting for weaknesses to be exposed by a third legal challenge?

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

The United States is our close ally and tech partner and we are committed to ensuring that this delivers real benefits and protections for people on both sides of the Atlantic. British companies that contract with companies that have not signed up to US systems, and so are not covered by adequacy, will be obliged to ensure that there are contractual obligations for compliance with GDPR.

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd September 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I will write to her on the case-by-case point.

Finally, I know that my noble friend the Minister will be very happy to meet noble Lords again to discuss this further, as she has done quite recently with the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response and noble Lords for their involvement. As suspected, the Committee is completely united in what we are trying to achieve, and I am pleased to hear that the Minister is sympathetic. I think we all agree that the devil will be in the detail. That is why I am grateful for the offer of a meeting, which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and many of us here will be delighted to take up.

I have a couple of concerns, and we will cover these in the meeting. As the Minister mentioned, there is no obligation for regulators. The question is: why leave it to their discretion? The Minister later said that there was concern about it being overburdensome on the Secretary of State’s officials to have to determine these cases. If it is too much of a burden for a group of experts, surely it is even less likely that regulators in all sorts of different fields are going to try to apply that same knowledge.

The concern about all of this is that, while the intentions are good, unless there are firm constraints in the Bill, it will just be something which, through no malcontent or wrong reason, is overlooked. That is why we feel it is very important that we have something in the Bill to add teeth to this. That is something that we would be delighted to explore further in meetings and on Report but at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.