(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I refer to my chairing of the National Preparedness Commission. I welcome the Government’s response to the module 1 report. The nation is on a journey, which was started by the previous Government; I am pleased that it has been continued by the present Government. In particular, I welcome the recognition that resilience and preparedness are an essential underpinning of the Government’s missions for change and everything else, and that those missions themselves feed back into preparedness and resilience. I specifically welcome the fact that the emergency alerts scheme—which, as noble Lords know, I have been championing for some time—is to be tested on a regular basis in addition to when it is used, if you like, in anger.
I was interested in the slight differences in emphasis on recommendation 10, but surely the important point is that, when the Government bring forward their review of resilience, they recognise that there needs to be a legal underpinning. In the same way that the Climate Change Act requires Government Ministers and government departments to work towards delivering net zero, there should be a similar sort of obligation requiring them to work towards resilience. Is that under active consideration? There is also the question of whether something like the Climate Change Committee—which, if you like, marks the Government’s homework—which would have a validity under those circumstances. The prime responsibility is to make sure that everybody recognises that they all have to contribute to this.
My noble friend makes a really important point about this being something that everybody has to contribute to. On his point about potential need for changes to the legislative framework, the current basis of legislation is the Civil Contingencies Act, and the next formal statutory review should be completed by 2027. However, in light of the recent inquiries around Covid and Grenfell, it is right that we look at the legislative framework and ensure that it meets the need of the evolving risk landscape and the growing expectations on the local tier in particular. We are considering the legislative framework as part of the resilience review, which, as noble Lords will be aware, will conclude in spring 2025.
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberHaving spent many weeks on opposing sides on some of the aspects of the Football Governance Bill, I am delighted to be able to agree with the noble Lord on the importance of these measures. I particularly note, as did the noble Lord, Lord Foster, the long-standing work the noble Lord has done over many years. I will endeavour to answer as many questions as possible, and I will come back on others that I do not get the chance to cover.
The noble Lord asked about legislation. We are clear that this issue may require additional legislation, and we will look to do that as soon as possible, potentially in the second Session of this Parliament. We are clear that taking a view on where we would land on a cap could lead to accusations that we are pre-empting the consultation, but we are keen to hear views, and I have heard the noble Lord’s point on that very clearly.
The point about touting based overseas is an important one. We want to make it easier for enforcers to tackle breaches of the law, and the consultation explores options for achieving that. We know that many touts target UK fans while operating abroad, and that will be an important factor to consider in the design of any new measures. However, that issue is not exclusive to ticketing, and enforcers such as the CMA and trading standards are empowered to take action against traders outside the UK. The reformed consumer enforcement powers in last year’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act will empower enforcers to impose penalties on or directions against traders that target UK consumers, regardless of where they are based.
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for bringing this forward, and I welcome what is there. Until three and a bit years ago, I chaired National Trading Standards, and we were involved in trying to pursue some of precisely these cases. My question is simple: do the Government recognise the need for equality of arms in respect of those responsible for enforcing these new regulatory new arrangements, given that these are potentially multibillion-pound operations, sometimes operating overseas? It is quite difficult for either National Trading Standards or an individual local authority trading standards to pursue cases, given that heavy court costs will often be involved.
My noble friend raises a critical issue. This is about major ticket touting, which is incredibly well organised and heavily financed. The issues that have been raised are ones we will want to explore through the consultation, because there is no point in our having stronger laws unless they have an effect. We are clear that we need to act on ticket pricing, and that cannot just be words; there has to be action.
(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberTo ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent global IT outage.
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name, I refer to my interests as an adviser to Performanta and as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.
The CrowdStrike software update caused an IT outage affecting millions of devices around the world. In the UK, while government emergency and security systems remained operational, our retail, transport and healthcare sectors were disrupted. I have huge sympathy for all those affected. COBRA officials’ meetings were convened and officials from across government and the devolved Administrations met throughout to monitor impacts and recovery and to update Ministers as appropriate. UK sectors have now returned to normal operations, and the Cabinet Office will work with partners to review the lessons learned.
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. It highlights the vulnerability of all the systems on which the public and the private sectors rely, and how much they depend on the software and so on. Software manufacture is largely unregulated. Can the Government look at how they can strengthen the requirements for software providers to ensure the safety and security of what they supply to the public and private sectors? At the same time, will the Government remind all operators that they should plan for failure and for when something does not work? What are their back-up arrangements in the event of their software failing?
I thank my noble friend for that question and for his huge support for me in my previous role as chair of the London Resilience Forum. Although the outage is not assessed to be a security incident or cyberattack, the issues that he raises will be covered in the cybersecurity and resilience Bill included in the King’s Speech. This will strengthen our defences and ensure that more essential digital services than ever before are protected. For example, it will look at expanding the remit of the existing regulation, putting regulators on a stronger footing and increasing the reporting requirements to build a better picture in government of cyber threats.