Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, there is expected to be a Division shortly. When it happens, I will let your Lordships know; we will have a 10-minute break, gallop back here quickly and just keep on going.
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, in heading off the ever-growing tide of waste which blights our planet, we must prioritise both responsibility and fairness. Those who create waste must rightly take responsibility for its safe treatment at the end of its life, and those costs should be shared fairly and borne by those who also make the profit.
As your Lordships know, we are facing a mounting waste crisis and electrical waste is no exception; in fact, it is the fastest-growing waste stream globally, and the UK is the second-biggest generator of electrical waste in the world. Many electricals, including those sold from the online retail and vaping industries, are ending up in our bins, littering our streets and, too often, harming our natural environment. This is not sustainable economically, environmentally or socially. We must reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfill and, in doing so, we must ensure that those who benefit from selling electrical items pay fully and fairly for their treatment at end of life.
This legislation will address two key areas. I will start by addressing the issue of sales of electricals placed on the market via online marketplaces and overseas sellers who are not meeting their obligations. The sales of electricals from sellers based overseas via online marketplaces, such as eBay and Amazon, are skyrocketing, with over 0.5 million electricals being sold every year via these platforms. I am sure that many Members of this House have recently made just such a purchase. However, when UK businesses sell an electrical item, they incur an obligation to pay for its recycling at the end of its life, and most overseas sellers using these platforms are not meeting their financial obligations to do the same. This is wrong, not least because compliant UK-based businesses are picking up the costs for those free-riding under the existing regulations. We believe that this must stop.
I now turn my attention to the issue of vapes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and other similar products, which for convenience I will refer to simply as “vapes” for the rest of this debate. The Government have already banned the sale of single-use vapes—a vital first step in taking an environmentally harmful product off the market—but our work does not end here. Other types of rechargeable and refillable vapes continue to be sold, and we need to ensure that their collection and treatment is properly and fairly funded. Producers of electricals, including vapes, are already required to finance the cost of their treatment when they become waste. However, existing regulations mean that producers of other types of goods—toys and leisure equipment, for example—risk cross-subsidising the waste management costs of vapes. This cannot go on. Vapes are difficult and expensive to recycle, as they contain hazardous substances and can cause serious fires if not treated correctly.
Unfortunately, a friend of mine suffered from such a fire in a recent incident. He has a haulage company, and he was called in the early hours of the morning to be told that one of his lorries had caught fire. By the time that the fire service was able to put the fires out, he had lost nearly all his lorries. It was absolutely appalling, and it was all down to a consignment of vapes in one of the lorries. So this is a serious issue, for health and for business purposes, which we really need to address.
We believe that the responsibility for dealing with vapes when they become waste must fall squarely on the shoulders of those who produce them. This is why I am pleased and proud to introduce these regulations, which will hold those producers directly accountable for the environmental impact of the vapes and other similar products that they place on the UK market. This instrument is about fairness for UK businesses. It is about supporting them to do the right thing and ensuring that the right people are paying their fair share of the waste management costs associated with their products. In doing so, we send the clear message that environmental responsibility is not optional; it is part of doing business in a modern, circular economy.
Transitioning to a zero-waste economy is one of five priorities that Defra will deliver as part of a mission-led approach to government. Our circular economy strategy later this year will set out further plans to stem the rising tide of electronic waste. This Government are committed to putting the “polluter pays” principle into action. We are on the side of those businesses that behave responsibly to protect our planet, and we are rooting out those that are not doing their fair share. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I warmly welcome and support. In the case of her road haulier friend, I hope that he had good insurance and was able to recover the costs and get back on the road again. I have a couple of questions in order to understand more of the detail of how the regulations will work.
The Minister mentioned Amazon and eBay, but one that keeps bobbing up, although I have never actually used it, is Temu, which seems to be everywhere for everybody. I welcome what the Minister is proposing in respect of online marketplace operators, but my question is how it will work in connection with the electrical goods to which the regulations refer. When one makes a purchase—obviously, I have used one of the companies to which the Minister referred, which I do not want to advertise, as there are others available—at what stage will the regulations kick into effect? How will her department police the operations as smoothly as the regulations envisage?
Paragraph 5.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum clearly states:
“There are difficulties with enforcement of the 2013 Regulations against non-UK based suppliers”.
Obviously, one of the reasons that electrical goods are cheaper online is because the suppliers have not been paying for the costs of disposal. One question, therefore, is: will they now be more expensive as a result of the regulations, although people will be competing more fairly? It is no secret that the rise in online shopping has been one of the greatest challenges to traditional retailers up and down the country, including out-of-town shopping centres and market towns. I personally want to see market towns recover, although I know that there are a number of other issues, including parking. Paragraph 5.5 goes on to say:
“The intention of this SI is to ensure that OMP operators who facilitate these sales into the UK are responsible for those costs, ensuring the costs are distributed more fairly”.
Presumably, the reporting that the statutory instrument is making a requirement will ensure that such operators are in the system, so to speak.
The Minister has identified how flammable and how dangerous some of these items can be. My other question is: what is the normal disposal mechanism for, in particular, e-cigarettes, vapes, heated tobacco products and other similar items? In previous debates on statutory instruments in this very Room, we have discussed how important vaping is in getting people to switch from smoking and in the prevention of smoking in future, although there are obvious dangers where young people are vaping for the first time, which I know the Government are seeking to address.
It seems odd that, originally and currently, e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products fall within category 7 under the WEEE directive, which category also covers toys and leisure equipment. Will they be recategorised, so that vapes are taken out of that category? The Minister will not remember, but there was a toy safety directive when I was a Member of the European Parliament, and I was even a Member of the European Parliament when the WEEE directive appeared in its first incarnation. The toy safety directive covered such things as teddy bears’ eyes—if a child could eat them, they had to be carefully disposed of—and it impacted charity shops on the high street, which had to deal with them separately.
I should like to understand how these e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products will be disposed of and what the financial costs of the collection, treatment and recovery are estimated to be. Will the onus be on the user of these products to dispose of them safely and in a responsible manner?
With those few remarks, I wish the Minister well with the regulations, and I hope that they go on to make a positive impact.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the Minister for her introduction. I have a few specific questions, particularly relating to online marketplaces.
We can probably all come up with a list of half a dozen large websites that we would expect to be selling these products, but I have a little awareness—possibly more than most Members of your Lordships House, but still not that great—of things such as Discord servers, which are not very visible or open to the public but require membership. A lot of selling, particularly to young people, may take place through these layers of the internet, which be at the top layer of the TikToks and eBays and so on. How will the Government ensure that we are not going to see the cheapest products ending up further and further down the chain of legibility to government and regulators. I would be interested in understanding a bit more about how the Government will enforce these regulations. How they will find the sellers and work out who owns them and who owns the websites? What level of enforcement is going to happen?
I take this opportunity to pay testimony to the work of Action on Smoking and Health. At an ASH event that I attended downstairs a week or so back, they had a disposable vape and a reusable vape, and the trick question was: which was which? They were indistinguishable. I also note recent reports that many shops that used to sell disposable vapes are now selling reusable ones, but the same shops do not sell refills. Such shops are just taking things called reusable vapes and still treating them as disposable vapes. If the Minister is unable to answer that now, I will understand if she wants to write to me. When we are talking about managing the waste problem, although there is a sense that we have dealt with the problem of single-use vapes because we have passed a law, I would question that. From what I have seen and has been said to me, how much have we changed the reality on the ground?
My other question comes from practical experience. Last week, I happened to be in the middle of Dudley town centre where I saw what is perhaps a measure of the socioeconomic usage of vaping. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to the fact that vaping was supposed to be for people giving up cigarettes; the last statistic that I saw suggests that there are 1 million people in the UK who vape who have never smoked tobacco. In the middle of Dudley town centre, the borough council had provided a specific bin for the disposal of vapes.
My question to the Minister, therefore, follows on from the probably fairly modest extra revenue that these regulations will raise. How will we ensure that the funds raised actually go to the people incurring the costs? I am thinking of the financial impact on councils in particular—I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association—but also any other bodies that may be forced to deal with the disposal of what may or may not be single-use or reusable vapes.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we are very supportive of these measures and I very much welcome the Government bringing them forward as part of addressing an ever-growing problem. As the Minister rightly highlighted, e-waste is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world, with the 50 million tonnes currently generated globally predicted to grow to 75 million tonnes by 2035. The United Kingdom is the second-biggest generator of this waste per person in the world, so it is absolutely right that the Government are bringing forward measures to address it. I welcome the fact that this will be part of Defra’s wider circular economy strategy.
As has been said, we all buy and consume these things and try to recycle them, which can often be difficult to do. Many of these items are designed to be used once and then thrown away, and they are designed in such a way that it is almost impossible to take the batteries out of them. I call for further work to make sure that items are available on the marketplace from which it is actually possible to remove the batteries. I would really like to see a universal standard for that, particularly for vapes.
This statutory instrument applies to vapes and secondary online marketplaces, but the thread running through both of those is that the polluter should pay. We agree with that principle and it is welcome that it is here.
We agree with the Government’s plans for vapes to be put under the new categorisation 7.1. It was not correct that the toy and board-game industry was in part subsidising the recycling of vapes, which are far more dangerous and complicated to recycle.
I have tabled an amendment to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to set minimum pricing for vape products. Picking up on what the noble Baroness said, I welcome the fact that Defra has brought forward measures to ban single-use vapes, but the truth is that manufacturers are finding ways around that by putting in a rechargeable point and a reusable coil. I have seen vapes selling online for as little as £2.99 which the manufacturers say pass the ban. To me, the answer is putting in minimum pricing and making sure that we have proper vaping products with long battery cycles that are designed to be reused, and keeping these products away from pocket-money prices and our children. I encourage the Minister to go further on those measures as part of the work of the Circular Economy Taskforce. That is an issue, but we welcome the measures in these regulations.
I turn to the second part, on the online marketplace and overseas sales. On the issue of dealing with the freeloading problem of online marketplaces that have been exempt from the regulations and have not been meeting the costs of the e-waste that they generate, whereas our bricks-and-mortar sellers have been, it is right that that will change and we welcome it. We also welcome the reclassification, which is good. Just for context, it is estimated that over 1 million tonnes of electronic waste are added to the UK marketplace each year via these platforms. That is a lot of stuff, which they need to be responsible for. Some have worried that this could impact online suppliers and that some might withdraw from the UK market. We do not share those concerns. We think these measures are properly set out and see no reason why they cannot be absorbed.
I conclude by asking the Minister a couple of questions. While we welcome the measures, they are quite complex and are being introduced quite quickly, and they will involve a lot of reporting, monitoring and verification and compliance mechanisms, which are required under the regulations. My questions to the Minister are as follows. Are there enough resources available within Defra? Is there enough time for doing this stuff? Does it have the appropriate staff available? Does it have the right procedures in place to monitor the impacts to make sure that enforcement is properly done?
With that, we welcome the regulations, and we look forward to this Government going further in these areas.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument and outlining its objectives. The ambition to ensure that all producers contribute fairly to the costs of collecting and treating waste electrical and electronic equipment is one that few would dispute. Indeed, His Majesty’s Official Opposition are in full support of these regulations.
This instrument makes two key changes. First, it makes online marketplace operators responsible for the WEEE obligations linked to electrical goods sold into the UK by non-UK sellers using their platforms. Secondly, it creates a new, separate category for e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products, removing them from the broader toys and leisure equipment category. Both are necessary steps to address long-standing imbalances.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I shall pose a number of questions that I hope the Government will consider as implementation progresses. First, on making online marketplace operators responsible for waste costs, what analysis has been conducted to assess likely compliance rates among these operators? Ensuring that the law translates into meaningful change is essential, and enforcement should be at the heart of that.
Secondly, how confident are the Government that enforcement will be sufficiently resourced, especially given past difficulties with online sellers who fall outside UK jurisdiction, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering? While it is logical to shift responsibility to platforms with a physical or legal UK presence, is there a risk that some operators may still find routes to avoid liability, either by reclassifying their service or by restructuring seller arrangements?
Thirdly, on the methodology for calculating the volume of electrical and electronic equipment sold through online platforms, how prescriptive is the guidance expected to be? Will methodologies be subject to review or audit by regulators to ensure transparency and comparability?
I turn to the creation of a dedicated vape category— I should declare an interest as a 15-year vaper myself—which we are told will allow for more targeted collection targets and financial obligations. How clearly defined will this new category be in practice, given the rapid evolution of vaping and nicotine delivery technologies? Will the Government commit to regularly reviewing the scope of this category to ensure it remains fit for purpose?
I would also welcome the Minister’s views on the transitional provisions. Are the timelines, particularly 15 November and 31 January, realistic for smaller operators, especially those newly brought into scope? What communication plans are in place to ensure these businesses are fully informed? Effective communication here will be important to the success of the instrument. I note that smaller producers that place less than 5 tonnes of electrical and electronic equipment on the market remain exempt from full financial obligations. Does this de minimis threshold continue to strike the right balance between supporting small business and ensuring environmental responsibility? I was hoping the Minister could help explain how the Government reached this threshold, which seems rather large.
In conclusion, we welcome the intent behind these regulations to create a fairer, more enforceable system, but, in doing so, we must ensure that compliance is not only a legal requirement but a level playing field. That requires clarity, transparency and, above all, careful oversight. I look forward to hearing how the Government will monitor these reforms and respond to the questions they inevitably raise.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Looking at the annunciator, I am wondering whether it is worth starting, but let us give it a go; I think we are going to be interrupted.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their contributions. We are very grateful for the broad support for the regulations and the recognition that they are important. I will turn to the comments and try to answer as many questions as I can. If there are any outstanding—I think particularly on the specific questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett— I am happy to come back in writing, as usual, to ensure we have covered everything.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about online marketplaces, as did other noble Lords. Just to make clear, after the regulations come into force, online marketplaces that are not already registered with a producer compliance scheme must do so by the deadline of 15 November 2025. All online marketplaces will be required to submit the methodology they will use to determine the amount of electricals placed on the market via their platform by their overseas sellers by 15 November.
This data submission is a new requirement. The reason for it is that we need to better understand the volume of products being sold into the UK by overseas sellers through online marketplaces. A lot of the compliance and enforcement around this will be dependent on the data and information we have. Online marketplaces will then be required to report this data on a quarterly basis in line with existing reporting obligations. This is subject to transitional provisions, which have been made to reflect that the regulations enter into force part way through the year. Online marketplaces will be required to report this data only for the period after the regulation enters force through to December 2025. They must do so by 31 January 2026.
The Secretary of State will then set a national collection target for 2026 for each of the categories of electrical equipment. The regulators will then issue producer compliance schemes with a share of this target on a market share basis. The fees will then be apportioned among the producers within a particular producer compliance scheme based on their market share within a particular category in the previous year. For online marketplaces, this will be based on the data they report from the date the regulations enter into force until December 2025. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, it is quite complicated, but it is important we get this right. That seems like a good place to stop.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the Bells are ringing for us. We will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I shall continue to try to cover noble Lords’ questions and comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about compliance and guidance. New guidance will be published to help online marketplaces understand the new obligations; it will, I hope, help with compliance if there is clear guidance on what the expectations are. This will include guidance on the transitional arrangements so that online marketplaces understand their obligations in respect of the data that they submit after the regulations come into force in 2026. We are looking at doing this to make sure that people are clear on what their responsibilities are and to increase compliance with the regulations.
Costs were asked about. The impact of the policy means that online marketplaces—the producers—will be liable for end-of-life costs, as I explained in my introduction. Currently, that obligation is supposed to be met by overseas sellers, but there is a high level of non-compliance. This again comes back to compliance. The new obligations on online market producers therefore represent either a cost transfer from their overseas sellers or a fairer reallocation of costs that currently fall disproportionately on UK businesses. We think that these costs are likely to be passported back to overseas sellers via their contractual arrangements with their online marketplaces. The new costs are, therefore, related primarily to familiarisation costs; we estimate that they will be between £1,014 and £3,926, which is quite precise, depending on the size of the business.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the circular economy strategy and how this measure will fit into that. The strategy and the road maps are designed to create a future where we keep our resources in use for longer; where waste is reduced; where we accelerate the path to net zero; and where we see more investment in critical infrastructure. Within the scope of the circular economy strategy that we are developing, we will also develop a long-term road map for reforming all the different key sectors. Electricals is one of the sectors for which we are going to develop a road map; that will set out a number of short-term, medium-term and long-term interventions to make the sector more circular. We are planning to publish that circular economy strategy in the autumn, after which it will go out for consultation. The noble Earl may be interested in looking at that when it is out.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned enforcement in the first place. The WEEE regulations are enforced by the Environment Agency and by its equivalents in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales because, obviously, this matter is devolved. They will need to ensure both that online marketplaces are registering with the producer compliance scheme, as I explained, and that they are submitting the data. Again, that data will enable us to ensure that compliance is being met and, where it is not, to enforce. Similarly, the producers of vapes and other similar products will also need to submit data to the Environment Agency on the amount of products that they are placing on the market in the new category, which has been discussed.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about timing and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about timescales. Following the consultation by the previous Government, which took place in the first half of last year, both measures were supported: 87% supported our measures on online marketplaces and 91% were in favour of the proposal on the new category for vapes, which is pretty conclusive. Because of that, we are bringing the legislation forward now so that the changes can be made ahead of the compliance year next year; we thought that, because there was so much support and it is such a problem, it was important to move forward quickly.
Resources were also mentioned—and here is my brief, as if by magic. We are working very closely with our regulators to ensure they have all the necessary resources they need. I believe strongly that there is no point in bringing in legislation if you cannot enforce it, and you cannot enforce it if you do not have the resources. An example of this is that we have already provided £10 million to trading standards for vape and tobacco enforcement. We are taking that very seriously.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked when the obligations are going to come into force. They would come into force 21 days after they are made, which, if approved by both Houses, we would expect to be later on this summer, or potentially in the autumn, but we are hoping to do this quite quickly. That would mean that they would pick up the financial obligation in the 2026 compliance period. They would be required to pay the registration fee to the producer compliance scheme when they join on 15 November, as I mentioned earlier. We think that most of the schemes would look to spread the costs throughout the year, and many would also likely invoice their producer members on a quarterly basis.
The new obligations for producers were mentioned, particularly the new category 7. As we have heard, for vapes and similar products, we are creating this new electronic and electrical equipment category in Schedule 3 to the regulations. We took that decision because it is not right for vapes to be currently categorised as toys, leisure and sports equipment. We thank noble Lords for their support for that decision. The creation of the new category is to ensure that producers of vapes and other similar products pay fairly for the treatment, recovery and environmentally sound disposal of the goods they place on the market. Again, the reporting of the data under the new category will kick in as soon as the regulations have come into force. This new category, of course, is particularly aimed at:
“Any device … intended to be used for the consumption of tobacco products, nicotine or any substance containing nicotine, non-nicotine liquids, herbal smoking products, vaping substances, nicotine-containing vapour or any other such products”
or electricals. It covers the whole broad spectrum. The examples of the devices will be in Schedule 4 to the regulations, which I stress is non-exhaustive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about the single-use vapes ban and its effectiveness. It came into force, as noble Lords know, on 1 June. Obligations for review are set out in the legislation and include a review of enforcement and civil sanctions as soon as practicable after three years and a post-implementation review at least every five years. We are currently collecting the baseline data on the wholesalers and retailers of single-use vapes in England to support future assessments. Also, the Department of Health and Social Care monitors the current rates of smoking and vaping through various surveys, including the periodic survey on smoking, drinking and drug use among young people and the Action on Smoking and Health annual surveys. We will continue to monitor the effects of this legislation within that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Three years is a long time if the effective ban on single-use vapes is not stopping them and the electronic waste and plastic waste associated with them. Is there some mechanism—after six months, say—for the Government to see if this really is not working and, if so, are the Government prepared to take some rapid action? Three years seems an age in this context.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, most legislation is reviewed after five years, so three years is a fair time. It would become fairly obvious if the legislation were completely failing and not working. Presumably, any legislation that is not working needs to be reviewed and looked at in that context. I think three years is probably a fair point to start from and to have within the legislation.
On the question of whether the manufacturers could circumvent the ban, the way in which the ban and the legislation was drafted was to address many of those concerns. For example, there were suggestions that manufacturers could simply add a USB port to the end of a single-use device then call it reusable. To be legal for sale, a vape must be refillable, rechargeable and have a replaceable coil. It has to meet all three criteria. When that ban came in, those considerations were looked at—and, of course, local authorities act as the regulator for the ban and are responsible for enforcing the regulations.
Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the Grand Committee do consider the Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, as the Online Safety Act sets out, the Secretary of State must make these regulations under Sections 169(3) and 170(1) of the Act. They enable the super-complaints regime to operate by establishing the eligibility criteria that entities must meet to submit a super-complaint, as well as the procedural matters relating to Ofcom’s assessment of super-complaints.
Super-complaints are an integral part of the Act’s complaints handling, reporting, and redress mechanisms. They provide a means for eligible entities, including civil society groups with expertise in online safety matters, to raise systemic issues about the features or conduct of one or more regulated services with Ofcom, the Act’s independent regulator.
Super-complaints cannot be made by individuals, nor can they be made about individual pieces of content. The Act establishes, under Section 169, the scope of issues that super-complaints can address. This includes where the features and/or conduct of regulated services may be causing significant harm to, significantly adversely affecting the freedom of expression of, or otherwise adversely impacting users, particular groups or the public. We expect super-complaints to typically be about cross-platform, systemic issues. However, a complaint may cover a single service if the complaint is particularly important or impacts a large number of users or members of the public.
The SI sets out several eligibility criteria that an entity must meet to be able to submit a complaint to Ofcom. Entities must: represent the interests of users of regulated services, particular groups, or members of the public; have a composition, governance and accountability arrangements that mean it can be relied on to act independently from regulated services, although funding, or representation in the entity’s governance from platforms, is allowed; contribute to public discussions on online safety matters as an expert; and be capable of being relied upon to have due regard to any guidance published by Ofcom. These criteria aim to ensure a wide range of entities are eligible while safeguarding the integrity of the process and reducing the risk of vexatious complaints.
In addition to the eligibility criteria, this SI also sets out the process and timeline for assessing super-complaints. Ofcom must assess the would-be complainant’s evidence against the eligibility criteria and determine whether an entity is eligible within 30 days. Ofcom must then inform an entity whether they are eligible or not and explain why. The time for assessing eligibility reduces to 15 days where entities have been found to be eligible within the past five years. In such circumstances, an entity must submit information to show that it is still an expert contributing significantly to public discussion on online safety. Eligible entities must also present current, objective and relevant evidence to support their view that one of the grounds for a complaint under the Act is met.
When assessing the admissibility of the complaint and the substance of the complaint itself, Ofcom must typically respond 90 days following the eligibility determination. This means that, as standard, the entire super-complaints process will conclude within 120 days, or 105 days where there is retained eligibility status. Ofcom may however stop the clock in certain circumstances, such as if additional information is required from the entity and the complaint cannot be progressed without it. But Ofcom may only stop the clock by the amount of time it takes to receive the requested information. Where Ofcom has determined that an entity is eligible, it must consider the complaint and evaluate the evidence presented to it. At the end of the process it must publish a response, including its determination on the matter. This may include what further action, if any, it anticipates.
In developing these regulations, the Government have consulted Ofcom and there has been a public consultation. We have listened closely to the views of stakeholders and, where possible, made changes to the policy consulted on. These changes are set out in further detail in the Government’s policy response published in June this year. In tandem with this SI being laid, a round table was also held with key civil society groups to set out the changes and our response to the concerns raised during the consultation process. These changes include lowering the bar for eligibility to enable new expert organisations to make complaints and removing the requirement to pre-notify Ofcom ahead of submitting a complaint.
The online world is complicated and ever-changing. As the Government, our aim is to remain agile and keep pace with emerging online harms. These regulations have been drafted to do just that, by ensuring Ofcom is made aware of emerging technologies, market operators and subsequent harms. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s comments, which set the context for this interesting statutory instrument.
In the process of consultation that led to the final decisions, was there time for the department to begin to implement the Parkinson rule? When my noble friend and I last met some time ago, we discussed how and under what conditions one might be able to allow Select Committees in the Commons and here with expertise in these matters to look at SIs before they are laid. I notice that this was laid on 9 June, which is well after that meeting. Was there time to let the Select Committees see this and were there useful results from that? If not, can she give us some indication of when the department will be in a position to begin to process the Parkinson rule in relation to this?
I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its very full 29th report, which went through this SI in somewhat surprising detail—we do not normally get four or five pages on an instrument each time, but that tells the story behind some of my concerns about the department’s approach to this. The committee’s first conclusion is that:
“The draft Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that they are politically or legally important or give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.
We are grateful to it for doing that. These are interesting and important issues.
The committee’s first point for consideration is that it worries whether the regulator, Ofcom, will have the resources to carry out the sort of work envisaged in this SI and the much larger scheme of work that it is involved in. I would be grateful if my noble friend could give some thought to that in her response. I do not think she mentioned it. We understand the basis on which Ofcom makes its funding needs available—there has been notification of that recently around the level of fees to be exercised on the companies in scope of the regulator—but that is not the narrow point raised here. It is more about the question of capacity and scale, and the ability to think more widely about the system it is trying to regulate, than it is just about the money. I would be grateful if my noble friend would say a few things about how the department judges that and how it thinks Ofcom will be able to scale up its current work, which is immense. It is very important to include this activity, which in the Bill was originally intended to be of assistance to Ofcom, although some of the way it has come out does not seem to have delivered on that.
Secondly, I recollect that we spent quite a long time on the Bill working out why the Government of the day did not think it necessary to have some form of ombudsman system in place for internet matters. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will make some points about this. This was well argued and well thought through in our debates, and we had many meetings offline to try to find a way forward. We did not get what we wanted, but it was a very big Bill and other things perhaps took priority. However, we did get agreement from Ministers, in the Bill, that there would be a review shortly after its implementation— I think within two years—of how the complaints processes for users of IT systems in this country, particularly in new media, were being dealt with by individual companies. Clearly, the expectation is that each company will have its own structure but that, on occasion, issues would be raised across more than one provider. The question was how an ordinary citizen would cope with that if there was not some form of ombudsman system. I strongly believe that there needs to be an ombudsman system for this whole area, and I hope that the review to be carried out by Ofcom within two years will recommend that. This is not referred to in this SI. Will the Minister say a few words about the department’s current thinking on that?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations and congratulate the Minister on introducing them. I have a couple of questions and will also support some of the comments made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Can the Minister tell us when the department will undertake the guidance that it has committed to produce before the regulations come into effect? Will the House have sight of that before they come into effect?
Paragraph 5.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The whole super-complaints process must … typically be completed within 120 days, which reduces to 105 days in the event that an entity has retained eligibility status”.
Is that feasible? Can that actually be delivered within the procedure? I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that this is meant to be a streamlined procedure, but it is important that, if someone is limited to one complaint in a six-month period, they have the time to develop that complaint to the full, and 120 days might be quite a tight timetable.
Paragraph 5.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“Entities must not submit more than one complaint in a six-month period”.
Again, this may mean that a genuine complaint that is completely different from the complaint already before Ofcom will be delayed, so it is not streamlining the procedure at all. It also says, “except in specific circumstances”—I wonder what those circumstances might be—and goes on to say:
“Super-complaints should not merely repeat the substance of another complaint that has been made publicly available by Ofcom within the last two years and Ofcom will reject a complaint on this basis”.
On the two points from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that there is neither an appeals mechanism nor the intervention of an ombudsman. For what reason was an ombudsman not considered appropriate in these circumstances? Given the pressure on Ofcom and the restrictions placed on it, particularly following on from the Online Safety Act, does the Minister feel absolutely convinced that Ofcom has all the resources that it needs at its disposal to deal with the super-complainants? Paragraph 49 of the committee’s report says:
“We note the Department’s explanation but remain concerned about the adequacy of the resources available to Ofcom, given its already extensive online safety responsibilities would be expanded further by this instrument”.
I have one final question, as I was not as closely involved in this Bill as others were. What happens to those individual complainants who do not fall within the super-complaint? Do they have a separate procedure under separate regulations? With those fair words, I welcome the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction. These regulations aim to establish a formal mechanism for super-complaints to be made to Ofcom under Section 169 of the 2023 Act, as we have heard. Potentially, this represents a significant step forward in implementing the Act’s vision for civil society oversight of our online landscape. The underlying purpose is clear: to enable eligible entities to raise systemic online safety issues, alerting Ofcom to significant risks or harms that might not otherwise come to its attention. These super-complaints are indeed a vital mechanism.
I welcome the clear intent behind these regulations and acknowledge the responsiveness of the Government and Ofcom to the consultation process—not always the case. Several positive changes have been made in response to stakeholder feedback, strengthening the regime’s accessibility and effectiveness. The removal of a statutory pre-notification period is a crucial improvement, enabling more timely responses to urgent online safety issues. There is the reduced administrative burden for organisations that have previously been deemed eligible. The reduction in assessment periods from 30 to 15 days demonstrates a certain sensitivity to concerns about administrative burden and procedural delays. Then there are restrictions on Ofcom’s ability to pause timelines; placing limits on Ofcom’s ability to stop the clock when seeking further information from complainants is a welcome development, addressing fears about unnecessary delays in addressing urgent harms and improving transparency.
The regulations have expanded the eligibility criteria to include newer expert organisations, which directly addresses concerns about barriers facing emerging voices in what is a rapidly evolving field, in our view allowing for greater inclusivity. This approach seeks to provide a future-proofed way of enabling a range of organisations to access the super-complaints mechanism in a fast-changing online environment. Then there is the flexibility in complaints submission. The ability for an eligible entity to withdraw an initial complaint and submit a replacement, effectively prioritising a different issue, is a helpful measure to ensure that the most important concerns are addressed.
Lord Wrottesley (Con)
My Lords, I want to add a few comments to the discussions on these regulations. I am sorry; I was a little slow off the mark.
I want to say from the outset that I believe we are going to need much more oversight to protect everyone —in particular our children and other vulnerable groups —from tech, particularly relating to online risks. I will say more on this during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently before the House. The situation is always evolving and, unfortunately, predators always seem to be one step ahead.
I have always felt that internet and tech companies could do, but choose not to do, more to make their products safer. I know this from personal experience; as I said, I will say more about this in our proceedings on the other Bill before the House. I strongly feel that such companies are complicit in this. It is regrettable that we have to regulate this area in the way we do, but here we are. Having this draft online safety super-complaints regulation is a welcome piece of the jigsaw. If implemented robustly, it has the potential to contribute meaningfully to a safer and more accountable online environment. I worry, though, and want this to work. I have a few questions for the Minister.
Following on from a concern that other noble Lords have raised, I would appreciate hearing from the Minister whether there is going to be a new ombudsman and how this might be funded. I know that there is funding ring-fenced, but we really need to involve appropriate leadership and expertise. How much is enforcement likely to cost?
As currently worded, the regulations do not seem to allow smaller groups, such as victim support groups or small NGOs, to feed information and complaints into the regulator. I feel that allowing for smaller groups would be beneficial to the online safety of the vulnerable.
Appeals were again raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others. We know that, in these regulations, a group needs to apply to have their case approved to be heard. If it is rejected, is there a mechanism for appealing? Is it correct that summary decisions are the only material published after investigations? If so, I believe that we should offer more transparency than this for the public and for case law.
Finally, what powers would a regulator have against the largest companies with their related resources and well-funded legal departments? I am thinking of Instagram, Facebook, various other social media and internet companies, gaming companies and other tech organisations. Will the regulator really have the powers to enforce punishments and change? I sincerely hope it will. A lot is at stake here; we need to get this right not only for today’s users but for future ones.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, the purpose of the super-complaints mechanism is to allow eligible entities with expertise in online safety matters, such as civil society groups, to raise systemic issues with Ofcom. Such issues may include instances where the features or conduct of regulated services may be causing significant harm, adversely affecting freedom of expression or otherwise adversely impacting users, members of the public or particular groups.
We welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward these regulations, which will help Ofcom to understand the kinds of risks, issues and threats to users identified by the specified groups. We continue to believe that the regulations strike an effective balance between the need to learn from the experience of users and the need to prioritise the testimony of those with experience, expertise and knowledge when considering complaints. It is important that we construct a feedback mechanism, but it is also important that this mechanism can be wielded by Ofcom in a way that is genuinely helpful and can lead to targeted and effective action. The point about concrete outcomes from the process was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks on that.
The regulations make it clear that eligible groups must meet a required standard before their complaints will be considered. To be eligible to submit complaints under the regulations, an entity must: represent the interests of users, the public or specific user groups; be independent of regulated services; show expertise in online safety, such as regular expert contributions to public or media discussions; and be expected to consider Ofcom’s guidance in its work. In other words, this feed- back mechanism is designed to facilitate communication between Ofcom and independent expert groups. This is right and we very much hope that it will ensure that the case load for Ofcom—I take on board the points and concerns about this—will be such that genuine and proper consideration is given to each complaint raised.
That being said, I hope the Minister can give us some information on how this will be reported back to Parliament. Will we have sight of the volume of cases taken on by Ofcom and will we be able to see how many complaints have been upheld and how many rejected? I appreciate that, as part of the process, while any super-complaint is live, it must be subject to protection from outside interference, but having this information after the fact would make an important metric that noble Lords and Members in the other place will be able to use to assess how well the machinery and Ofcom overall are working. As has been discussed, the regulations are in the public interest and our collective ability to monitor their effectiveness would be greatly aided by this information—particularly in the context of the Minister’s welcome remark about the need for agility in this fast-moving space.
Further to this point, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, the regulations relate to complaints about systemic issues that could negatively affect freedom of expression, pose a risk of harm to the public or cause other adverse effects for users. Can the Minister, when she rises, please share some more information about how users and members of the wider public will be informed about such harms? It seems to me that it is possible to foresee circumstances where, if a complaint is made by an authoritative body to Ofcom under the regulations, it would be wise to warn users and members of the public of this even before Ofcom concludes its investigations, which, as the regulations make clear, could be completed after a period of as many as 105 days. I think that that is the total day count; I may disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, but the point stands in any case.
Does the Minister agree that, if there is a chance of a serious risk being posed to users, the public should know about it as soon as possible? Can she tell us whether there are circumstances in which the Government will issue warnings once complaints are raised, or will they rely on the relevant complainant group to do so? Once Ofcom has concluded its investigations, if it finds that there are risks posed to users, will the Government or Ofcom undertake to inform users at that stage?
Finally—this is, I am afraid, a slightly more trivial question about the mechanics of the eligibility criteria—the fourth criterion for a complainant group
“is that the entity can be relied upon to have due regard to any guidance published by Ofcom”.
Clearly, this is testable in the negative, but can the Minister comment on how entities that have not actively demonstrated unsuitability will be assessed and monitored against this important criterion? Clarity on these points would be much appreciated and would provide us with valuable further information on how the Government envisage using these regulations to keep people safe.
In conclusion, we support the intent behind these regulations and the way in which they have been constructed; I look forward to the Minister’s remarks. We feel that, on the whole, these regulations offer a clear framework for expert, independent entities—
Viscount Camrose (Con)
To pick up exactly where I left off, as with any regulatory mechanism, transparency is key to ensuring public trust and parliamentary accountability. We therefore urge the Government to clarify how the outcomes of this process will be communicated to Parliament and the public, particularly where serious harms are identified. Only then can we be confident that this mechanism will not only protect users but uphold the openness and scrutiny that must underpin all aspects of the Online Safety Act.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, including those who have rightly identified that we have taken the comments from the stakeholder engagement to heart and made changes to the eventual proposals. I will go through the very many questions that noble Lords have asked. I pay tribute to the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; we welcome its report and the scrutiny it has given to our proposals.
In no particular order, I will first pick up the question of scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about Parkinson’s law—if I can put it that way. We have spoken about this and there have been a number of different discussions about it. We recognise that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Lords Communications and Digital Committee play a vital role in scrutinising the regime. The SI was shared with those committees in advance. He will know that Parkinson’s law is not as emphatic as it might be—it is a caveated law—but we nevertheless take on board the concerns raised about it and have met the chairs of those committees to talk about how we can take these issues forward. We have had a very good dialogue with them, on the understanding that we do not want to delay what can sometimes be very important and game-changing regulations by having a long extra scrutiny process. Nevertheless, we are trying to find a way to resolve this issue and discussions are continuing with officials.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but she said 2028. When will the actual review begin? That sounds an impossible end date for anybody to be satisfied with progress on an ombudsman being considered, let alone appointed. Does the review start in 2028, or in 2026? When does it start taking input?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The only information that I have is that we are anticipating that the report would be published and available in early 2028—so, obviously, it would need to start well before then. The noble Lord will know that setting up ombudsman schemes is not a simple process. However, we look forward to the outcome of that report, because we recognise some of the issues being raised.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
But if the report will be available only then and the regulations need to be made, the prospect of having an ombudsman is not there until 2029—something like that—or maybe 2030. Does not the Minister find that rather unsatisfactory, especially given her knowledge of the benefits of ombudsman services?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I can only repeat what I said. Ofcom is going to produce a report on this; it will look at the pros and cons of the issue and it may decide that there are other ways in which to deal with individual complaints that would not necessarily be an ombudsman service. We have to give it the space to do that thinking and develop that work; it will also need to look at how the tech companies themselves respond to complaints and what gaps need to be filled by that process. So it is not a simple process—but I understand the noble Lord’s frustration with this. If we have any more information about the timescale for this, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt again, but it partly depends on how much confidence we have in the tech companies in terms of how they deal with complaints.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We will know the outcome of that much sooner than 2028, because I am sure that we will all have experience of complaints that go forward and whether they are responded to efficiently in the coming months, because there will be the opportunity to do that. In the regulations, as the noble Lord knows, all the regulated companies are required to have a named individual and a process for people to raise complaints.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about appeals. I reassure noble Lords that Ofcom’s response will be informed by its regulatory experience, as well as the information presented as part of the complaint and any additional information that has been requested, before arriving at an appropriate determination. I also remind the Committee that the objective of a super-complaint is, ultimately, to bring to the attention of Ofcom an issue, a risk or a harm that it might otherwise have been unaware of. It is not to adjudicate an individual decision or necessarily to trigger enforcement action. Ofcom has the flexibility to use any of its online safety regulatory powers to address issues raised by the super-complaint. This may include a formal enforcement action, a change in guidance or codes of practice or, indeed, no action at all.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I may not have made the point as clearly as I should have. It is not the fact that Ofcom will be unaware of an issue that is being raised as much as that the need to get a super-complaint going may frustrate Ofcom finding out about small but high-risk activity that is remote from its main activity. We went through this in some detail towards the end of the Bill and in recent SIs that have stemmed from it. Size is never the only issue that will affect how individuals are being attacked or treated by these companies. I feel very uncomfortable about a situation where a super-complaint cannot be mounted because of lack of experience or a lack of quality in its processes, when the issue itself will then get ignored. I ask the Minister to perhaps reflect on that later.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As I have said, small organisations can get involved in the super-complaint process. The wording is designed as it is to allow new campaigning organisations, if you like, to come through, because this is a new territory that we are operating in, and we do not want to consult with or hear messages from just the usual, established organisations. I think that Ofcom will be sensitive about all this, but it will also, as we know, be able to enforce against small but risky services.
Ofcom is looking at what is happening in the smaller sphere, if I can put it like that. Ofcom has already started enforcement action against some of the non-compliant small but risky services. For example, it is investigating whether small services such as 4chan are complying with the illegal safety duties. There are other small services that Ofcom is now taking action against as well. I hear what the noble Lord has said, and I am confident that Ofcom will want to hear from all voices, not just the large players in this sector. I should also say that Ofcom is subject to standard regulatory redress mechanisms, such as judicial review.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked when the guidance will be in place. The Government expect Ofcom to have finalised the guidance by quarter 1 of 2026. This instrument comes into force on 31 December 2025. The guidance does not need to be finalised before the regime can come into effect. The guidance will contain important and useful information, so complainants may wish to wait until the final guidance is published before submitting a complaint, and Ofcom will consult on that guidance. But those organisations who know exactly what consumer complaints they wish to pursue do not have to wait for the guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked about Ofcom’s transparency and whether it will produce statistics on the evidence that it is acquiring. Ofcom recognises the importance of transparency around the work that it does and is considering how best to publish that information about super-complaints as it implements the new regime. Ofcom will publish responses to accepted super-complaints, including if they are rejected on admissibility grounds, and summaries of these complaints as required under the regulations.
Again, Ofcom and the Government will continue to communicate and develop those risks and make sure that the codes are kept under review. It is about not just producing the reports but communicating to the wider public if new risks are identified. We all accept that one purpose of the super-complaints is to bring things to Ofcom’s attention of which it might not otherwise be aware to enable it to move quite quickly to address those issues.
Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025
(2 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue into force, for another year, the legislation that governs the Armed Forces—the Armed Forces Act 2006. By way of background, Parliament renews the Armed Forces Act every five years through primary legislation. This first happened in 2011, then in 2016 and most recently in 2021. It will next be renewed in 2026. However, in the intervening years, an annual Order in Council, such as the one before us today, must be approved by both Houses. This will keep the Act in force for a further year, but for no later than 14 December 2026, when the present Act is due to expire. A new Armed Forces Act will therefore be required to be in place by December 2026 to renew the 2006 Act for a further five years, and then we will resume the practice of yearly renewals.
Having detailed the legislative framework for the draft order, I wish to turn to some of what lies at the heart of our Armed Forces. After announcing the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, we recently unveiled our comprehensive strategic defence review, which declares clearly this Government’s intent to meet the threats we are facing and return the UK’s Armed Forces to a state of war- fighting readiness. This is why we are putting people at the heart of our defence plans. As set out in the strategic defence review, there will need to be a whole-of-society approach—wider participation in national resilience and renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. In support of that approach, it is therefore essential that we improve the recruitment and retention of our personnel. This is why the Government have made the largest pay increase for serving personnel in more than two decades.
We will expand opportunities for young people to experience more of what the Armed Forces have to offer, delivering a 30% increase in cadets and introducing a voluntary gap year scheme. Further to this, we have brought back 36,000 military homes from the private sector as part of plans to transform Armed Forces accommodation, while we will also deliver a generational renewal of military accommodation with at least £7 billion of funding this Parliament, including over £1.5 billion of new investment for rapid work to fix the poor state of forces family housing. We are intensifying efforts to root out bullying and harassment, which have, as we all know, no place in our Armed Forces.
Against the backdrop of improving support for veterans, as exemplified by the new VALOUR programme, which will see VALOUR regional field officers working closely with local services and local government bodies on the application of the principles of the Armed Forces covenant for the betterment of our veterans. We will be updating kit and equipment across all three services to ensure that our nation and those who serve and will be serving in the future are ready to fight the war of tomorrow. That will mean harnessing artificial intelligence, drones, cyber technologies and other innovations alongside more traditional approaches to land, sea and air warfare to make us stronger and safer, because tomorrow’s conflicts will belong to the smartest and most innovative, as the war in Ukraine has shown and is showing.
The defence review sets out a path for the next decade to transform defence and help make it an engine for growth, boosting prosperity and jobs across the whole of the UK while continuing to lead within NATO, ensuring our security is protected through collective power and capabilities. To achieve this, we need to ensure that we maintain a strong and effective discipline framework for our Armed Forces, which the Armed Forces Act 2006 provides and which this order maintains for a further year. The 2006 Act contains nearly all the required provisions for command, discipline, justice, enlistment, pay and redress of complaints. It provides the legal basis and associated powers for offices such as the Judge Advocate-General and the Director of Service Prosecutions, as well as the various service courts. Further, it establishes the Service Police Complaints Commissioner and the tri-service Defence Serious Crime Unit, and contains the legislation for the Armed Forces covenant. In short, the 2006 Act is a vital piece of legislation that our Armed Forces cannot function without.
Those in service protect the nation, our allies and partners and global stability wherever in the world they serve. It is only right, as I know all Members of the Committee will agree, that in this debate we honour their bravery, courage and unflinching duty through the small token of providing consent today. To that end, all of us here pay tribute to their public service. I beg to move.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I support this continuation order. As has been explained, it keeps His Majesty’s Armed Forces legal until after the Armed Forces Bill in 2026 is enacted. The Minister has given a good trailer for the debate that we will have on Friday on the strategic defence review, so I will not respond on that.
I would like to make just one point. When the 2021 Act was being debated, I, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and other noble Lords pressed for the obligation to have “due regard” to the Armed Forces covenant to be extended from local authorities to include central government departments. We quoted, as examples in need of central government consideration, Gulf War syndrome and the right of abode in the UK for Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans who had served full time in the Armed Forces. A compromise was reached, and the issue was set aside for further examination.
The present Government have made it clear from the outset that they would extend the responsibility for supporting the covenant to central government. This is most welcome—it will, I assume, be legally formalised when the 2026 Bill is being considered—but the importance and reach of the Armed Forces covenant has had a very long incubation. I was one of the first to raise an amendment to the covenant legislation, which I tabled to the 2011 Bill nearly 15 years ago.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I support this continuation order. I start by declaring my interests as a director of the Army Reserve and the chairman of the Reserve Forces review in 2030. I will ask a couple of questions but, in looking forward to next year’s Armed Forces Act, I also want to make a couple of suggestions.
Historically, we have always focused on our obligations under Article 5 of the NATO treaty. This is why we have a relatively small regular Army but one that is at high readiness and is expeditionary in nature: we always plan to fight a relatively short war in continental Europe. Equally, it is why we have a relatively small reserve. However, our planning assumptions have been called into question as a result of the war in Ukraine, which has been an extended campaign, meaning that we have to look carefully at both regeneration and reconstitution. It is also, in effect, a war between two reserve armies.
I absolutely welcome the SDR because it has, for the first time, forced us to look seriously at Article 3 and homeland defence—something where, in the past, we have perhaps not paid attention to the detail in the way we should have done. It is clear that, with the focus now on both Article 5 and Article 3, the demand on the workforce is going to increase significantly. That is recognised in the SDR. I was pleased to see that one of the recommendations was that the size of the reserves should increase by 20%—albeit with the caveat of “when we can afford it”—but, looking forward, I have some concerns.
First, we have the most wonderful department in the Ministry of Defence, as well as wonderful civil servants, but it is not a department that is set up for legislation. I wish to share my own experiences, having been the Minister responsible for two of the previous Armed Forces Acts. When the time came, we sometimes struggled to make some of the provisions we wanted to make, because we simply ran out of time. So my first plea to the Minister is this: can we get ahead of this and make sure that the work is done? The last principal muscle move was in 2006, when the single services used to have three different sets of service law. We combined those into a single Armed Forces Act in 2006 and I am sensing, from where we are today, that the next Armed Forces Act will also have to be a significant piece of work. As your Lordships are probably aware, the regular Army and the Army Reserve are dealt with through two separate pieces of legislation, and delivering a whole-force solution adds complication. I fear that what we will have to do in the next Armed Forces Act is combine those two pieces of legislation into a single Act, which will be a lot of work.
If the department does not necessarily like legislation, one thing it absolutely loves is policy. Every time we face a challenge, we seem to wrap around yet another piece of policy. We now have something of a Gordian knot of policy and I rather hope that, come the next Act, the Minister will adopt the role of Alexander and slice through much of it, because it prevents us having the flexibility to access society through the reserve and the regular force to deliver all the skill sets that we need. We have great aspirations to deliver zig-zag careers, enticing people to come into the Armed Forces, leave, go into civilian life and potentially come back. We have great aspirations from a regular reserve perspective for people to dial up or dial down their military service, but our policy makes that quite complicated, particularly our terms and conditions of service.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am acutely aware that I am likely to be interrupted by the Bells.
The statutory instrument in front of us is one that we are very used to. I was listening to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and thinking that I am obviously very new to these annual events because I have been here only since 2014; you feel that you are getting older, as they seem to speed up every year. In many ways, there is little to be said on this Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order because, by definition, we all want our Armed Forces to continue. If Parliament did not approve the SI, we would still have Armed Forces, but they would not be subject to enforcement and so on. Inevitably, I wish this statutory instrument well; I also pay tribute to His Majesty’s Armed Forces and everything that they do for us.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out, the Minister seemed in his opening to be trialling his speech for the SDR on Friday; perhaps he is aware that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will probably steal any thunder that any of us may feel we have. I think that it is a good thing to rehearse some of the SDR issues.
In the light of that and the Minister’s comments about forces accommodation, he has bandied around some figures but is he sure that the money will be wisely spent and that, at the end of this Parliament, he and any other defence Minister will be able to say that forces accommodation is now up to standard? We are about to have a Division, I believe, on decent home standards for His Majesty’s Armed Forces. We are told that the standard of forces accommodation meets decent home standards, yet the feedback is so often that there is black mould and there are all sorts of questions about the accommodation. What security and confidence can the Minister give us on that?
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, also reminded us that the last time we had an Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order, we discussed— I was part of the discussion, and I have raised this matter on several occasions—bringing the Armed Forces covenant under the purview of central government and making central government accountable. Like the noble and gallant Lord, I welcome the Government’s commitments on this and wonder when we can expect to find out more about them. As promised, here is the Division.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, as all noble Lords are back, we may as well resume.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in finishing, I want to reinforce the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and ask not for more money for His Majesty’s Armed Forces—not least because this statutory instrument does not allow us to do that—but for the Minister and the MoD to think about making sure that our Armed Forces personnel are fully covered. A lot of the wording around numbers in the SDR says “when the financial circumstances arise”, but our Armed Forces are the bedrock of our security and defence. We should put them first in everything we do.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her impeccable judgment on timing, which worked very neatly. As she said, it seems that, every year, this comes round sooner than the year before; it is a bit like how policemen are getting younger. Anyway, here we are to approve the continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for another year.
Apart from the necessary attention to legal process, this is a welcome opportunity to pay tribute to and thank our Armed Forces personnel for the incredible work that they do on our behalf. Some of those to whom we perhaps do not pay sufficient tribute are the ranks of talented civil servants over there—they were of enormous support to me when I was a Minister—so we should extend our thanks for the support that the MoD gives to both the political process and our Armed Forces personnel. I thank the Minister for opening the debate on the order and echo his praise for our men and women in uniform.
This debate provides an important opportunity to reflect on the previous year in defence. Over the past year, we have seen the international security environment deteriorate further. Russia is continuing its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Iran has become emboldened to lash out. Iranian-backed Houthis from Yemen sank two ships in the Red Sea just this month, and the conflict in Israel and Gaza is showing few signs of abating.
Currently, the carrier strike group, led by the fleet flagship HMS “Prince of Wales”, is in the South China Sea, reinforcing our global reach and maintaining freedom of navigation. As a country, we can take pride in the professionalism of our Royal Navy sailors doing so much to stand up for our country globally.
We have seen ever more harrowing attacks on Ukraine by Russia. Increased use of drones has meant that, as of 31 May 2025, 13,341 Ukrainians have been killed and 32,744 have been injured in Putin’s illegal war. The Government are to be commended for their continued, resolute commitment to aid Ukraine in repelling Russian aggression. With the recent announcements of the coalition of the willing, which has the best wishes of these Benches, we hope that further progress can be made on ending the war.
As my noble friend Lord Minto and I have said, we welcome the broad direction of the strategic defence review. I know that we will have a fuller debate on that matter on Friday, so I shall not delay the Grand Committee by dwelling on it. Suffice to say that, while I genuinely welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that much more must be done to bolster our defence capabilities, I shall have a number of questions arising out of the SDR, but the Minister will have to contain his excitement as to what those questions are until Friday.
I was very struck by what my noble friend Lord Lancaster said about the reserves, given his profound knowledge of them and his own military experience. He raised a number of interesting points, which I confess had not previously occurred to me, but I think are substantive. As we live in a new threat environment, with increasing need for resilience and swiftness of response, they are very well-made points, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on them.
What I would like to stress at the moment applies to the Northern Ireland veterans. The Minister was helpful last week when he said that there would be a Statement soon on this matter, which is a welcome development; we might finally know what the Government are planning with regard to the legacy Act. I might point out that I did not get an answer to the question that I asked last Monday: does the Minister think that recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces will be aided by constantly relitigating cases where veterans were simply doing their jobs? The recent case of Soldier C—who has already faced multiple investigations and been cleared each time but has now been told as a very elderly man that he may face another investigation and possible prosecution—is more than egregious. I do not expect the Minister to comment on media commentary that the Minister for Veterans and People, the honourable Mr Al Carns, is allegedly deeply unhappy about possible changes to the legacy Act, but it underlines the need for urgent clarity by the Government as to their position.
On the issue of retention and recruitment, we all know how much service accommodation requires improvement. My right honourable friend in the other place, James Cartlidge, when a Minister in the MoD, began the process of buying back the estate from Addington Homes, to which the Minister referred. This was the first step in resuming control by the MoD over living conditions. But that work is not yet complete, and the next step requires further structural innovation and change and further investment. That is why my right honourable friend has launched his policy of instituting an Armed Forces housing association, where our service personnel would be part of the association governance, to better meet the needs and listen to the voices of our service men and women. I hope that the Government consider that a constructive proposal.
Finally, it would be remiss of me if I did not continue to push the Minister on the money. We know that the Government have decided to shift spending on intelligence to the definition of defence spending but, so far, it is not quite clear exactly how much of that intelligence spending will be redefined as defence expenditure. Could the Minister enlighten the Grand Committee on that point? Does the Minister have full confidence that the Government will be able to reach the new NATO defence spending targets?
I look forward to the Minister’s response but, of course, confirm that these Benches support the statutory instrument to keep the Armed Forces Act current in law.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who participated in the debate, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie. They expressed their support—I know it is true for every single Member of the Committee and across the whole Chamber—for our Armed Forces and the recognition of their work, both seen and unseen. It is quite right for all of us to remember that. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, in recognition of the work that he does, we know that many Members are either still active or have been active as former military, and we continue to pay tribute to them. I thank the noble Lord for the work that he does, and I want to make sure that when we thank the Armed Forces we also include the reserves. I know that we would all wish that he conveys that message to them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, paid tribute to the civil servants as well. I like to think that, by and large, we are served well by the Civil Service in this country. They get some stick sometimes but in my experience, they are they are pretty good. I have one word, that I will not use—sometimes, I think that perhaps they could do a little better at understanding, but I shall leave that to my private secretary who is here and knows exactly what word I mean. But overall, they are a tremendous and great credit to our country. They deserve more support and recognition than they often get. I thank the noble Baroness to pointing that out; it was well made.
I shall go through a few of the points in no particular order. The noble Baroness talks about spending. She will know that the way in which this is now going to be included goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about homeland resilience and Article 3. That is what has taken us down—the fact that for too long we have talked about Article 5 but not Article 3 in terms of civil defence, homeland resilience and homeland defence. That is why 1.5% is being talked about. What is included in the 1.5% will obviously be a matter for discussion and debate, but it will not include some of the silly suggestions that we have heard. There will be a debate about what it should include, because it will be part of building up to a significant homeland defence, civil resilience and all those sorts of things. So you will get whatever is spent on defence, plus that 1.5%. The noble Baroness, as well as other members of the Committee, will have seen the Government laying out that target of 2.6% by 2027. You can add 1.5% on it then, if you want, depending on how you get to 4.1%, the 3% in terms of defence spending in the next Parliament, and 3.5% by 2035.
In same way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said that I will have to wait for her questions on Friday and contain my excitement, she will have to contain her own excitement about when the Government lay out exactly how we will reach those figures. But that is the aim and policy of the Government—to reach that target in terms of defence spending. I know that this sentiment is shared across the House in the last Government, this Government, and all of us: I thank her for the general support for Ukraine and what we are doing with respect to that country. It is an important statement of this country regarding standing up for our principles and providing leadership not only in Europe but beyond. I thank her for that and for her reminder. It is an important statement. Our debates and discussions are read by others, so it is important that we continually reiterate those points.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her comments about the carrier strike group, which is currently just off the coast in Australia for Operation Talisman Sabre. She will know, because I have mentioned it in the Chamber, that I was with the carrier in Singapore recently and with the other support ships, including the Spanish frigate. The air power that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned and will be pleased about is all over the carrier, with the F-35Bs on the deck projecting that hard power. There is also the soft power, the defence diplomacy and receptions that have taken place. It is easy to mock that, but the diplomats, friends and the military from other countries came on board the carrier as well as the other ship.
I will digress slightly if the Committee allows me. I visited HMS “Richmond” and the Spanish frigate in Jakarta, which as everyone will know is in Indonesia, to show the fact that the Indonesian Government were welcoming British warships into Jakarta, which I think is very significant, as well as allowing exercises to take place, which some of their senior military would go on, off the coast of Indonesia. It shows the importance of that carrier strike group and the importance of the fact that our military, with our friends, allies and partners from the region, are out there in that part of the world, emphasising the importance of what we do. I thank the noble Baroness for raising that and giving me the opportunity to talk about that and about Ukraine.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I suppose I bring good news: I do not think we have a problem with recruitment. The one thing we do not have is a shortage of people wishing to join the Armed Forces. The problem we have is the self-imposed challenge through conversion. As ever, that is down to policy.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is something to look at and to try and deal with. Certainly, some of the things I see suggest that there is a need for the process to be improved. One of the things we are doing is to try to improve the process as well.
Before I come to my final comments, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, would have seen the debate in the other place yesterday about veterans and Northern Ireland. As it stands at the moment, this is as much as I can say: the Government are discussing this very seriously with the Northern Ireland Office, veterans’ organisations and victims’ associations in Northern Ireland to try to ensure that we move to a situation that is acceptable and respects those veterans who have served us so proudly in the past. That is what we are seeking to do. When we are in a situation where there is agreement and we have a policy that makes sense and is acceptable, then we will be able to come forward and make a statement with respect to that. The noble Baroness is right to raise it, and it is an important issue. The office of my honourable friend Minister Carns is just next door to mine, as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, know. I spend all my time talking to him, and he is working very hard on veterans affairs, bringing his particular experience, which I think is a great benefit to the Government—it would be of great benefit to any Government, but we are very proud and pleased that he is a member of our Government and is helping us with that, because of the obvious credibility he has.
Those are most of the points and questions that people raised in this short debate. Obviously, we will have a longer debate or discussion on Friday, with the whole day on the defence review, which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will lead and I will conclude. With that, I beg to move.