Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the house on 28 November 2024.
We know that to reach our net-zero commitment and reduce our reliance on international fossil fuels, we must use all the tools we have available. Currently, heating accounts for 23% of the UK’s carbon emissions. Two of our key technologies for decarbonising heat are heat pumps and heat networks.
Heat networks present us with an opportunity to enable a more resilient and flexible future for the UK’s heat, reducing carbon emissions and our future bills. Heat networks are particularly important, as they are in a unique position to exploit larger-scale and local low-carbon energy sources, such as large, efficient heat pumps and waste heat from industry or from natural sources that would otherwise be dumped. Proven internationally to provide affordable, low-carbon heat, heat networks are especially suited to dense urban areas. The Government expect that about 20% of the UK’s heat demand will be met by heat networks by 2050, which will be a significant increase from the current figure, which is about 3%.
We want to do everything that we can to support the much-needed growth of the heat network sector, but we also want to ensure that we deliver a fair deal for heat network consumers. Heat networks currently function as an unregulated monopoly: the 470,000 households that are supplied by heat networks cannot change their supplier if they are dissatisfied with their service or obtain redress if they are unfairly treated. The lack of regulation means that consumers are not guaranteed a fair service: heating is less reliable, suppliers are less transparent and it is harder for consumers to represent themselves or make complaints.
We have been working with consumer groups and have engaged in research that will allow, and has allowed, us to identify where this is happening in the market and what we can do to put in place measures to prevent such activity. These regulations are what we need to put in place to ensure that customers are protected. They stem from the Energy Act 2023, which provides powers for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations across Great Britain that will protect heat network consumers in a way that is rightfully comparable with other regulated utilities.
This statutory instrument seeks to provide protections to heat network consumers that are comparable with activities such as those in the gas and electricity sector. The instrument introduces an authorisation regime to be implemented by Ofgem; this will work in a similar way to the gas and electricity licensing regimes. It takes an outcomes-based approach to reflect heat networks’ diversity of scale and their nascent market position.
The regulations ban running a heat network without an authorisation. Existing heat networks are automatically given an authorisation in order to phase in market regulation. The conditions for authorisation are set by either the Secretary of State or Ofgem, and apply rules for running a heat network. Ofgem will be able to monitor compliance with regulations and act where appropriate.
Actions Ofgem can take include issuing information notices for compliance data, investigating suspected non-compliance, inspecting commercial premises of authorised persons and issuing a range of orders requiring remedial action. Consumer redress orders can also be issued, requiring that affected consumers are given compensation.
These regulations require Ofgem to publish statements of policy on how powers are used. Penalties will be proportionate to the authorised person’s size and the scale of harm that their non-compliance has caused. Additionally, the instrument gives Ofgem powers to set minimum performance standards. Although the scope of these standards is not defined in this instrument, these will include quality of service, outage minimisation and treatment of vulnerable customers.
This instrument also applies Parts 1 and 2 of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, with some modifications to apply them to heat networks. These create the roles of consumer advocacy bodies for heat network consumers, providing access to advice. It also extends the Energy Ombudsman’s redress scheme to these consumers. The regulations automatically enrol all heat networks into the scheme.
The commencement dates for some of the provisions are slightly different. This is because delays to the passage of the Energy Act mean that Ofgem cannot commence regulatory activities before January 2026. However, to ensure that heat network consumers are afforded some support before then, we are establishing the roles of the consumer advocacy, advice and redress scheme providers earlier, in April 2025.
Finally, this instrument makes amendments to the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021, following extensive consultations with the Scottish Government. These amendments were made to ensure that Ofgem can regulate consistently across Great Britain.
My department has carried out two consultations to inform these regulations. The first consultation was on creating a market framework, in 2020; the second was on consumer protection, in 2023. Across both consultations, broad support for the structures created in this instrument was expressed. There is an ongoing consultation on the contents of the authorisation conditions, the outcome of which will be published before the authorisation regime commences.
In summary, this instrument represents the important first step in introducing comprehensive utility regulation to the heat network market. It lays the groundwork for a much fairer and just sector where heat network consumers are protected. We expect that this will provide a very good foundation for growing the sector in future. Putting consumer protection at the heart of our agenda is, we believe, a way to inspire public confidence. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to say that we are very supportive of the heat networks regulations before us. We broadly welcome these moves, which will start to regulate the heat networks market in England, Wales and Scotland.
These regulations will bring in some much-needed consumer controls and protections for the customers of heat networks. As the Minister said, heat networks are a form of deregulated energy distribution, where heating, cooling and hot water are circulated from central sources of generation to multiple endpoints of use. These can include domestic dwellings as well as public and commercial buildings.
Frankly, it is shocking that heat networks have been largely unregulated to date, despite being an essential utility that is presently used by nearly 500,000 households in the UK. The only legislation that currently applies specifically to heat networks are the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations, which apply only to metering and billing.
Heat network customers have significantly fewer rights and protections compared with any other energy utility customers in the UK. A report carried out by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2018 found that the existing market was, in effect, a monopoly. It raised concerns about customer protections as this market grows and moves forward. To date, this market has been allowed to operate mostly unregulated. In all other aspects, heat network customers have fewer rights and consumer protections than any other energy customers.
We welcome the Government’s intention to grow this share of the energy market and we recognise that the extension of heat networks can bring benefits to customers as we make the energy transition. We welcome the use of large-scale heat pumps and novel uses of waste heat, particularly in urban areas. The recently announced Bunhill 2 Energy Centre, which will provide heat and hot water to more than 1,350 homes, a school and two leisure centres in Islington, with waste heat from the London Underground, is an example of this type of innovation. In future, waste heat from industrial processes or data centres could be used to provide new forms of domestic heat and hot water from heat that is currently used just as a by-product and released into the atmosphere.
I note the Government’s stated intention to see that some 20% of the UK’s heat demand is met by heat networks by 2050. These regulations are about creating those basic consumer protections for heat network customers so that they have the same protections as everybody else. We want to make sure that this heat network market is fit for purpose so that it can grow and new customers can enter it. At the moment, the lack of consumer protection is the main barrier to growing this market, so we fully agree with the Government on these points. The lack of a properly regulated market needs to be resolved, and we support the Government doing so.
This instrument uses the powers in Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Energy Act 2023. It defines “regulated activities” in relation to heat networks and provides that anyone carrying out these activities needs an authorisation. Authorisations are to be granted by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, GEMA, and in practice by Ofgem. Ofgem will also have relevant enforcement powers and authorisations under the instrument. The regulations give it the powers to carry out this role, including investigative powers to collect information and issue different types of compliance notices, consumer redress orders and variable penalties.
What support will the Government give to very small heat networks and small community heat networks, particularly those with fewer than 50 members? Obviously, with new regulations there is some level of new burden, so are the Government aware of that and doing everything they can to support them in the transition?
As the Minister said, these regulations are only the first step in introducing a much fuller regulatory regime in the months and years to come. The authorisation regime run by Ofgem will come into force on 27 January 2026, but the provisions on consumer advocacy and the redress scheme to be operated by the Energy Ombudsman will come into force on 1 April 2025. How will those two systems work together? What will happen in that interregnum? Will the Minister and the Government ensure that, as they move from one regulatory regime to another, consumers will be protected through that transition?
I want to ask about historical legacy issues, in particular the money the Government gave to people in heat networks. Once these regulations come into force, what will happen to any legacy issues, conflicts or problems that pre-date these regulations?
Finally, in a statement in the other place it was made clear, as the Minister has said, that the Government want to grow heat networks to 20% by 2050. This has not had a lot of discussion in this place or the other place. We welcome this policy, but will the Minister take a moment to say how they plan to grow the heat network market? Beyond these regulations and making the regulatory framework work, what steps are planned to help increase the use of heat networks? What investment framework are the Government looking to use to help bring about more heat networks? What other mechanisms do they have in mind to help grow this market? How will it be reported on? What organisations will oversee the delivery of the increase in heat networks? Finally, does the Minister see a role for GB Energy in increasing the number of heat networks?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, these regulations represent a pivotal step in securing the long-term sustainability of heat networks across Great Britain. Heat networks are central to the UK’s decarbonisation strategy, particularly in densely populated areas, and are projected to supply 18% of the nation’s heat demand by 2050. Presently, more than 500,000 households and businesses are already connected to these networks, which, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, rightly observed, historically have operated without formal regulation.
The previous Conservative Government made notable progress in modernising this sector, investing £32 million through the heat network efficiency scheme. This funding allowed network operators to replace outdated and inefficient equipment, resulting in improved reliability and more efficient heating for consumers. Heat networks are expected to play a crucial role in reducing carbon emissions, particularly in areas where individual heating solutions are less feasible, such as, as the Minister suggested, dense urban environments.
The measures in the SI seek to establish a structure of regulation for the heat networks market designed to ensure that heat networks operate in a way that benefits the consumer. The key provisions include: the licensing of heat suppliers; stronger consumer protections; regulatory oversight from Ofgem; and performance reviews on data and reporting. Additionally, the regulations will encourage market development to foster innovation, competition and the integration of renewable energy solutions, which will be essential for meeting the UK’s climate goals. These provisions are designed to create a fairer, more transparent and consumer-friendly heat network sector, while supporting the transition to clean energy, making it a central pillar in the Government’s wider decarbonisation agenda.
Notwithstanding the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the lack of regulation in this market, Energy UK has acknowledged that the current level of regulation is lighter than that for gas and electricity, which is understandable given the market’s current stage and variability. However, it also recognised the need for regulation to become more robust as the market matures. While the measures to encourage investment in the sector are welcomed, Energy UK advocates for further efforts to promote wider connections to heat networks and enhance investment, particularly in underserved areas.
Despite the positive progress these regulations represent, several challenges remain. On consumer protection, how can we ensure that vulnerable consumers are adequately safeguarded and fully informed of their rights? Regarding investment and market growth, what additional steps can be taken to incentivise further investment in heat networks and ensure that the sector remains competitive? Could we see measures such as tax incentives or grants for businesses in local authorities looking to develop new networks or to expand existing ones? As the market evolves, how do we maintain the right balance between regulation and innovation—fostering growth without stifling creativity and new ideas? It is essential that these regulations allow space for technological breakthroughs and market experimentation. Finally, given that heat networks often operate as local monopolies, how can we ensure fair competition and prevent consumers being locked into poor-value contracts? The introduction of transparency measures, dispute resolution mechanisms and regulatory enforcement will be essential in addressing these concerns.
In conclusion, these regulations are a vital step in creating a fair, efficient and sustainable heat network market. They aim to protect consumers, encourage investment and support our climate objectives. As we move forward, we must ensure that these regulations continue to adapt to meet the evolving needs of the sector. To that end, ongoing consultation with stakeholders, consumers and innovators will be critical to ensuring that the heat network market thrives, while the interests of the public are protected.
I end with a plea to the Minister to keep a watchful eye on Ofgem, which has seen its workload increase exponentially over the last few years. I hope that his department continues to monitor Ofgem’s increasing responsibilities and to ensure that its resources are increased to match.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, could I ask the Minister one question? I apologise to him: I realised this was being done today only about 20 minutes ago.
A significant number of existing heat networks are run by local authorities or hived-off organisations owned by local authorities. The aim of this legislation, as far as consumers are concerned, I have strongly supported for a long time, including during the proceedings of the Energy Act. I am very much in favour of consumer protection and consumer redress as spelled out in part of these regulations, but I have been told elsewhere that those protections and certainly those forms of redress are different if they are for consumers of heat networks run by local authorities, compared with a private sector or mixed ownership of the heat network. I would like to know whether that is true in principle. If it is at all true, perhaps the Minister could write to me and explain what the situation is.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short but none the less interesting and, I think, important debate. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and my noble friend Lord Whitty have suggested, the development of heat networks is a very important one, and we want to see considerable progress over the next few years.
I also think it is important that the sector itself has broadly supported the regulatory proposals. I believe, and I think it was explicit in what the noble Baroness said, that that confidence will allow them to invest in the future and develop the market, which is what we earnestly hope for and wish to see.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, I accept that this is another responsibility that is being placed on Ofgem. I have had quite considerable experience in dealing with regulators in my time in government. I think Ofgem discharges its responsibilities very seriously, and I have confidence in its ability to discharge this new responsibility. In a sense, it is simply extending the principles of the current regulation of gas and electricity to network heating, so it is something I am confident it will be able to do.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I make it clear that from April this year, heat network consumers will also be able to seek redress from the Energy Ombudsman scheme and, through Citizens Advice and Consumer Scotland, will have access to advice and advocacy services afforded to the gas and electricity markets. In answer to the noble Baroness, we think this will be particularly helpful to the vulnerable customers she mentioned.
The noble Earl asked me about retrospection. The new arrangements will not be able to be applied retrospectively. The fact he raised this shows why it is so important that we get a move on in introducing these new regulations, and how customers were at risk under the previous arrangements.
As far as fair competition is concerned, again, I very much accept that point. Indeed, this work arose from the Competition and Markets Authority, and Ofgem is well used to intervening in areas where it feels that competition is not being fairly adopted. I am confident that it can deal with that. The data gathered by Ofgem—and, of course, it will have this ability to require data to be provided to it—will enable it to identify emerging issues and trends and adapt regulation as the heat sector develops and grows. As I see it, regulation will be proportionate and organic, marching in step with the way the market itself develops.
I inform the Committee that we will be introducing further regulations this year: first, to introduce protections against insolvency and debt management; and, secondly, to create an entity to implement mandatory technical standards. Putting those together will provide the foundation for this market to grow in future. Market growth seems to me to be a fundamental question, so we are working to expand the existing heat network market through capital funding via the green heat network fund, which will establish heat network zones in key locations. This will allow heat network developers to deploy large-scale district heat networks in dense urban locations, where, as I have said already, they are best suited to provide low-carbon heat.
On support for smaller heat networks, my understanding is that, first, Ofgem will take a proportionate and outcomes-based approach to regulation, providing guidance and supporting small operations.
To come back to the legacy issue and add a bit more information, on legacy issues with existing heat networks, we will take action to guide heat networks through legacy challenges that they face with existing heat networks, with remedial works implemented over time. One advantage of giving authorisation to current schemes is that, once they have been given an authorisation, they then come under these regulations. In one way, if there are pre-existing issues, at some point they will be authorised, and then they can be dealt with under these regulations. So, in fact, although strictly speaking it cannot be retrospectively applied, I hope that that can bring comfort to customers who are really concerned about the situation as it is.
I understand also, in relation to vulnerable customers, that a priority services register will enable vulnerable consumers to access additional support relating to their heat network, including receiving communications in an accessible format, assistance reading their meters and the ability to nominate another person to act on their behalf when dealing with their heat provider.
In relation to the point raised about regulation and customer prices, Ofgem will have direct powers to intervene on prices with a general authorisation condition, to set prices fairly, with data-driven interventions proceeding from January 2026.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lord Whitty, first, I acknowledge the work of local authorities of in some ways even pioneering district heating systems. My noble friend may know that in the heart of the city of Birmingham we had a district heating system that ran right through the city centre, and we can see the potential area. I have also been informed about the South Westminster Area Network, which is being established through close working between Westminster Council and Westminster business improvement districts. That is a new approach to procurement; it took four months to bring forward a partner, which is much quicker than for many of the schemes and developments.
The point that my noble friend raised is a new one to me, and I hope that he does not mind me just checking it out and coming back to him on it. On the face of it, it seems puzzling, but I think that I need to find out some more information about it. But I take his point that we want local authorities to continue to take a lead in developing some of these network heating schemes and, clearly, the public must have confidence in how that is done.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me about Great British Energy. He will know that we believe that, in the development of local plans and the role of GBE in doing that, there is clearly potential to give encouragement to community energy schemes and network schemes. I cannot really say any more about that, but I shall draw those remarks to the attention of the start-up chair of Great British Energy.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I should just clarify my remarks about Ofgem. In no way was I intending to imply that its work was anything other than exemplary—I was just commenting on the increasing workload that we are putting on Ofgem.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I did not take it as a criticism at all. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we are asking Ofgem to do a lot—but her experience and mine is that it is very capable of doing that.
Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 12th 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, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 3 December 2024 and confirm the final policy position for simpler recycling in England. For too long, households in England have been presented with a muddled and confusing patchwork of approaches to bin collections. The Government’s simpler recycling reforms will ensure that across England people will be able to recycle the same materials, whether at home, work or school, putting an end to confusion over what can and cannot be recycled in different parts of the country.
We are all responsible for addressing our country’s waste problem, and we know that citizens want to play their part and recycle as much as possible but that they are frustrated by the limited and confusing recycling services. Through these reforms, we are empowering citizens to turn their good intentions into simple, effective actions. Simpler recycling is one of the three core pillars of the Government’s ambitious collection and packaging reforms, alongside the forthcoming deposit return scheme and the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging. Together, we estimate that the collection and packaging reforms will support 21,000 jobs in our nations and regions and stimulate more than £10 billion of investment in recycling capability over the next decade. The reforms are also estimated to deliver carbon savings of more than 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035, valued at over £10 billion in carbon benefits.
Since 2015, household recycling rates in England have plateaued at around 45%, decreasing to 43% in 2022, so we urgently need to take steps to improve the nation’s recycling performance. Simpler recycling will end the postcode lottery of bin collections in England by ensuring that all households and workplaces can recycle the same core waste streams: plastic, metal, glass, paper and card, and food waste, with garden waste for households upon request. Simpler recycling will improve services for householders by introducing weekly food collections for all households in England and kerbside plastic film collections. This will make a significant contribution towards meeting our ambition to recycle 65% of municipal waste by 2035 and our target to reduce residual waste generated per capita by 50% by 2042 compared with 2019 levels. Furthermore, these changes represent a critical first step towards meeting the commitment in our manifesto to transition to a resource-resilient, productive circular economy which delivers long-term, sustainable growth.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the exemptions introduced by the instrument. The legislation to implement the core legislative requirements for simpler recycling was introduced by the previous Government through the Environment Act 2021. This legislation has already come into force; in practice, this means that simpler recycling will automatically come into effect, beginning in March 2025 for workplaces and March 2026 for households.
Sections 45A, 45AZA and 45AZB of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Environment Act 2021, require that the six recyclable waste streams—plastic, glass, metal, paper and card, food waste, and garden waste—are collected separately, alongside residual waste. The legislation states that local authorities and other waste collectors can make use of an exception to collect these recyclable materials together, if it is not technically nor economically practicable to collect them separately or if there is no significant environmental benefit from doing so. However, if using an exception, waste collectors must produce a written assessment to record the justification.
This instrument sets sensible exemptions from this condition, allowing any combination of the recyclable waste streams of metal, glass and plastic to be collected together, at all times. This exemption applies to collections from both households and workplaces. It also allows food waste and garden waste to be collected together from households, at all times. Waste collectors will not have to justify co-collection of any of these materials, as they would have to under the primary legislation as it stands.
We have taken this decision because the Secretary of State has determined, based on the evidence, that co-collection of those materials does not affect the potential for those materials to be recycled. We will not include paper and card in the exemption. This must, by default, be collected separately from the other dry recyclable waste streams. This applies to collections from both households and workplaces. This is because paper and card are particularly vulnerable to cross-contamination from food and liquid commonly found on other recycling materials, which could significantly reduce the potential for collected material to be recycled.
However, we want to provide flexibility for local councils and other waste collectors. Where waste collectors consider that it is not technically or economically practicable to collect paper and card separately, or where there is no significant environmental benefit from doing so, they may collect paper and card together with other dry recycling, if they provide a written assessment to document the justification.
Waste collectors will decide where an exception applies. There is no need to request permission from Defra or the Environment Agency to co-collect paper and card where an exception applies. We have published guidance for local councils and other waste collectors to support their decision-making regarding the co-collection of paper and card with other dry recyclable materials, where appropriate. All exemptions will be automatic and local councils and other waste collectors will not need to apply for them. They will need to produce only a written assessment to co-collect paper and card with other recyclable materials. To reiterate, without this instrument, they would have had to produce written assessments to co-collect any combination of recyclable materials.
These exemptions mean that the new default requirement for most households will be four containers: for food waste, mixed with garden waste if appropriate; paper and card; all other dry recyclable materials, these being plastic, metal and glass; and non-recyclable waste. As we are maintaining flexibility, councils and other waste collectors may choose to separate materials further if this suits local need. We believe that this is a sensible, straightforward approach to the collection of recycling for every household and workplace in England.
This instrument will also mean that micro-firms—workplaces with fewer than 10 full-time equivalent employees—will not need to arrange for the recycling of the core recyclable waste streams, as required by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, until 31 March 2027. Without this exemption, under the primary legislation, micro-firms would have had to meet the simpler recycling requirements at the same time as all other businesses—by 31 March 2025. We recognise that micro-firms, of which there are an estimated 1.8 million, may face more challenges introducing the changes, so this phase-in period provides additional time for them to prepare.
These are substantial reforms. We will support local councils and workplaces to deliver these new requirements in the most cost-efficient way. Right now, we are focused on raising awareness and providing guidance, including webinars and toolkits, for both local councils and workplaces on how to deliver efficient services. For local councils, we are working to distribute funding for food waste collections as soon as possible; we have already provided £258 million of capital funding, and we will also provide resource and ongoing funding. We will continue to engage with stakeholders in order to understand the challenges that they are facing and to ensure the successful delivery of simpler recycling.
In conclusion, the need for simpler recycling has never been clearer. By simplifying what households and workplaces across England can recycle, these long-awaited reforms will jump-start England’s faltering recycling rate, maximising environmental benefits, ensuring that we keep our precious resources in use for longer, and unleashing investment and economic opportunities. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on introducing the regulations before us, which I broadly support. I will direct my questions to two specific areas.
The Minister mentioned that guidance will be given to councils on the separate collections. My concern is around what guidance will be given by councils to households in particular. I remember chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee at the time of the “horsegate” scandal, where people found that they were eating prepared foods—usually lasagne—made from horsemeat, not beef. It ended, I think, a lot of people’s desire to carry on eating these pre-prepared, highly expensive, undernutritious, highly salted foods. However, if you are a householder and you have one of these trays in front of you, it normally goes, I assume, in your food waste because it is highly contaminated—or the packet that the lasagne I have eaten was in will have to be rinsed sufficiently to ensure that it is not contaminated.
Who is going to guide households on what to do with such prepared food, where it is difficult to get rid of the residual food waste? How does the Minister intend to ensure that, if it goes into the paper recycling, which will now be a separate collection, this will not lead to greater contamination? How will guidance be given to households to ensure that there is no cross-contamination? How does the Minister plan to ensure that there will be no increase in cross-contamination because of the contaminated stuff going into the wrong recycling bin or plastic bag—whatever it is called—that we are going to be issued with?
I would also like to press the Minister on ensuring that a strong message will go out from the Government to councils that there will continue to be a mandatory weekly food waste collection. Anything less frequent than that will lead to vermin and a lot of highly undesirable threats to households, through no fault of their own.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I made my maiden speech last week simply to make sure that I could speak in today’s debate. I congratulate the Minister on bringing these regulations forward; it is fair to say, I think, that they have been a long time in gestation. I recall, back in 2018, the resources and waste strategy setting out the idea of trying to get consistent recycling. I have to say, when I became the Secretary of State a while ago, I worked quite hard on this issue to try to get simpler recycling to achieve the outcomes that the Minister has set out.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument, which I broadly support. The Environment Act 2021 made provision for household waste to be collected for recycling as one of the main planks of its purpose. We are four years on from that Act. The collection of separated waste on a countrywide basis was moving slowly towards completion at the time of the general election. I congratulate the Government on moving this issue forward and not leaving it on the back burner. I have received a brief from the Green Alliance and seen the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The instrument explains very well what will happen. English waste collection authorities and other waste collectors are to collect plastic, glass and metal recyclable waste streams together in all circumstances and not just where an exception applies. Paper and card will be collected separately from other recyclables to avoid cross-contamination. Food waste will be collected with garden waste; again, not just where an exception applies. This decision is not in line with international best practice nor government evidence. There will be provision for an exception to be applied to card and paper. This will be done by a written assessment. This is not robust enough and is not likely to lead to increased recycling rates generally, as paper and card will be contaminated when mixed with plastic, glass and metal, some of which will have food residues still present. The Minister has already referred to this.
The Government have decided that it is acceptable to collect glass, plastic and metal together and that this will not have a significant impact on the ability of the materials to be recycled. No evidence is provided that this is the case. However, there is evidence that 16.6% of materials at recovery facilities are rejected due to contamination. While the contamination rate for fully separated collected recycling is much lower, the co-collected material contamination rate is 13.5%, compared with just 4% for collections of recyclables kept separate. WRAP suggests this could be as low as 1.6%.
The Environment Act 2021 was clear that recyclable waste was to be collected separately so that recycling rates could increase. Recycling rates have not increased from 44%-45% since 2015, as the Minister referred to. The country therefore missed its target of 50% recycling by 2020 and the target of 65% by 2035 looks extremely unlikely. The public care deeply about the hazard that waste causes to wildlife, domestic animals, biodiversity and our general enjoyment of our environment.
Plastic pollution in particular is damaging our bird and animal species, with reports of plastic in birds’ nests and hedgehogs getting discarded strimmer thread caught around their legs. If recycling rates are not increased, our reputation in the light of more efficient schemes in neighbouring countries will be damaged and the confidence of the public will be further dented. If the public believe that, although they are keen to assist with recycling, a proportion of this is still going to landfill, they will be disheartened and stop bothering to separate their waste.
According to the Green Alliance, the cost of contamination to UK recyclers is more than £50 million a year. I lived in a council area that for many years collected weekly food waste and recycling and separated paper and card, cans and metal, glass and plastic, some in bins and some in bags. The residual used to be collected at two weeks and then moved to three weeks; there was no problem. The system should not get bogged down in the number of bins that people may have to have. If recycling is carried out correctly, the residual waste should automatically reduce.
I return to my comments about evidence. Is the Minister able to say what evidence there is that contamination will not occur if the waste streams for recycling are collected together? The original impact assessment noted that mixing food and garden waste together affects quantity and quality, which leads to
“lower amounts of food waste being collected and less efficient treatment through in-vessel composting compared to anaerobic digestion, which produces energy and organic soil improver or fertiliser”.
According to WRAP research in the Government’s impact assessment,
“separate weekly collections of food waste can capture twice as much material per year compared to mixed food and garden waste”.
Food waste makes up nearly a third of residual waste. Providing separate collection options is the best way in which to achieve the legally binding target in the Environment Act on waste minimisation. The Environment Act’s legally binding targets are not to be discarded without serious consideration of the implications for our wildlife and biodiversity.
Is the Minister able to share the Government’s evidence on what led to the exemption for separate waste collections and to what extent the Government expect local authorities to make use of the exemption? Cost alone should not be the overriding consideration. There has been extensive consultation with the industry on this matter, and with the English waste collection and disposal authorities and the Environment Agency. Some 76% of respondents agreed with the proposed exemption to allow collection of all dry recyclable waste streams in all circumstances.
Agreement by the industry does not automatically mean that recycling rates will increase. I note that Ipsos has been commissioned to do an evaluation of Defra’s resources and waste policy, including simpler recycling, over a five-year period from February 2022. We are three years into this evaluation. Is there any mid-term update on how it is going?
While I congratulate the Minister and the Government on taking recycling collections forward, I am disappointed that we had static recycling rates at 44%-45% for 10 years under the previous Administration. I am not convinced that the scheme now being introduced will move us forward to the 65% needed by 2035. I appreciate that local authorities and the industries will have to amend the way that they collect and deal with various waste streams, but they had since 2021 to think about this and get ready. I fear that the proposals in this SI are not stringent enough to make the difference that is needed for the sake of our country, its people and its wildlife.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, if it is Monday in Grand Committee, it must be recycling day. Generally, I am very supportive of these regulations, if they bring about some standardisation in our bin collections around the country, but they raise several important questions about how the changes will be implemented and the potential long-term impact. Permitting English waste authorities to co-collect dry recyclable waste streams—plastic, glass and metal—in a single container is eminently sensible; so, too, is keeping paper and card separate. I have concerns about amalgamating garden and food waste, and I shall come to that later.
The new default requirement for most households and workplaces will be four containers: one for residual, non-recyclable waste; one for food waste mixed with garden waste; one for paper and card; and one for all other dry recyclable materials, including plastic, metal and glass. Although these exemptions are a sensible and pragmatic solution to logistical challenges, they raise a crucial question: how will the quality of recyclable materials be affected by the co-collection of plastic, glass and metal? Co-collecting different materials might cause contamination, making it harder to separate and process them effectively later in the recycling process. I hope that the Government will make it clear to local authorities that we expect co-collection to increase recycling for each of the co-collected products and that they must avoid contamination.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lord, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate today and for their support for this statutory instrument. I particularly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to Defra debates in this House. She brings huge knowledge and experience, and I look forward to working with her.
In response to the last question, I will start with cross-contamination because all noble Lords mentioned it in relation to the exemptions impacting material quality. To reiterate, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the impact of contamination is not significant in terms of the overall impact on the ability of materials to be recycled when co-collecting plastic, metal and glass. As I said, separate collection of paper and card will be required by default due to the potential impact of co-collection on material quality. Waste collectors will be able to co-collect paper and card with other materials, where justified on technical, economic or environmental grounds. We are going for an evidence-based pragmatic approach to ensure a suitable balance to support environmental outcomes, while providing local flexibility and convenience for households while at the same time looking to increase recycling rates.
Where waste has been separately collected, Regulation 14 of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 requires waste collectors to ensure that it is not then mixed with other materials with different properties unless certain exemptions apply; for example, if doing so would not damage material quality. This will ensure that contamination of paper and card is minimal once it has been collected.
The number of councils likely to use an exemption to co-collect paper and card was mentioned. We recognise that there are various technical, economic and environmental circumstances in which separate collection is not practical. In such cases, waste collectors will retain flexibility to co-collect paper and card with other dry recyclable materials but must produce a written assessment to record this justification, as I mentioned earlier.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked what evidence there is to support the paper and card decision. We reviewed extensive stakeholder feedback and evidence about plans for collection of dry materials and the Secretary of State concluded that there is some evidence to indicate that simplifying the number of bins can help participation in recycling. But evidence also suggests that systems with one mixed dry recycling bin have the highest levels of contamination, which would affect the recycling rate. Contaminated materials may be rejected after collection if it is not economically viable to reprocess them. As has been mentioned, paper and card are particularly vulnerable to cross-contamination from food and liquid, commonly found in other recycling materials. We do not want that to happen because it significantly reduces the quality of collected materials. That is how that decision was taken.
On monitoring and evaluating, we are committed to monitoring the success of the simpler recycling project and have commissioned Ipsos, in partnership with Ricardo and Technopolis, to carry out an evaluation of Defra’s resources and waste policy programme, including simpler recycling, over a five-year period that started in February 2022.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about micro-firms and whether the two-year delay would affect recycling rates. We are proceeding with the exemption to allow micro-firms until 31 March 2027, as I mentioned, but also to allow them to implement in the most sustainable and cost-efficient way. Including micro-firms in scope of this policy is estimated to increase the non-household municipal recycling rate by 9.3 percentage points, as micro-firms are responsible for around 30% of that waste.
The noble Lord also asked about support for micro-firms. We are working with WRAP and representative voices from each sector to develop sector-specific guidance for the Business of Recycling website. It is designed to support businesses as they transition to compliant waste collection services. Four sector-specific guides—on retail and wholesale, hospitality, health and social care, and offices—have been published so far. Three more—on food manufacturing, education, and transport and storage—will be published shortly. We are also working to develop guidance on how to optimise waste services to minimise the cost burden where possible and, in some cases, to maximise any potential cost savings.
Noble Lords asked about local authorities and their preparedness. Councils have been planning to implement simpler recycling since the legislation was passed back in 2021 with the Environment Act. We have already provided £258 million of capital funding to support this and will shortly confirm resource funding for the 2024-25 financial year.
Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, this statutory instrument amends the Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules 2009 by changing the rank requirements for the president of a court martial board where the defendant is a very senior officer. Before I set out the changes that this statutory instrument will make, it may be useful to the Committee for me to provide some context regarding the role of the court martial board in the service justice system.
The UK’s separate system of military justice dates back to the Bill of Rights 1689. Having a separate service justice system enables the comprehensive system of command and discipline on which operational effectiveness is based to be enforced swiftly and efficiently. The service justice system reflects the need to maintain discipline through the sentences which can be imposed by the commanding officer at summary hearings, or in the court martial for more serious offences. The average number of courts martial a year is just over 400.
The constitution of the court martial for trial proceedings comprises the judge advocate and a board of lay members. Depending on the offence or offences being tried, the board will consist of three to six lay members. Their role is similar, but not identical, to that of a jury in the Crown Court in England and Wales, as they are solely responsible for deciding the guilt or innocence of a defendant at contested trial proceedings, based on the evidence presented to them.
The constitution of a court martial board depends on whether the defendant is a serviceperson, ex-serviceperson or civilian. Where the defendant is a civilian and not an ex-serviceperson, the proceedings are usually placed before an entirely civilian board, unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify a mixed or service board. Where the defendant is an ex-serviceperson, the court may consist of either civilian lay members or service lay members or be a mixed board in each situation.
The constitution of the court martial will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. At the sentencing stage, unless the trial was conducted wholly with a civilian board, where the judge advocate would sentence alone, the role of the lay member differs significantly from that of a jury in the Crown Court, as each lay member and the judge advocate has a vote on sentence, although in the event of a tie the judge advocate has a casting vote.
When some or all of the members of the court martial board are service personnel, the president of the board is the senior officer. The role of the president includes that of the foreperson of a jury. They will chair the discussions during deliberations on the verdicts and ensure that all members have an equal voice and one vote. They also have additional functions, which include protecting the integrity of the deliberative process by ensuring compliance by all members with the court martial guidance issued by the Judge Advocate-General and the Military Court Service director.
However, it is important to note that, despite the title of the president of the board, the judge advocate presides over the court. An overriding principle is that the constitution of the court should be fair, with lay members drawn at random from the widest potential pool. Crucially, this includes the deconfliction process to identify whether any member knows another member, a defendant or a witness, or has served in the same unit as the defendant since the date of the alleged offence.
A recent case highlighted a risk to this overriding principle of fairness. The court administration unit initially encountered difficulties in finding a president and a board to try a case where the defendant was a major general. As a senior officer, he was obviously well known, and his potential character witnesses included serving and retired OF-9 grade officers who were also known to many in the pool of potential board members. By the time of the trial, however, the defendant had left the Army, so the use of civilians as members of the board was permitted. Nevertheless, that would not have been possible in law had the defendant still been serving.
Although cases involving defendants who are very senior officers is rare in the UK—this was the first OF-7 officer to be tried in approximately 200 years—it is sensible for the service justice system to be ready and able to deal with these cases if and when they occur. This statutory instrument addresses this issue by amending Rule 34 of the 2009 court martial rules, which sets out the requirements for the president of the board. Currently, Rule 34 requires that, where the defendant is of rank OF-6—that is, a commodore, a brigadier or an air commodore—or above, the president of the board must be of a superior rank to the defendant. That can include the president holding the same rank as the defendant if the president is more senior to the defendant within that rank.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and comprehensive introduction to this statutory instrument, which makes, as he said, a small change to the existing system. However, the fact that this statutory instrument comes before your Lordships’ Committee today provokes me to rise with a single question for the Minister: does not the fact that this small change is being brought here today mean that the Government are prepared to look at bigger changes in future and are looking at the entire system of military justice?
I ask that specific question because, earlier today, I was at an event with the Child Rights International Network, the Centre for Military Justice and Salute Her UK. The Child Rights International Network was expressing great concern about events at the Army Foundation College and the level of offences, particularly sexual offences, there. More broadly, there was a sense at the meeting that the service complaints and justice systems in the military are broken; that units are marking their own homework; and that there are serious problems with the investigation of rape and sexual assault cases, as well as with the experiences of black and racially minoritised personnel.
I have no objection to the statutory instrument before us but, at that meeting, something was said that I found very disturbing. A representative of female personnel serving in the military and veterans said that they felt as though they had gone back to 2015 in terms of the attitude of military justice, particularly towards female victims of potential abuses in the military. Can the Minister assure me that the Government are prepared to, and will, look much more broadly at the whole system?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, when we get to questions of military justice, I normally rely on my good friend, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, to speak on these matters because he is far more expert than me. So, I am grateful that the Minister gave us the background to this case. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I suggest that we accept this amendment as it stands, clearly, but I have a couple of questions, one of which is quite close to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Is there a danger that officers of a certain rank will feel unable to act as robustly as they might otherwise do if the officer at the court martial is senior to them?
There is a real question around whether service justice is doing what it needs to do. Clearly, the person facing the court martial needs to be treated fairly, but the Armed Forces still have questions to answer. If we look back to the Atherton report in the previous Parliament, when Sarah Atherton serving personnel and former personnel to come and give evidence—very much with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—we see that that was important. If courts martial are being populated by serving personnel, will people feel that they can really act as judge and jury in the way they need to be able to do?
I have another related question. It is noted, in the Explanatory Notes, that part of the issue is a lack of senior officers. As His Majesty’s Armed Forces shrink—the size of the Army, in particular, has shrunk—will the problem get worse rather than better? Do we need to think about how to reform military justice, in a wider sense, to ensure that the best practices are in place?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024 aim to address challenges in forming court martial boards when senior officers are involved. A court martial consists of a judge and a board of military personnel, similar to a jury in civilian courts. The board determines the innocence or guilt of the defendant and, if they are convicted, assists the judge in deciding the sentence.
Currently, at least one lay member of the board must be an officer who is qualified to be the president of the board, and this president must rank higher than the defendant—particularly when the defendant holds lower ranks. However, in cases where a senior officer is being prosecuted, it may be difficult to find a suitable president who is not personally acquainted with the defendant. Although these cases are rare, the Government have recognised the importance of ensuring that the service justice system is equipped to handle such situations as and when they arise.
This instrument aims to modify these rules to extend the pool of eligible officers who can serve as president, particularly when the defendant may hold a senior rank, such as OF 6 or higher. The primary purpose of this statutory instrument is to improve the flexibility and functionality of the court martial system, particularly in cases involving senior officers. By allowing officers of at least rank OF 6—such as a commodore, brigadier or air commodore—to serve as president when the defendant holds the same rank, this amendment addresses the challenges of forming a court martial board for high-ranking individuals.
Currently, one of the main obstacles when prosecuting senior officers is finding a qualified president who is not personally acquainted with the defendant. In rare cases, the existing requirement that the president must be a higher rank than the defendant, particularly in cases involving senior officers, has proven difficult due to limited personnel who meet the criteria and do not have prior relationships with the defendant. This amendment provides greater flexibility in the composition of the court martial board and ensures that it remains capable of fulfilling its role in these uncommon but crucial cases.
The change also seeks to ensure the court martial system’s adaptability, particularly given the evolving nature of military justice. Although such high-profile cases involving senior officers are rare, it is essential that the service justice system is prepared to handle them effectively as and when they arise. By allowing a broader pool of officers to serve as president, the amendment reduces the potential for delays and disruptions, ensuring that justice can be administered without unnecessary obstacles. This amendment applies across the UK, the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories—except Gibraltar—thus ensuring its relevance and consistency under service law, regardless of where the personnel involved are stationed.
While this amendment is largely viewed as a practical and necessary update to the rules, several important questions remain regarding its broader implications. First, how has the Minister assessed the potential impact of this change on the impartiality of court martial boards, especially in cases involving senior officers with extensive personal or professional connections to the board members? Secondly, what specific measures will be put in place to ensure transparency, avoid conflicts of interest when selecting presidents for cases involving high-ranking officers and ensure the integrity of the trial process?
In considering this amendment, how does the Minister plan to address the potential for further systemic reforms in the service justice system, particularly with the upcoming Armed Forces Commissioner Bill?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for their contributions and general support for the change that we are making.
I have a couple of points. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I agree with one thing and fundamentally disagree with another, as she probably expected. This usually happens in our dialogue, but we get on well—up to a point. There is disagreement on her first point, but no disagreement on the need for fairness in the way the service justice system operates. We have seen, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, the various reviews that have taken place and the changes that need to occur.
I will deal with this before I come to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on which I slightly take issue. She knows that serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and rape should be dealt with in the civilian justice system. There has been discussion about that. With respect to that proposal, the MoD is considering the current model of concurrent jurisdiction between the civilian and service justice systems for serious offences such as rape. That specifically answers those points about serious offences that the noble Baroness made; there is ongoing discussion and thought being given to how that may or may not be taken forward.
There is a debate about 16 and 17 year-olds being able to join the military. Let me say where the Government and a large number of people stand on this. It is common to call them “child soldiers”, but the noble Baroness knows that 16 and 17 year-olds are not allowed into conflict. That is the case. With respect to Harrogate, she also knows that some cases have been documented and dealt with, and should there be any cases of bullying or inappropriate behaviour, they will always be dealt with as it is unacceptable. The Army thinks that; we all think that that is totally unacceptable.
I fundamentally disagree with the noble Baroness—this is my opinion, and many will take issue with this both within and between parties—on her point about 16 and 17 year-olds. I have been to Harrogate, as I think the noble Baroness has. She has not. I thought she has, and I apologise. Places such as Harrogate and others, but mainly Harrogate, give 16 and 17 year-olds, many of whom are from the most difficult circumstances, an opportunity that would not be available to many of them. I am not defending any bullying or inappropriate behaviour, but the only way that some 16 and 17 year-olds from some of the most difficult and challenging circumstances have ever got anywhere is because of the training, discipline and structure that were given to them when they were 16 and 17 years old. That is not everybody’s view. Some people fundamentally disagree with it, but I will argue that with people time and time again. That is a really important point.
The noble Baroness disagrees. This is a clash of view and of opinion that may—to go on a little about this—be worth a debate in the Chamber, Moses Room or wherever because it is fundamental. The Government, many of us and I stand firmly behind the principle of giving opportunity to 16 and 17 year-olds through the military in an appropriate way. Therefore, I would be pleased to lead a debate on behalf of those who think that we should take this forward. Notwithstanding that, one out of two points is not too bad. These are serious points: there was the point about the service justice system and the changes that may or may not be needed, and we have our differences on Harrogate.
Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gustafsson
That the Grand Committee do consider the Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that, since 2022, the UK has kept a beneficial ownership register of overseas entities owning property in the UK, which I will refer to as the ROE. The regulations that we are debating today will strengthen the transparency of trust information on the ROE, improving transparency around the control and ownership of land.
The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which I will refer to as the 2022 Act, created the legislative basis for the ROE. The ROE requires overseas entities owning or buying property in the UK to give information about their beneficial owners and/or managing directors to Companies House. Currently, there is no public access to information on trusts related to overseas entities on the ROE, other than the name of the trustee. This approach protects the right to privacy for those who operate trust structures for a variety of legitimate reasons. However, the Government understand the concerns around the use of trusts to facilitate economic crime, partly because their anonymity makes assets easier to hide; that is why we have brought these measures forward for your Lordships’ consideration.
I will now set out the two measures contained in the regulations. First, they will enable anyone to apply to access trust information held on the ROE, through applications to Companies House. This marks a significant step forward in transparency, empowering the public and civil society to scrutinise trust beneficiaries on the ROE. Applicants must provide their personal information; the name of the trust related to the relevant protected trust; and the overseas entity’s name and ID.
Applicants seeking trust information related to minors or more than one overseas entity in a single application, also known as bulk access, must show a legitimate interest in the requested information. This safeguard protects personal information while providing that critical information is available to those with a valid need, such as investigative journalists. For an applicant to demonstrate that they have a legitimate interest, they must: show that they are investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or the breaching of sanctions; provide a statement that they are requesting the disclosure to further that investigation; and provide a statement of how they are planning to use the information disclosed to them. If no such interest can be demonstrated, the registrar of Companies House may withhold some or all information. The registrar will notify the applicant of the decision with reasons. If a legitimate interest can be demonstrated, the registrar will release any unprotected information.
As an additional safeguard, the registrar will have the discretion to impose conditions under which the trust information is disclosed, such as restricting its use or further disclosure. Failure to comply with these conditions will be a criminal offence. The registrar may also refuse an application where that disclosure may prejudice an ongoing criminal investigation or adversely affect national security, or where the trust is a pension scheme.
I turn to the second measure. This involves provisions for the protection of sensitive information, which will come into force before the disclosure provisions go live. We are expanding the category of individuals who can apply to Companies House to have their information protected. This ensures that those connected to a trust—settlors, trustees and beneficiaries—who are at risk of violence or harm can have their information protected. Those who are aged under 18 or lack capacity can also apply to have their information protected.
The protection measures will come into force on 28 February this year, while the disclosure provisions will come into force on 31 August. This will allow time for those who are eligible to apply to Companies House for protection. An application for protection does not exempt an overseas entity from full compliance with the requirements of the ROE in general, such as the update duty and filing with Companies House. The registrar will still be able to use their general information-sharing power to share protected information with law enforcement agencies and public authorities for purposes connected to the exercise of their functions.
These regulations further the Government’s mission to improve the transparency around beneficial ownership, driving confidence for investment in the UK and exposing bad actors who seek to take advantage of our open economy. I urge noble Lords to support these regulations and beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her post, as it is the first time I have been across the table from her. She was not here when we were debating the two economic crime Bills, but I am sure she is aware that the subject of the use of trusts to obscure the beneficial ownership of UK property on the ROE and obscure ownership of UK companies, which this instrument does not cover, was one of the major areas of our debates at the time.
These regulations are a small step to improve transparency around the use of trusts to own UK property. I understand the balance around the protection of minors and others at risk, so I welcome the regulations, but slightly question how much difference they will make in practice. At least the progress is in the right direction.
I will ask a couple of questions about some general, related areas, if I may. I could not resist this opportunity. First, the latest information that I could find indicates that the true identity of the beneficial owner of UK properties owned by overseas entities—there are 152,000-odd—is not published in about 70% of cases, at the moment. For about 35% of cases, the true beneficial ownership is not known even to law enforcement agencies. There may be a number of reasons for that, including simple non-compliance, which accounts for about 10% in the last numbers I saw; the use of opaque corporate structures, which claim no beneficial ownership, or the use of nominees; and the use of trusts, which is the biggest one, particularly in our overseas territories. Transparency International’s latest numbers identify about £6 billion worth of suspicious transactions in UK property coming through our overseas territories, using trusts.
Could the noble Baroness provide up-to-date statistics on both level of compliance with the rules and the number of properties where the ultimate beneficial ownership remains unknown, for whatever reason? I am happy for her to write, if necessary, if she does not have the numbers to hand. Is she happy with the level of identification of beneficial ownership as it stands? What impact does she think these regulations will have on that? What further steps are planned to make sure that we know who beneficially owns the properties? In particular, what plans does she have to make the information from our overseas territories more transparent? The British Virgin Islands, in particular, appear to be the jurisdiction of choice for obscuring beneficial ownership, at the moment.
Of those entities that have not complied—10% was the number that I saw, which is about 15,000 entities—how many have been fined? Of those, how many have paid those fines and gone on to comply subsequent to payment? How many charges have been taken against the properties in relation to non-payment of the fines? In other words, does Companies House have sufficient powers to deal with non-compliance, and is it using those powers effectively?
Secondly—and I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for going slightly off-piste—another way to hide beneficial ownership is through the use of nominee shareholders. I notice the noble Lord, Lord Fox, smiling; I hate to be predictable, but there we go. This is particularly true for UK companies, where the persons with significant control or PSC rules can be sidestepped by the use of nominees. An entire industry has built up around that. The previous Government accepted that there was an issue around the use of nominees for this purpose and agreed to include a power in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 to take further action against the use of nominee shareholders and the industry that supports them, if they felt it was necessary. This is now Section 790IA of the Companies Act 2006. I want to take this opportunity to ask what assessment this Government have made of the use of nominees in that respect and whether they intend to make use of the powers they have under the Companies Act to address it.
Lord Fox (LD)
When the discussions were had with the noble Baroness about her becoming a Peer, I wonder whether they mentioned that she would be in the Moses Room presenting statutory instruments. I bet they did not. But I welcome her, and thank her for the clear explanation as well as the Explanatory Notes, which worked very well. To some extent, the Minister is at a disadvantage—or perhaps it is an advantage—in that the three speakers in this debate are the old gang getting together. We were all involved very extensively in both this and the predecessor Bill that came though.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the register of overseas interests—the ROE—was introduced under the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which, if I may say, is an excellent Act. I know this to be true because I took it through the House of Lords with considerable advice and assistance from the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Vaux—I have been looking forward to saying that, if I am honest.
The aim of the Act was to increase transparency regarding overseas entities, as has been noted—and let me thank the noble Baroness for her extensive introduction to these regulations. The primary objective was to ensure that beneficial ownership information was accessible, so that the public and authorities could better understand who owns land in the UK. However, as we consider these regulations and whether these measures truly enhance transparency or complicate the process and introduce further risks, we have a couple of concerns that are legitimate to raise.
The Government justify these amendments as a means to protect individuals at risk of violence or intimidation, while simultaneously permitting greater access to information on trusts. The reality is that these changes appear to broaden the scope of who can apply for protection as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, noted. That would make it easier for individuals to hide behind the shield of protection, even when they do not necessarily have a legitimate interest. It reads as if it is potentially an invitation to game the system. So I ask the Minister: are the Government convinced and happy that these regulations, as currently drafted, are robust enough to prevent that potential risk?
Additionally, the amendments propose new mechanisms to address trust information, but the conditions for such access, especially in bulk applications, also raise concerns about the potential for misuse. While the intention might be to make certain information available to those with a legitimate interest, the Government have only partially clarified what constitutes a legitimate interest, which we think leaves room for exploitation and, potentially, unnecessary legal battles.
There is also an application question as, again, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned. How will the registrar judge things such as how the disclosed information will be used? What criteria will they use to judge legitimacy? For example, is it okay if it was the Times of London asking and would it not be okay if it was some obscure online publication? How exactly will that situation be resolved? It is something I will come onto in a second, but will it be explained in greater detail in the explanatory guidance that will be published shortly?
These measures are proposed to expand the category of individuals who can apply to Companies House to have their information protected, where it may be disclosed under the register of overseas entities. It would also enable trust information on the register that is currently restricted from public inspection to be accessed by application if certain conditions are met.
A significant measure is that of the protection of information. Although expanding the categories of individuals who can apply for protection may sound like a good way to shield vulnerable persons, we are concerned that it risks creating opacity in the system where more people, beyond those in positions of risk, can hide their information from the public eye. The original purpose of the economic crime Act was to shed light on overseas ownership and its implications; we worry that that is now at risk of being undermined by this expansion.
As I and other noble Lords have noted, the Act aimed to simplify and enhance transparency, but these proposed changes seem to introduce additional layers of potentially complex bureaucracy. The process for accessing and protecting information could become more complicated, adding unnecessary burden both for the authorities responsible for managing the data and for the public. Will these changes create a more efficient system in the end, or will they merely add unnecessary red tape to an already complex regulatory landscape?
The Explanatory Notes say:
“Guidance will be made available”.
Can the Minister tell us when it will be made available and whether it will address some of these concerns, such as by going into considerably more detail on the definition of and circumstances surrounding “legitimate interest”? We agree with the Explanatory Notes that, if this measure is to work, extensive and expansive communications are absolutely key.
Broadly speaking, we support these regulations, of course, but we have legitimate questions. The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Vaux, also asked legitimate questions, including about exactly how these regulations will be applied and so on.
Lord Fox (LD)
I have one further question, which I meant to ask earlier. The Minister talked about national security interests in the context of legitimate interests. How can national security interests be reflected in Companies House when it is almost certain that nobody there will have sufficient security clearance to be told what the national security interest is in order to apply it in its decision-making process? Clearly, it will not forward every single application to someone who does have security clearance, so how on earth will this be mechanically organised?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
First, I thank noble Lords. It is a pleasure to hear from what was clearly the dream team, back when this was established, of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Vaux and Lord Fox. I am privileged to be in a Room where we all agree on the importance of balancing the transparency around and the privacy of the information being provided.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked whether I saw myself, when I joined the House of Lords, standing here in front of noble Lords delivering a statutory instrument. I could not possibly have begun to comprehend what it involved, but I will now do my best to answer as many of noble Lords’ questions as I possibly can. I promise to follow up in writing for any that I miss.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked whether we have an update on some of the metrics. Since the register was launched, we have 31,827 entities as of 24 January 2025, which reflects a very good rate of compliance. Notably, non-compliant overseas entities can no longer easily sell, lease or raise finance over their land until they comply. Furthermore, with regard to those that are non-compliant and the extent to which we are following up by issuing fines, we have issued 4,800 penalty warnings since 26 June 2023, along with 440 penalty notices, worth £20 million, of which 70 have been redacted. I hope that this demonstrates that, although it is imperfect, we are making progress on establishing more transparency in the register and enforcing that transparency wherever we are available and able to do so.
On the question of whether further steps are necessary, particularly regarding the British Virgin Islands, this is a constantly evolving and moving landscape. I regret that, whatever structure is put in place, a lot of people with a lot of brain power will be there trying to find a way around it and get through the process. This measure will, therefore, be under constant review and constantly evolving. We will conduct a post-implementation review at a later stage to evaluate the overall impact of the register of overseas entities, including the specific effects of the regulations on trust transparency. We will also conduct ongoing engagement with stakeholders, whether it is lawyers and accountants, the registrars themselves or civil society who require this information. This will be an ongoing dialogue as we constantly battle out the balance between privacy and transparency.
Lord Fox (LD)
I asked whether judicial review is applicable. If the Minister is able to write to me on that, that would be helpful.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I absolutely will write to the noble Lord to follow up on that.
I was asked whether Companies House is equipped to deal with this volume of applications and what the administrative burden will be of undertaking a lot of these reviews. It is important to note that most applications for disclosure are going to be fairly straightforward and will not require the demonstration of legitimate interest. This requirement is required only for specific types of requests, such as those involving minors or bulk data, which we talked about. In those cases, applicants must provide evidence that they are investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or sanctions, and must explain the intended use of the information.
Companies House will draw on mechanisms similar to those used by HMRC, where applicants demonstrate a legitimate interest in disclosures from HMRC’s trust registration service. The registrar may request additional information or evidence to determine an application or refer a question to another party who they consider may be able to assist in determining the application. With extensive experience in handling sensitive requests, Companies House is well prepared; it has contingency plans to manage any surge in applications promptly and efficiently. I note that a nominal fee will be required of applicants to make sure that this is cost-neutral with regard to the Government. I think that covers most of those questions, but do correct me if I am wrong.
I shall now move on to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about what legitimate interest is, how it is pursued and followed up, and what the application process is. To apply for access to information about a specific trust, applicants must provide their personal information, the name of the trust related to the relevant protected trust information, and the overseas entity’s name and ID. Applicants seeking trust information related to minors or bulk access—that is, applying for information on more than one trust in a single attempt —must demonstrate a legitimate interest, such as investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or a breach of sanctions imposed by regulations under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. They must provide a statement to Companies House that they are requesting the relevant protected trusts’ information to further their investigation and a statement of how they plan to use the information. Companies House is not obliged to disclose the information if it could prejudice an ongoing criminal investigation or adversely affect national security; if it involves a pension scheme; and where the individual has applied for protection.
With regard to how someone will show that they are investigating money laundering et cetera for the legitimate interest test, applicants are expected to provide comprehensive details of the investigation that they are undertaking, supported by evidence to demonstrate the legitimacy and seriousness of their request. This will help ensure that applications are valid and that the process is not misused.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Can I just follow up on that? It occurs to me that there is a potential issue here. What it does not say is who—so you do not have to be a journalist; you could be anyone looking at money laundering. For example, you could be a Russian person with a vendetta against another Russian person who owns a property, and you could simply say that you were looking at the money-laundering aspects of that. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked whether it had to be the Times of London or whether it could be some dodgy website—but it could go further than that. It could be another competing Russian oligarch, or something of that nature.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I think that you talk to the problem at hand, which is how you balance off disclosure from harm. There will often be legitimate reasons for wanting to access this information, but there are also legitimate reasons why you would not want someone to have that information. I do not think that this is a policy where you can describe a single selection, or parameters, that will defend both sides, which is the exact reason for this process, I believe.
The applicant who requires the information has to give full and detailed information as to their identity and why they would need the information, and the individual whose details are being disclosed has the opportunity to write and say that this is information that could cause them harm were it to be disclosed—and proactively make that statement, so that the registrar has the ability to protect those interests. Then it is the registrar’s role to take that information and ensure that they are getting that balance right. They have the information about the applicant, and they can make that judgment based on whether something is a legitimate interest and this is not a bulk access—someone trying to get the full list of all the trustees so that they can sell their local accountancy advice, or whatever that motivation is. On the other hand, they also have the register for people who believe that interest would be detrimental to their personal ability. Their role is to balance the two, providing that transparency but also protecting them from harm.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am sorry to labour the point, but the way in which it is being depicted is as if people will accept the registrar’s ruling and say, “Oh, yeah, right, I understand why you’re not letting me do this”, or, “I understand why you’re letting this person look at my identity”. It seems to me that human nature will operate in exactly the opposite direction and that there will quickly be a huge backlog of people who do not agree with the registrar’s decision, one way or the other. There does not seem to be a defined appeal process. If it is all getting lumped into judicial review, we all know how long that takes and what it leads to—and if there is no system and it all ends at the registrar, there is huge pressure on the registrar to be right every time, which will be extraordinarily difficult. While I can understand how it is being described, my sense is that it will be a lot messier than that.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Just to add to that, I cannot see anywhere in the regulation where the registrar has to inform the subject of the application that an application is being made. I can see that they can, but I do not see that they have to.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
To take the second question first, that is correct. The beneficial owner will not automatically receive notice that they have had this request around their information, or that their information has been disclosed, although that information would be available through a freedom of information request. The information is there, but there is no automatic process whereby they would be informed were someone to make that request. I understand why that would be the case, and that it would be something subject to an ongoing review—but, ultimately, I understand why that decision has been taken here.
With regard to the process, there is a judicial review in place for an appeals process. It is something that is going to have to be under this ongoing review about the volumes that are required and whether we are creating a backlog of requests that ultimately end up in that appeals process, which could be indicative that this is not a pragmatic balance that is sat in the middle between transparency and privacy. I still believe that this is a really strong step forward in providing the much-needed greater transparency that all noble Lords in this Room have been important and paramount in creating in the first place. We are just taking the next step in providing that transparency.
Community Radio Order 2025
Baroness Twycross
That the Grand Committee do consider the Community Radio Order 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, over the past 20 years, community radio has secured its position as an integral part of the UK’s radio landscape, providing unique, locally tailored content to the communities it serves. From Resonance FM, which broadcasts new music and arts-based content from just a few miles from here in Southwark, to Spark FM in Sunderland, which broadcasts local news and sports coverage, community radio stations up and down the country are important sources of information within their communities.
Community radio has a strong track record of catering for the diverse needs and interests of specific groups. Fever FM in Leeds, for instance, caters specifically to the Asian community in Leeds and broadcasts in multiple languages. Other community radio stations such as Gaydio serve LGBTQ+ communities in a number of areas across the UK, specifically catering to their interests and experiences. There are now more than 300 analogue community radio services in existence, the first of which launched in 2005 under the then Labour Government. DAB and small-scale DAB have provided further opportunities for more stations to broadcast to localities across the UK.
Community radio has never been just about local programming. It also provides training opportunities for those who are new to the industry, often giving people their first experience of working in the radio sector. These stations are often entirely dependent on the work of volunteers. Working with limited resources and often juggling multiple other commitments, these volunteers are dedicated to providing an important local service for their listeners. These core principles distinguish community radio from commercial radio. The model established in 2005—that community radio stations are local not-for-profit organisations providing social gain to the communities they serve—remains sound and has delivered a wide variety of services with a diversity unmatched in other media. Radio also consistently remains among the most trusted forms of media, with Ofcom reporting that it is rated highly on accuracy, trustworthiness and impartiality. Supporting these valued sources of reliable information has never been more pertinent.
The UK’s radio landscape and listening habits continue to evolve as new means of accessing radio and audio content develop. Nearly 75% of all radio listening is now digital and FM accounts for less than 20% of commercial radio listening. The Government believe that, while FM services need to continue until 2030, we cannot ignore the wider implications of these changes and the need to ensure that we support community radio stations to develop their services for future sustainability. Although more and more community stations are now coming on to DAB thanks to the availability of small-scale DAB networks, we recognise that analogue broadcasting continues to represent the vast majority of community radio listening and is likely to continue to do so over the coming years. It is therefore essential that consideration is given to the future of these licences and the best way to secure their stability in the medium to long term.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I am here because this is really interesting. I declare an interest, as I played a small part in the days of offshore pirate ships when they were broadcasting; and I have a legitimate interest, in that I helped to advise the then Government before the White Paper that came ahead of commercial broadcasting in the early 1970s. I also made a failed application for one of the first commercial radio stations in Tyne and Wear, of which my noble friend will be aware; I think my little group came second. But I also have an interest in hospital broadcasting, which is really the element of community radio about which I want to talk for a moment, in connection with what I think is a very welcome order.
I have been involved for more than 50 years with one of the largest hospital broadcasting entities, Radio Tyneside, which covers an area around Newcastle upon Tyne and for all those years has served a number of hospitals and the patients in them. When community radio became available a few years ago, my hospital broadcasting people decided to apply for a community licence to broadcast in FM, and it was granted. Currently, Radio Tyneside can be received—I am selling it now—on the web, by FM and of course in direct communication with patients.
I mention all that as background because what is being proposed here seems very important. It is giving a greater level of certainty and continuity to those that broadcast in that way. In a way, it aims more for different kinds of community broadcasters, but the extension, in obtaining that FM licence, from merely serving hospital patients to serving the wider community and, indeed, pursuing its well-being and health outside of the health service, as it were, seems a really fine aim and one which, again, fits exactly within the requirements of community radio.
As I say, I generally welcome these provisions, but I have two concerns and questions, the first of which is about extensions on the basis of analogue broadcasting being regarded as running until 2030. The extensions of time on licences are very welcome. I note, by the way, that the proportion of those listening to analogue varies enormously depending on the nature of the people who are listening, the nature of the community broadcasts themselves and the areas of the country served. Although DAB is fine, it presents certain problems for community radio stations. There are technical problems, and there are problems associated with being part of a multiplex, which is not easy at all, particularly for an organisation such as a hospital broadcasting service. While not much is said about it here, it is important that as much encouragement as possible can be given to entities of that kind. Indeed, the Minister mentioned a number of minority areas, as it were, that are well served by community radio, as they should be, but I hope that the whole group of hospital broadcasters, wherever they may be, will be encouraged to continue and to extend their services in the way in which Radio Tyneside certainly does.
Secondly, there is the question of advertising revenue. Most of these entities have a charitable status of some kind, and sometimes the charitable status and the aims of a charitable operation do not allow anything other than voluntary contributions, so that taking advertising, for instance, somewhat conflicts with the activities. They have to rely wholly on donations and, as we are all aware, donations put pressure on in terms of guaranteeing continuity for income and budgets.
There is an element of competition for audiences between different community providers when an increase in the advertising revenue is available but not necessarily achievable in certain areas. There is possibly a certain unfairness in that. Therefore, while I welcome the idea that this would help some community stations continue when they otherwise could not, there perhaps has to be some kind of balancing to help community stations, such as the one that I am involved with, which have to raise money in a different way. Otherwise, I very much welcome these proposals, and I hope that we can make some progress in continuing with community radio in the future.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Minister may have had a small audience for her speech introducing this order but, much in the way of community radio, as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate set out, the small listenership has still provided a very important and valuable discussion, and I am grateful to my noble friend—my noble and former piratical friend, I should say—for his contribution. I pay tribute to his work and that of Radio Tyneside. With a number of relatives and friends back home in the north-east who have worked in the NHS or who have been in hospital for a period, I know how important that radio station, and the work of hospital radio stations more widely, is to patients and the people who work in our NHS.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the background to this order. As she says, it follows on from consultation which the previous Government undertook in the last Parliament. She set out the approach that this Government are taking. There are two areas of concern that I want to touch on, which I hope she will be able to help allay.
The first community radio licence was issued in 2005 following the Community Radio Order 2004, which created the regulatory framework. The purpose of community radio is to provide services for the good of members of the public or of particular communities, rather than for commercial reasons. In doing this, community radio stations should provide some form of social gain. They should be not for profit and non-profit distributing. Any form of profit should be used to secure or improve the future of the service, or to deliver a social gain for the community that it serves. I am a little concerned that this order could risk undermining those principles.
The extension of the licences for community radio stations entrenches current operators at the expense of new entrants and could risk locking out competition. Barriers to entry could harm the community radio sector more broadly, particularly in rapidly changing urban areas or rural communities where there is high demand for specific and relevant programming. Extending the licences also eliminates a key check on the service provided by community radio stations. A relicensing process and review of current licences would ensure that current operators are holding up their end of the bargain. They would have to prove that they are delivering social value and serving their communities. New stations would be able to compete for licences, guaranteeing that only those stations which are truly committed to their social purpose are licensed.
Can the Minister set out why the Government are simply extending the licences, rather than taking the opportunity to review the current providers, ensure that they offer the social value that we all want and potentially allow new entrants where there is a need for them? If the Government are committed to these licence extensions, what action will they take to make sure that community radio stations do indeed deliver social gain in future and provide the community-centred public service broadcasting that we all value?
The other area of concern relates to the phasing out of analogue radio in favour of small-scale DAB radio, as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope touched on. Many community radio stations report that SSDAB is unaffordable, unreliable and inaccessible in key areas. As my noble friend set out, it can be very variable across the country. Many stations struggle with poor reception and limited reach, particularly in areas with high-density housing or rural areas with uneven topography. The high operating costs make SSDAB unviable for smaller, social-purpose broadcasters, such as those we are concerned with today.
This lack of coverage means that community radio cannot effectively serve minority or overlooked audiences. Stations such as Panj Pani Radio in Leicester and Rutland and Stamford Sound, which serves the county of Rutland and parts of Lincolnshire, have reported critical DAB coverage issues—in their very different geographical areas—preventing them from serving their target audiences effectively. We saw during the pandemic how important these small community stations are and what important local lifelines they can be to people through the provision of local information. Without spectrum alternatives, these issues jeopardise their survival. Regional DAB costs upwards of £78,000 per year, pricing out many community stations. Would the Minister consider the limitations of SSDAB for many community radio stations? Would she commit to reviewing the policy of pursuing that over FM and AM?
The Minister was right to highlight the important of community radio, not just to their audiences but as a stepping stone for those who are starting out in the industry, whose voices may become well known and trusted. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkhope for his good question about charitable organisations operating community radio and how the advertising revenue implications of the order might apply to them. With gratitude to the Minister, I look forward to her response.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon. I am slightly disappointed that more people are not here to debate. We do not get very many opportunities to debate community radio, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, that this is an interesting area. I commend his role with the hospital radio he mentioned and, at some point, I would love to understand how he managed to make it from being a pirate to being a Member of your Lordships’ House.
It is clear from today’s discussion that both sides of the Committee really want to do what we can to secure support for the community radio sector to ensure that it thrives long into the future. These stations are often at the heart of the communities they broadcast to, and we want to do what we can to make sure that they can continue to deliver local content to their listeners.
I turn to some of the questions raised, and I apologise if I do not get through all the questions that were raised. I will write afterwards if there is anything I need to pick up. I will look through Hansard and double check that I have covered everything.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, raised the point about hospital radio, and Radio Tyneside moving from being a hospital service to a community radio station. It is a really important point: small-scale DAB is continuing to grow, but there is more to do to give community stations and hospital radio stations more scope to reach communities. As I said, we are keen to support the sector and see it grow. Officials met the Hospital Broadcasting Association in January this year, and when I was briefed, ahead of this debate, we had a discussion about the important role hospital radio plays. It is important for us to note the role of hospital radio stations in a broader context.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, asked why we are not seeking to relicense, and why we are looking to extend licences. It is a really difficult balance and the risk is that relicensing stations leads them to fold. Stations are required to report to Ofcom, including on their social gain, in their annual returns. The social gain is a continued requirement and a condition of licensing. The CMA, UKCRN and the sector strongly supported this option, which is one of the reasons we have chosen this approach.
There was an issue around DAB not necessarily being available and it being difficult for stations to access it sometimes. We agree that there may be a role for new FM community radio licences to help support new stations in areas where DAB is not available or is a challenge to install, but it is not straightforward given the very limited spectrum available for new FM services, and the viability of new FM service stations as a result of the significant market shift to digital listening. Therefore, we felt we should leave it to Ofcom to determine the balance between the demand for community radio services wanting to broadcast and the need for a wide range of services across the UK.
This is not the end of the debate, even it was quite a short debate, but this order will ensure that the invaluable work of all these stations is protected and they are able to thrive. We want to foster communities that are home to diverse local media ecosystems. The measures in the Community Radio Order 2025 ensure that community radio can be part of these ecosystems long into the future, contributing to the plurality of choice and to the training of the next generation of radio broadcasters and producers.
I am very grateful to noble Lords for taking part in this debate and for your Lordships’ interest in the continued endeavours of community radio services across the UK, and hospital radio as well. I beg to move.