Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025

Considered in Grand Committee

16:33:00

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025. Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument

My Lords, as the Online Safety Act sets out, the Secretary of State must make these regulations under Sections 169(3) and 170(1) of the Act. They enable the super-complaints regime to operate by establishing the eligibility criteria that entities must meet to submit a super-complaint, as well as the procedural matters relating to Ofcom’s assessment of super-complaints. Super-complaints are an integral part of the Act’s complaints handling, reporting, and redress mechanisms. They provide a means for eligible entities, including civil society groups with expertise in online safety matters, to raise systemic issues about the features or conduct of one or more regulated services with Ofcom, the Act’s independent regulator. Super-complaints cannot be made by individuals, nor can they be made about individual pieces of content. The Act establishes, under Section 169, the scope of issues that super-complaints can address. This includes where the features and/or conduct of regulated services may be causing significant harm to, significantly adversely affecting the freedom of expression of, or otherwise adversely impacting users, particular groups or the public. We expect super-complaints to typically be about cross-platform, systemic issues. However, a complaint may cover a single service if the complaint is particularly important or impacts a large number of users or members of the public. The SI sets out several eligibility criteria that an entity must meet to be able to submit a complaint to Ofcom. Entities must: represent the interests of users of regulated services, particular groups, or members of the public; have a composition, governance and accountability arrangements that mean it can be relied on to act independently from regulated services, although funding, or representation in the entity’s governance from platforms, is allowed; contribute to public discussions on online safety matters as an expert; and be capable of being relied upon to have due regard to any guidance published by Ofcom. These criteria aim to ensure a wide range of entities are eligible while safeguarding the integrity of the process and reducing the risk of vexatious complaints. In addition to the eligibility criteria, this SI also sets out the process and timeline for assessing super-complaints. Ofcom must assess the would-be complainant’s evidence against the eligibility criteria and determine whether an entity is eligible within 30 days. Ofcom must then inform an entity whether they are eligible or not and explain why. The time for assessing eligibility reduces to 15 days where entities have been found to be eligible within the past five years. In such circumstances, an entity must submit information to show that it is still an expert contributing significantly to public discussion on online safety. Eligible entities must also present current, objective and relevant evidence to support their view that one of the grounds for a complaint under the Act is met. When assessing the admissibility of the complaint and the substance of the complaint itself, Ofcom must typically respond 90 days following the eligibility determination. This means that, as standard, the entire super-complaints process will conclude within 120 days, or 105 days where there is retained eligibility status. Ofcom may however stop the clock in certain circumstances, such as if additional information is required from the entity and the complaint cannot be progressed without it. But Ofcom may only stop the clock by the amount of time it takes to receive the requested information. Where Ofcom has determined that an entity is eligible, it must consider the complaint and evaluate the evidence presented to it. At the end of the process it must publish a response, including its determination on the matter. This may include what further action, if any, it anticipates. In developing these regulations, the Government have consulted Ofcom and there has been a public consultation. We have listened closely to the views of stakeholders and, where possible, made changes to the policy consulted on. These changes are set out in further detail in the Government’s policy response published in June this year. In tandem with this SI being laid, a round table was also held with key civil society groups to set out the changes and our response to the concerns raised during the consultation process. These changes include lowering the bar for eligibility to enable new expert organisations to make complaints and removing the requirement to pre-notify Ofcom ahead of submitting a complaint. The online world is complicated and ever-changing. As the Government, our aim is to remain agile and keep pace with emerging online harms. These regulations have been drafted to do just that, by ensuring Ofcom is made aware of emerging technologies, market operators and subsequent harms. I beg to move.

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s comments, which set the context for this interesting statutory instrument. In the process of consultation that led to the final decisions, was there time for the department to begin to implement the Parkinson rule? When my noble friend and I last met some time ago, we discussed how and under what conditions one might be able to allow Select Committees in the Commons and here with expertise in these matters to look at SIs before they are laid. I notice that this was laid on 9 June, which is well after that meeting. Was there time to let the Select Committees see this and were there useful results from that? If not, can she give us some indication of when the department will be in a position to begin to process the Parkinson rule in relation to this? I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its very full 29th report, which went through this SI in somewhat surprising detail—we do not normally get four or five pages on an instrument each time, but that tells the story behind some of my concerns about the department’s approach to this. The committee’s first conclusion is that: “The draft Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that they are politically or legally important or give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”. We are grateful to it for doing that. These are interesting and important issues. The committee’s first point for consideration is that it worries whether the regulator, Ofcom, will have the resources to carry out the sort of work envisaged in this SI and the much larger scheme of work that it is involved in. I would be grateful if my noble friend could give some thought to that in her response. I do not think she mentioned it. We understand the basis on which Ofcom makes its funding needs available—there has been notification of that recently around the level of fees to be exercised on the companies in scope of the regulator—but that is not the narrow point raised here. It is more about the question of capacity and scale, and the ability to think more widely about the system it is trying to regulate, than it is just about the money. I would be grateful if my noble friend would say a few things about how the department judges that and how it thinks Ofcom will be able to scale up its current work, which is immense. It is very important to include this activity, which in the Bill was originally intended to be of assistance to Ofcom, although some of the way it has come out does not seem to have delivered on that. Secondly, I recollect that we spent quite a long time on the Bill working out why the Government of the day did not think it necessary to have some form of ombudsman system in place for internet matters. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will make some points about this. This was well argued and well thought through in our debates, and we had many meetings offline to try to find a way forward. We did not get what we wanted, but it was a very big Bill and other things perhaps took priority. However, we did get agreement from Ministers, in the Bill, that there would be a review shortly after its implementation— I think within two years—of how the complaints processes for users of IT systems in this country, particularly in new media, were being dealt with by individual companies. Clearly, the expectation is that each company will have its own structure but that, on occasion, issues would be raised across more than one provider. The question was how an ordinary citizen would cope with that if there was not some form of ombudsman system. I strongly believe that there needs to be an ombudsman system for this whole area, and I hope that the review to be carried out by Ofcom within two years will recommend that. This is not referred to in this SI. Will the Minister say a few words about the department’s current thinking on that?

16:45:00

My third point is on the decision not to predesignate individual complainants to be on a list of those allowed to put in super-complaints. This gets a lot of attention in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, which makes some very good points that the Minister did not respond to. There is obviously an issue about resource and therefore, in some senses, limiting the number of complaints being considered is a sensible way of doing it. But that does not seem to be the right approach to something on which we all had concerns in discussions during the passage of the Act. These were concerns about how the system will have the ability to deal with and respond to the sorts of issues that are not well dealt with at a company level. How do you raise systemic issues across the system? These will need to be dealt with very rapidly by Ofcom to prevent a movement or explosion of difficulty and concern.

I will come to this particular point later, but I also think there is a danger that we are seeing Ofcom confusing again the issue of the size and reach of individual companies and the risks that an individual company might provide, even if it is small. We are certainly aware—it has been in the papers and discussed more recently in other debates in the House—that websites with a very small number of users in the United Kingdom can provide a tremendous amount of damage. That is not, we think, the intention of the Act when it was passed by this House and by Parliament. The intention was that the Ofcom approach towards looking at risk across the system was a combination of size and the riskiness of the individual product being provided. Again, this was not what we expected to be the outcome of the discussions between the department and Ofcom. Could the Minister reflect on that when she comes to respond on this point? To return to my third point, it seems that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee make a very strong point about the need for a predesignated list of eligible complainants. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond in more detail.

Point four follows very closely. There is a recommendation from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, but I do not think it was referred to by the Minister, that there should be consideration built into the structure so that some assessment is made of the time and effort that has been put into super-complaints among the less-prepared and less-organised companies. There is obviously a balance to be struck between having too much work for Ofcom and siphoning out the complaints that are not necessarily going to provide the kinds of changes that I think are envisaged by this legislation.

On the other hand, it would be a ridiculous situation if we set up a structure so tight that only a very small number of people could ever get a super-complaint organised and, therefore, Ofcom would miss out on getting information which would be to the benefit of all. This is something that needs to be looked at. It would be hopelessly inappropriate if there were valid complaints about systemic failings or specific online harms that were simply being missed because it was not possible to identify properly or quickly enough a super-complainant who could raise that issue.

Point five—I am afraid there are three more to come—is that I am very surprised there is no appeals mechanism. This is dealt with in some detail in the report, and I will not repeat it. For a structure of this type, which is bearing down quite heavily on those who might wish to make valid representations to Ofcom, to be a one-off structure—they apply and are either accepted or rejected and there is no way of appealing—seems to be an omission that needs to be looked at again. Smaller organisations with valid points, dealing with high-risk areas which are not necessarily always at the forefront of Ofcom’s work, which want to bring forward a super-complaint but fail to get there and are turned down, cannot apply for the next six months. That does not seem to be a valid output for this approach. Again, I would like the Minister’s response to that.

My sixth point, which I have touched on, concerns whether we are looking for a limited amount of activity or the quality of complaints to be looked at. Would it not be sensible to build into the structure—this may need secondary legislation of its own—some sort of assessment process for how this is actually working in practice? At the moment, there are probably three things that should be considered: whether valid complaints that should be getting through are not; whether those valid complaints, had they got through, would have had an impact on the system as a whole; and whether we are providing for only the larger organisations and groups and will not necessarily see all of the risks, particularly in areas that are of narrow interest. It is important that we try to get something that looks in more detail at the way in which this works in practice.

Finally, although I see the logic in setting up a structure of this type, with super-complaints to bring forward really important issues that extend right across Ofcom’s remit in this very complex field, as the Minister explained, it does not actually have any direct outputs. All it does is set up knowledge and experience for Ofcom to draw on should it wish to address issues that it comes across during this process. I think I get the point there, but, having gone to the trouble of getting a particular structure and training up a narrow amount of people—probably fewer than 100—simply to set up a response that gives Ofcom some information on which it may, but does not have to, act to redress this does not seem to be an efficient use of resources. This may not be the time to resolve that; again, perhaps the Minister could comment on it when she responds.

The recommendation from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is that this is daft and that there should be a set of procedural processes that lead to direct outcomes and, if necessary, powers for Ofcom to act should a super-complaint work. The whole idea of having super-complaints, an accelerated route and an approach to get something of real importance dealt with quickly by the regulator in a fast-moving and complex area is surely sufficient for us to think about the need for a particular set of results so that people know that, if they fall foul of the super-complaints system, there will definitely be penalties. That does not happen at the moment.

This does seem to be a bit of a mess. What we have here, which should be an additional set of armaments needed by Ofcom to take on big tech, has been structurally set up in a way that will be rather less than the sum of its parts, rather than what we want. Ofcom needs expert help and advice from specialists in this area. It is presiding over a really complicated system, but what has been set up seems to be designed to prevent consumers getting redress on the obvious wrongs that are coming forward through the super-complaints channel. We do not have an ombudsman system yet; if we get one, it may well help resolve some of these issues. It is important, therefore, that this is given some attention over the next few months.

My Lords, I welcome these regulations and congratulate the Minister on introducing them. I have a couple of questions and will also support some of the comments made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Can the Minister tell us when the department will undertake the guidance that it has committed to produce before the regulations come into effect? Will the House have sight of that before they come into effect? Paragraph 5.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum states: “The whole super-complaints process must … typically be completed within 120 days, which reduces to 105 days in the event that an entity has retained eligibility status”. Is that feasible? Can that actually be delivered within the procedure? I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that this is meant to be a streamlined procedure, but it is important that, if someone is limited to one complaint in a six-month period, they have the time to develop that complaint to the full, and 120 days might be quite a tight timetable. Paragraph 5.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum says: “Entities must not submit more than one complaint in a six-month period”. Again, this may mean that a genuine complaint that is completely different from the complaint already before Ofcom will be delayed, so it is not streamlining the procedure at all. It also says, “except in specific circumstances”—I wonder what those circumstances might be—and goes on to say: “Super-complaints should not merely repeat the substance of another complaint that has been made publicly available by Ofcom within the last two years and Ofcom will reject a complaint on this basis”. On the two points from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that there is neither an appeals mechanism nor the intervention of an ombudsman. For what reason was an ombudsman not considered appropriate in these circumstances? Given the pressure on Ofcom and the restrictions placed on it, particularly following on from the Online Safety Act, does the Minister feel absolutely convinced that Ofcom has all the resources that it needs at its disposal to deal with the super-complainants? Paragraph 49 of the committee’s report says: “We note the Department’s explanation but remain concerned about the adequacy of the resources available to Ofcom, given its already extensive online safety responsibilities would be expanded further by this instrument”. I have one final question, as I was not as closely involved in this Bill as others were. What happens to those individual complainants who do not fall within the super-complaint? Do they have a separate procedure under separate regulations? With those fair words, I welcome the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction. These regulations aim to establish a formal mechanism for super-complaints to be made to Ofcom under Section 169 of the 2023 Act, as we have heard. Potentially, this represents a significant step forward in implementing the Act’s vision for civil society oversight of our online landscape. The underlying purpose is clear: to enable eligible entities to raise systemic online safety issues, alerting Ofcom to significant risks or harms that might not otherwise come to its attention. These super-complaints are indeed a vital mechanism. I welcome the clear intent behind these regulations and acknowledge the responsiveness of the Government and Ofcom to the consultation process—not always the case. Several positive changes have been made in response to stakeholder feedback, strengthening the regime’s accessibility and effectiveness. The removal of a statutory pre-notification period is a crucial improvement, enabling more timely responses to urgent online safety issues. There is the reduced administrative burden for organisations that have previously been deemed eligible. The reduction in assessment periods from 30 to 15 days demonstrates a certain sensitivity to concerns about administrative burden and procedural delays. Then there are restrictions on Ofcom’s ability to pause timelines; placing limits on Ofcom’s ability to stop the clock when seeking further information from complainants is a welcome development, addressing fears about unnecessary delays in addressing urgent harms and improving transparency. The regulations have expanded the eligibility criteria to include newer expert organisations, which directly addresses concerns about barriers facing emerging voices in what is a rapidly evolving field, in our view allowing for greater inclusivity. This approach seeks to provide a future-proofed way of enabling a range of organisations to access the super-complaints mechanism in a fast-changing online environment. Then there is the flexibility in complaints submission. The ability for an eligible entity to withdraw an initial complaint and submit a replacement, effectively prioritising a different issue, is a helpful measure to ensure that the most important concerns are addressed.

17:00:00

Then there is the focus on systemic issues. This mechanism is clearly designed to allow expert bodies to highlight serious or widespread online safety issues or risks to Ofcom, such as recommender systems promoting harmful content to children or a common feature across a type of online service causing harm. This is essential for Ofcom’s horizon-scanning function and taking what might be called an agile approach to online harms. Although I welcome these improvements, we must also voice some continuing concerns regarding the practical operation of these regulations; these echo points raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and, today, by both the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has previously questioned whether Ofcom has sufficient resources to carry out its extensive responsibilities under the Online Safety Act. This set of regulations adds to Ofcom’s duties, and there is a concern about the regulator’s ability to handle what may be a substantial increase in its work as a result of super-complaints. The fact that Ofcom must assess an organisation’s eligibility every time a complaint is submitted, unless the 15-day rule applied for re-eligibility, adds to this resource burden unlike other regulatory regimes with pre-designated lists, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out.

Now that I have no conflict of interest, I am glad to say, not being any longer connected to an ombudsman service, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson —I am sure that the Minister will appreciate this—that the SLSC made a significant statement about the lack of an ombudsman system in the current online harms regime. It says that one of the differences between it and other established regulatory systems

“is the existence in other regulatory regimes of ombudsman schemes, such as the Financial Ombudsman Service, to handle complaints about service providers, in addition to the super-complaints function. We note that as there is no ombudsman scheme to deal with complaints about online safety, Ofcom’s super-complaints function will play a particularly important role in identifying and addressing concerns about online safety”.

That goes for resource as well. I hope that the Minister can give us more detail on when we can expect that review to commence, which is set out in the legislation; I very much hope that, after that review, there will indeed be a provision for an ombudsman in the online safety space.

The question of resources also applies to the high bar for eligibility and the consequent administrative burden. Despite some reductions in assessment periods, the administrative burden on smaller organisations remains significant. Concerns persist that the eligibility requirements, particularly those around demonstrating expertise and governance arrangements, could still exclude smaller, newer or less well-resourced organisations, even if they have valid concerns and fresh perspectives on emerging online harms. There is a real risk of organisations investing time and resources only to be rejected on eligibility grounds. DSIT expects fewer than 100 organisations to meet the criteria, which is a higher number of potential complainants than in other super-complaint regimes—such as the police super-complaint system, which has only 16 eligible organisations. This further highlights the potential work- load for Ofcom.

Although the regulations recognise that funding or representation from regulated services does not automatically disqualify an entity, the practical application of the independence test remains unclear. Many legitimate civil society organisations receive some form of support from the technology industry, however that may be defined. We need assurances that organisations with demonstrable editorial independence and clear governance structures will not be excluded simply due to industry connections.

As regards restrictions on duplicate complaints, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, the restriction on submitting more than one complaint in a six-month period, while intended to manage Ofcom’s resources and prevent system abuse, is unique as compared to other regulatory regimes. There is a concern that this may inadvertently limit Ofcom’s awareness of the scale and persistence of certain harms. Multiple complaints on the same issue from different organisations can provide valuable evidence on the breadth of concern and offer different perspectives on potential solutions, acting as important collaboration.

The online safety landscape is evolving rapidly, and our regulatory mechanisms must evolve with it. Just as we stressed the need for robust mechanisms for civil society input during the then Bill’s passage, we now need robust mechanisms for reviewing and refining how these operate in practice. So I ask the Government for a number of specific commitments: first, that they will monitor closely the practical operation of these eligibility criteria to ensure that they are not inadvertently excluding legitimate and important voices from the super-complaints process, in particular smaller, newer or less well-resourced organisations; secondly, that they will keep under continuous review Ofcom’s capacity to handle super-complaints effectively, ensuring both that resource constraints do not undermine the system’s objectives and that sufficient funding and staff with appropriate expertise are always in place; and, thirdly, that they will commit to a comprehensive review of these regulations within two years of their coming into force, paying particular attention to their accessibility for smaller organisations and their effectiveness in identifying and addressing systemic online safety features.

Further, the Minister will be aware—it is good to have the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, present—that the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill strongly recommended that the super-complaints mechanism be open to civil society organisations representing users, even where individual consent was not practicable, in order to ensure that systemic harms could be addressed. Several Members of the House echoed this position during the Bill’s passage. Will the Government agree to keep this aspect of the regime under review, ensuring that civil society organisations are empowered to bring super-complaints on systemic issues, even without explicit consent from every affected party, provided that appropriate safeguards are in place? I recognise that that is not the way the Act runs at the moment, but it needs to be kept under review.

The super-complaints regime, which will come into force, as I understand it, on 31 December, has the potential to be a powerful tool for online safety. That requires not just good regulations but good implementation, ongoing review and a genuine partnership between the Government, the regulator and civil society. We support these regulations, but I call on the Government to commit to their continuous review and improvement.

My Lords, I want to add a few comments to the discussions on these regulations. I am sorry; I was a little slow off the mark. I want to say from the outset that I believe we are going to need much more oversight to protect everyone —in particular our children and other vulnerable groups —from tech, particularly relating to online risks. I will say more on this during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently before the House. The situation is always evolving and, unfortunately, predators always seem to be one step ahead. I have always felt that internet and tech companies could do, but choose not to do, more to make their products safer. I know this from personal experience; as I said, I will say more about this in our proceedings on the other Bill before the House. I strongly feel that such companies are complicit in this. It is regrettable that we have to regulate this area in the way we do, but here we are. Having this draft online safety super-complaints regulation is a welcome piece of the jigsaw. If implemented robustly, it has the potential to contribute meaningfully to a safer and more accountable online environment. I worry, though, and want this to work. I have a few questions for the Minister. Following on from a concern that other noble Lords have raised, I would appreciate hearing from the Minister whether there is going to be a new ombudsman and how this might be funded. I know that there is funding ring-fenced, but we really need to involve appropriate leadership and expertise. How much is enforcement likely to cost? As currently worded, the regulations do not seem to allow smaller groups, such as victim support groups or small NGOs, to feed information and complaints into the regulator. I feel that allowing for smaller groups would be beneficial to the online safety of the vulnerable. Appeals were again raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others. We know that, in these regulations, a group needs to apply to have their case approved to be heard. If it is rejected, is there a mechanism for appealing? Is it correct that summary decisions are the only material published after investigations? If so, I believe that we should offer more transparency than this for the public and for case law. Finally, what powers would a regulator have against the largest companies with their related resources and well-funded legal departments? I am thinking of Instagram, Facebook, various other social media and internet companies, gaming companies and other tech organisations. Will the regulator really have the powers to enforce punishments and change? I sincerely hope it will. A lot is at stake here; we need to get this right not only for today’s users but for future ones.

My Lords, as we have heard, the purpose of the super-complaints mechanism is to allow eligible entities with expertise in online safety matters, such as civil society groups, to raise systemic issues with Ofcom. Such issues may include instances where the features or conduct of regulated services may be causing significant harm, adversely affecting freedom of expression or otherwise adversely impacting users, members of the public or particular groups. We welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward these regulations, which will help Ofcom to understand the kinds of risks, issues and threats to users identified by the specified groups. We continue to believe that the regulations strike an effective balance between the need to learn from the experience of users and the need to prioritise the testimony of those with experience, expertise and knowledge when considering complaints. It is important that we construct a feedback mechanism, but it is also important that this mechanism can be wielded by Ofcom in a way that is genuinely helpful and can lead to targeted and effective action. The point about concrete outcomes from the process was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks on that. The regulations make it clear that eligible groups must meet a required standard before their complaints will be considered. To be eligible to submit complaints under the regulations, an entity must: represent the interests of users, the public or specific user groups; be independent of regulated services; show expertise in online safety, such as regular expert contributions to public or media discussions; and be expected to consider Ofcom’s guidance in its work. In other words, this feed- back mechanism is designed to facilitate communication between Ofcom and independent expert groups. This is right and we very much hope that it will ensure that the case load for Ofcom—I take on board the points and concerns about this—will be such that genuine and proper consideration is given to each complaint raised. That being said, I hope the Minister can give us some information on how this will be reported back to Parliament. Will we have sight of the volume of cases taken on by Ofcom and will we be able to see how many complaints have been upheld and how many rejected? I appreciate that, as part of the process, while any super-complaint is live, it must be subject to protection from outside interference, but having this information after the fact would make an important metric that noble Lords and Members in the other place will be able to use to assess how well the machinery and Ofcom overall are working. As has been discussed, the regulations are in the public interest and our collective ability to monitor their effectiveness would be greatly aided by this information—particularly in the context of the Minister’s welcome remark about the need for agility in this fast-moving space. Further to this point, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, the regulations relate to complaints about systemic issues that could negatively affect freedom of expression, pose a risk of harm to the public or cause other adverse effects for users. Can the Minister, when she rises, please share some more information about how users and members of the wider public will be informed about such harms? It seems to me that it is possible to foresee circumstances where, if a complaint is made by an authoritative body to Ofcom under the regulations, it would be wise to warn users and members of the public of this even before Ofcom concludes its investigations, which, as the regulations make clear, could be completed after a period of as many as 105 days. I think that that is the total day count; I may disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, but the point stands in any case. Does the Minister agree that, if there is a chance of a serious risk being posed to users, the public should know about it as soon as possible? Can she tell us whether there are circumstances in which the Government will issue warnings once complaints are raised, or will they rely on the relevant complainant group to do so? Once Ofcom has concluded its investigations, if it finds that there are risks posed to users, will the Government or Ofcom undertake to inform users at that stage? Finally—this is, I am afraid, a slightly more trivial question about the mechanics of the eligibility criteria—the fourth criterion for a complainant group “is that the entity can be relied upon to have due regard to any guidance published by Ofcom”. Clearly, this is testable in the negative, but can the Minister comment on how entities that have not actively demonstrated unsuitability will be assessed and monitored against this important criterion? Clarity on these points would be much appreciated and would provide us with valuable further information on how the Government envisage using these regulations to keep people safe. In conclusion, we support the intent behind these regulations and the way in which they have been constructed; I look forward to the Minister’s remarks. We feel that, on the whole, these regulations offer a clear framework for expert, independent entities—

17:17:00

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:27:00

To pick up exactly where I left off, as with any regulatory mechanism, transparency is key to ensuring public trust and parliamentary accountability. We therefore urge the Government to clarify how the outcomes of this process will be communicated to Parliament and the public, particularly where serious harms are identified. Only then can we be confident that this mechanism will not only protect users but uphold the openness and scrutiny that must underpin all aspects of the Online Safety Act.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, including those who have rightly identified that we have taken the comments from the stakeholder engagement to heart and made changes to the eventual proposals. I will go through the very many questions that noble Lords have asked. I pay tribute to the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; we welcome its report and the scrutiny it has given to our proposals. In no particular order, I will first pick up the question of scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about Parkinson’s law—if I can put it that way. We have spoken about this and there have been a number of different discussions about it. We recognise that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Lords Communications and Digital Committee play a vital role in scrutinising the regime. The SI was shared with those committees in advance. He will know that Parkinson’s law is not as emphatic as it might be—it is a caveated law—but we nevertheless take on board the concerns raised about it and have met the chairs of those committees to talk about how we can take these issues forward. We have had a very good dialogue with them, on the understanding that we do not want to delay what can sometimes be very important and game-changing regulations by having a long extra scrutiny process. Nevertheless, we are trying to find a way to resolve this issue and discussions are continuing with officials.

17:30:00

All noble Lords, in one way or another, asked about Ofcom’s capacity to deal with complaints in addition to what is undoubtedly the very wide set of responsibilities it already has. Of course, that has to be balanced with the fact that the SI restricts how often entities can submit super-complaints. We have tried to get the balance right between Ofcom’s capacity and the opportunity for people to put their super-complaints into the process. To protect Ofcom’s resources, entities can submit only one complaint every six months; however, a complaint can cover multiple linked issues. In addition, should an entity submit one complaint then decide that there is a more pressing matter to be considered, it is able to replace its complaint with a new one within a six-month period. Ofcom will also reject complaints that are substantially similar to another complaint it has already considered in the past two years, unless there is a material change of circumstance, such as new evidence.

Ofcom’s resources were a particular concern raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I want to be clear that, in addition to the safeguards I have already set out, Ofcom has the funding it needs to deliver online safety regulations effectively, with £72.6 million allocated for online safety spend in 2025-26. This was an increase on previous years. This decision was following a business case process that included Ofcom submitting its requirements, which incorporated delivering the super-complaints function. This will be kept under review as the super-complaints regime is implemented to ensure that Ofcom has the necessary resources in place going forward.

Together, we believe that this approach will ensure that Ofcom is not overwhelmed by complaints, while ensuring that systemic online safety matters can be brought to the attention of the regulator. On that basis, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that we are absolutely confident that the deadlines that have been set out are deliverable and achievable. We are confident that they will be met.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others said that systemic risks may be missed if entities are found to be ineligible. Regarding that concern, I want to reassure noble Lords that super-complaints are not the only means of bringing issues to Ofcom’s attention. Ofcom regularly discusses issues with a wide range of stakeholders. As such, just because a complaint is not a formal super-complaint, it does not mean that Ofcom will not engage with the issue. There is also no restriction, including no time limit, on entities trying again to become eligible.

There was some concern about whether small entities could be considered or only large ones. Informal engagement with Ofcom will ensure that would-be super-complainants understand the eligibility requirements and minimise the risk that their time might be wasted. The requirement for strong submissions on eligibility, combined with the evidence requirements of any complaint, will also help to avoid speculative submissions where the primary objective of the submission might be to secure retained eligibility status. This will have benefits for Ofcom’s time and resources.

I should also say to noble Lords that there is not a size requirement to make a super-complaint. The Government have changed the requirement of having experience in the online safety sphere to having expertise. This is to enable new bodies to become eligible and to open that sector up. However, we will continue to engage with Ofcom regarding the super-complaints function, and the Government have the power to update these regulations when required.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others asked whether organisations would risk wasting their time on this process, if they are not going to be found to be eligible. While Ofcom will not commence full assessment of the content of a complaint, including its admissibility, until it has determined whether an entity is eligible, it may need to cross-reference to the super-complaint when making such a determination. For example, it may need to look at the complaint itself when considering whether the entity can be relied on to have due regard to any guidance published by Ofcom. Therefore, it is necessary for entities to submit both their eligibility evidence and their complaint at the same time. However, to ensure that there is no wasted time in the process, we encourage informal engagement with Ofcom to ensure that would-be super-complainants understand the eligibility requirements and minimise the risk that their time is wasted. As I say, we will continue to ensure that those eligibility criteria are kept under review.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the issue of whether organisations would be rejected if they had ties with the tech sector or funding from it. Organisations will not be rejected on the grounds that they have ties or receive funding from regulated services, so long as there are governance and accountability mechanisms in place to ensure that they can act independently from regulated services.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the ombudsman issue. Individual user complaints are likely to be complex but also very time sensitive, and it would be unlike other situations in which ombudsmen operate. In addition, the scope of the OSA means that the ombudsman would need to consider whether providers had taken correct decisions about whether to moderate content that was, for example, illegal or harmful to children. However, under the Act, the Secretary of State could bring in an alternative dispute resolution duty or ombudsman service after Ofcom publishes its user redress report. We currently estimate that this report will be published in early 2028. As noble Lords will know, I am a great fan of ombudsman services—

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but she said 2028. When will the actual review begin? That sounds an impossible end date for anybody to be satisfied with progress on an ombudsman being considered, let alone appointed. Does the review start in 2028, or in 2026? When does it start taking input?

The only information that I have is that we are anticipating that the report would be published and available in early 2028—so, obviously, it would need to start well before then. The noble Lord will know that setting up ombudsman schemes is not a simple process. However, we look forward to the outcome of that report, because we recognise some of the issues being raised.

But if the report will be available only then and the regulations need to be made, the prospect of having an ombudsman is not there until 2029—something like that—or maybe 2030. Does not the Minister find that rather unsatisfactory, especially given her knowledge of the benefits of ombudsman services?

I can only repeat what I said. Ofcom is going to produce a report on this; it will look at the pros and cons of the issue and it may decide that there are other ways in which to deal with individual complaints that would not necessarily be an ombudsman service. We have to give it the space to do that thinking and develop that work; it will also need to look at how the tech companies themselves respond to complaints and what gaps need to be filled by that process. So it is not a simple process—but I understand the noble Lord’s frustration with this. If we have any more information about the timescale for this, I shall write to the noble Lord.

I am sorry to interrupt again, but it partly depends on how much confidence we have in the tech companies in terms of how they deal with complaints.

We will know the outcome of that much sooner than 2028, because I am sure that we will all have experience of complaints that go forward and whether they are responded to efficiently in the coming months, because there will be the opportunity to do that. In the regulations, as the noble Lord knows, all the regulated companies are required to have a named individual and a process for people to raise complaints. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about appeals. I reassure noble Lords that Ofcom’s response will be informed by its regulatory experience, as well as the information presented as part of the complaint and any additional information that has been requested, before arriving at an appropriate determination. I also remind the Committee that the objective of a super-complaint is, ultimately, to bring to the attention of Ofcom an issue, a risk or a harm that it might otherwise have been unaware of. It is not to adjudicate an individual decision or necessarily to trigger enforcement action. Ofcom has the flexibility to use any of its online safety regulatory powers to address issues raised by the super-complaint. This may include a formal enforcement action, a change in guidance or codes of practice or, indeed, no action at all.

I may not have made the point as clearly as I should have. It is not the fact that Ofcom will be unaware of an issue that is being raised as much as that the need to get a super-complaint going may frustrate Ofcom finding out about small but high-risk activity that is remote from its main activity. We went through this in some detail towards the end of the Bill and in recent SIs that have stemmed from it. Size is never the only issue that will affect how individuals are being attacked or treated by these companies. I feel very uncomfortable about a situation where a super-complaint cannot be mounted because of lack of experience or a lack of quality in its processes, when the issue itself will then get ignored. I ask the Minister to perhaps reflect on that later.

As I have said, small organisations can get involved in the super-complaint process. The wording is designed as it is to allow new campaigning organisations, if you like, to come through, because this is a new territory that we are operating in, and we do not want to consult with or hear messages from just the usual, established organisations. I think that Ofcom will be sensitive about all this, but it will also, as we know, be able to enforce against small but risky services. Ofcom is looking at what is happening in the smaller sphere, if I can put it like that. Ofcom has already started enforcement action against some of the non-compliant small but risky services. For example, it is investigating whether small services such as 4chan are complying with the illegal safety duties. There are other small services that Ofcom is now taking action against as well. I hear what the noble Lord has said, and I am confident that Ofcom will want to hear from all voices, not just the large players in this sector. I should also say that Ofcom is subject to standard regulatory redress mechanisms, such as judicial review. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked when the guidance will be in place. The Government expect Ofcom to have finalised the guidance by quarter 1 of 2026. This instrument comes into force on 31 December 2025. The guidance does not need to be finalised before the regime can come into effect. The guidance will contain important and useful information, so complainants may wish to wait until the final guidance is published before submitting a complaint, and Ofcom will consult on that guidance. But those organisations who know exactly what consumer complaints they wish to pursue do not have to wait for the guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked about Ofcom’s transparency and whether it will produce statistics on the evidence that it is acquiring. Ofcom recognises the importance of transparency around the work that it does and is considering how best to publish that information about super-complaints as it implements the new regime. Ofcom will publish responses to accepted super-complaints, including if they are rejected on admissibility grounds, and summaries of these complaints as required under the regulations. Again, Ofcom and the Government will continue to communicate and develop those risks and make sure that the codes are kept under review. It is about not just producing the reports but communicating to the wider public if new risks are identified. We all accept that one purpose of the super-complaints is to bring things to Ofcom’s attention of which it might not otherwise be aware to enable it to move quite quickly to address those issues.

17:45:00

The Government appreciate the ongoing work in this area and the wealth of knowledge that this House brings to online safety debates. Noble Lords here know the Online Safety Act very well; I appreciate their ongoing concern and determination to make sure that Ofcom continues to be an effective organisation and that the Act is implemented to reach its full potential. I very much welcome this debate, which has kept our attention on those issues. I specifically thank the civil society groups that have engaged with the Government on this matter since the super-complaints requirements were consulted on.

In the last 12 months, noble Lords have seen a great deal of progress in the implementation of the Online Safety Act. Today, many of Ofcom’s powers are in effect and the illegal content duties are being actively enforced. Investigations into platforms have already been launched, sending a clear message that non-compliance will not be tolerated, and the recently published children’s code of practice will come into effect on 25 July to bring that area into compliance as well.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I think we can agree that the super-complaints mechanism is a vital step on the path towards a fully realised online safety regime. It will give those with expertise in online safety matters a proper route to bring to Ofcom’s attention issues that it may not otherwise be aware of and will serve as an important horizon-scanning function, ensuring that the legislation remains agile. However, I confirm that the Government and Ofcom intend to keep the Online Safety Act under review. If it is not fulfilling its full potential, we will return to the issue, as we have said publicly on a number of occasions. With that, I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.