Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—for the first time, I believe. The regulations were laid before the House on 15 October.
The Government have identified data centres, the buildings that store much of the data generated in the UK, as essential infrastructure that is necessary to support, grow and develop the UK economy and that is integral to delivering the UK industrial strategy. As hon. Members know, data infrastructure now underpins almost all economic activity and innovation, including the development of AI and other technology. It is increasingly critical for public service delivery and how citizens interact with one another and the state. For those reasons the Government formally designated data centres as a sub-sector of communications in the list of critical national infrastructure in September 2024—a recognition that their loss or compromise could severely impact the delivery of essential services or have a significant impact on national security, national defence or the functioning of the state, as is the case with other CNIs: energy, water, transport and other sectors.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system effectively facilitates development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including supporting essential digital infrastructure such as data centres. In July last year we consulted on how the national planning policy framework could better support economic growth in key sectors, given their importance to our economic future. In response to feedback from a wide range of stakeholders we announced plans alongside the publication of that revised NPPF in December last year to enable certain large-scale projects within knowledge, creative, high technology and data driven industries to be directed into the nationally significant infrastructure projects consenting regime process. These regulations deliver on that announcement by prescribing data centres as a type of business or commercial project that may be directed into the NSIP consenting regime. In effect, they add data centres to the existing nine prescribed projects set out in the schedule to the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013.
The inclusion of data centres as prescribed business or commercial projects means that certain proposed data centre projects are capable of being directed to proceed through the NSIP consenting process under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008. It is important to stress that the regulations we are debating today do not require any or every proposed data centre project to proceed through the NSIP route. The regulations will provide an opportunity for developers of certain proposed data centre projects to choose, should they wish to do so, to request to opt in to the NSIP consenting process. Circumstances where a developer may wish to make such a request include, to provide the Committee with just a few examples, where a proposal also involves associated energy generation; where it may be particularly large or complex; or where it could benefit from the one-stop shop approach that the NSIP consenting process provides for. To be clear, sections 35 and 35ZA of the Planning Act 2008 would require developers of a data centre project to submit a qualifying request to the Secretary of State. They may direct a data centre into the NSIP regime only if they consider that the project or proposed project is of national significance, and that it meets the other requirements set out in section 35 of that Act.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is drafting, as we speak, a national policy statement for data centres, which will set out the parameters, thresholds or other relevant factors that may indicate whether a particular data centre development proposal could be regarded as one of national significance and so capable of meeting the requirements of section 35. Similar to national policy statements for other sectors of infrastructure covered by the NSIP regime such as energy, transport and water, the NPS that DSIT is currently preparing will also set out a national policy and the policy framework for decision making for data centres. This will provide greater certainty to applicants and decision makers alike.
DSIT is aiming to publish a draft NPS for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with the requirements of sections 7 and 9 of the 2008 Act shortly after these regulations are proposed to come into force. The published draft NPS may also be considered as an important and relevant matter in the decision-making process for any data centre project that has been directed to proceed through the NSIP consenting process. In the meantime, the written statement that was published alongside the existing 2013 regulations states that the Secretary of State will consider “all relevant matters” when considering whether a project is of national significance. That incudes considering whether the project is of a “substantial physical size”, is likely to have a “significant economic impact” or is important for driving growth in the economy.
To conclude, what we are discussing today is merely the mechanism by which certain data centre proposal zones deemed to be of national significance may choose, subject to the Secretary of State’s decision, whether to give a direction to opt in to a different planning route—the NSIP consenting route—rather than going through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 planning process. The legislation enables developers to request that their proposals be considered under the NSIP regime, subject to the Secretary of State’s direction.
We are taking the proposals forward on the basis of receiving an overall favourability of responses to our consultation on them, and because of the important role that such data centres have in supporting the Government’s economic growth mission. I hope that the Committee will agree that the changes are sensible and proportionate steps in ensuring that the planning system is flexible enough to adapt to emerging priorities.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, and to sit next to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). I also welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister, and I appreciate the remarks he has made in this Committee. I welcome the opportunity to address this statutory instrument on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.
As the Minister has said, the UK is home to Europe’s largest data centre market, and the Opposition welcome the aims of the regulations in so far as they wish to enable the market to continue to grow—and to do so with greater ease. It is fair to say that the Government and the Opposition have not always seen eye to eye on aspects of the Government’s planning reforms. The Opposition would not being doing our jobs correctly if we did not draw attention to some of the brazen power grabs made by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—and specifically by the Minister’s former boss—in the name of devolution, reorganisation and planning reform.
When it comes to data centres, however, we are clear that it is the right approach to work towards a less complex system to help see them built. That is not to say that the regulations are perfect. Having looked over the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, it is regrettable to note that the Government have brought the regulations without the accompanying draft national policy statement, which, in the Government’s own words,
“will set out the framework for decision making in relation to data centres.”
As the Committee pointed out, it makes it much more difficult for this House to consider and fully understand how the applications will be assessed without having seen that first.
Secondly, as the Committee noted, the Government are removing the current statutory consultation requirements at the pre-application stage of the nationally significant infrastructure policy process and substituting them for non-statutory pre-application engagement with local communities. As we have seen throughout the debates regarding the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it is not just the Opposition that are concerned about proper consultation with local communities. As the Committee suggested, it would be prudent to seek further assurance from the Minister that meaningful opportunities will still exist for local communities to make representations on proposed developments. I seek that assurance from the Minister today.
The need for that assurance is underlined by the fact that the former Secretary of State waved through two data centres due to be built on the green belt that were not just deeply controversial in their local communities but rejected by the local planning committees. The green belt is not there to be torn up or concreted over on a whim, and it is vital that the Government manage to not just build data centres but build them where they are most wanted, needed and appropriate.
Beyond that, there is also a concern that there is no size threshold for data centres in the regulations, nor any definition, which raises the question of whether very small developments should be captured or included. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify that. Finally, it is vital that the Government go further and faster to reduce the high commercial energy prices that put our data centre market at risk. To date, companies have sought to invest in the UK for our data centre-friendly business environment, but the energy policies of the Minister’s colleague, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, are putting that status at risk. I hope the Minister shares those concerns and makes his colleague aware of the potential damage he is doing.
I hope the Minister will respond to these concerns in full and in good time, and I thank you, Dr Murrison, for the opportunity to share them with the House.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. The Liberal Democrats broadly support the statutory instrument, but we have a number of issues to raise. One is that this measure should not mean the overriding of all planning policy. Indeed, green belt policy needs to be protected. Although we welcome the fact that an NPS is being developed, it would have been more helpful to see the draft of it at this stage. We encourage the Government to go further and consider a national policy statement for business and commercial projects generally, because they will have a big impact as nationally significant infrastructure projects.
There are significant opportunities with big business and commercial developments of data centres. Such developments enable the meeting of standards that cannot be met with smaller piecemeal development. With an eye to what we all must do—seek ways to drive down bills for householders—it is worth noting that there are 1.4 GW of data centres in the UK; that means 1.4 GW of heat. That heat is often the subject of agreements in which companies are paid to take it away, but it is free heat that could heat over 1 million households. We hope there will be a clear requirement in the national policy statement to ensure, as happens in other countries, that “waste” heat—which is free or has a negative cost, because sometimes a company will pay to have the heat removed from its site—is used in local networks wherever possible. We strongly encourage the Government to go down that route.
We also want the strategic spatial energy plan introduced so that there is a national overview of where data centres are located, with the proviso that under this statutory instrument the Secretary of State will consider, on a case by case basis, whether or not to direct under section 35 that a data centre is a nationally significant infrastructure project. We are content to support this measure, but we urge the Government to move forward with their national policy statement to ensure the provision of free heat from data centres to households and to defend key planning policies that must remain in place, such as protection of the green belt.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for that series of points and questions, to which I will do my best to respond—I note that some of them stray outside of my departmental responsibilities. We are talking specifically about putting in place necessary changes to the planning regime to allow formal requests to be made for data centres to be considered under section 35. Other things, such as the spatial plans that the Liberal Democrat spokesman just mentioned, are matters for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the NPS is obviously a matter for Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. However, I will make sure that the relevant Ministers are made aware of the comments of the hon. Members.
I will start by responding to the points made about the draft NPS. That NPS is still in development and testing. Given the time that it may take to comply with the statutory requirements for designation of a new national policy statement, it was considered appropriate in this instance to lay the draft SI in advance. As I made clear, we intend to publish the NPS in draft form near the time at which this SI will come into force. The laying of the SI last month gives an indication to the sector—and the Government think that this is important—and to prospective data centre applicants at a very early stage in their development, who may be interested in using this route, that we are moving forward on delivering against the commitment we made last December. It also recognises the importance that we give to the delivery of data infrastructure more generally.
DSIT aims to publish the draft NPS after these amending regulations come into force, so it is possible that it will be published before any requests for a data centre to be directed into the NSIP consenting regime either come forward or need to be decided. That would mean that the draft NPS would be considered as an important and relevant matter in the decision-making process for any data centre project that is subsequently directed to proceed through the NSIP regime.
The shadow Minister mentioned the changes that we are making through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We will have a significant amount of time tomorrow to discuss amendments to that Bill. As the shadow Minister will know—and as the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner will know, having been involved in scrutinising the Bill in Committee—we intend to publish pre-application guidance on what developers that want to submit a development consent order through the NSIP route should do. The consultation on the scope and design of our proposed guidance closed on 27 October. The responses to that consultation will inform the development of the guidance.
Applicants will be expected to use engagement to deliver high-quality applications. There will still be an expectation of high-quality, early, meaningful, and constructive engagement and consultation to take place with those affected, but we do believe—we had extensive arguments about this in the Bill Committee—that we need to move away from the rigid statutory requirements to this more flexible, guidance-led approach, which will improve flexibility for applicants to take into account community views and to respond appropriately to get the better outcomes. As we have discussed and as I have said many times, the current system is having a number of perverse outcomes that are not leading to beneficial results for that industry.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I should declare that I have a data centre in my constituency under construction. It went through the normal planning route. Will the Minister confirm to the Committee that if someone wants a data centre to go through the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, the local planning authority and local people will still be able to have a say on the application?
Matthew Pennycook
That is a fair question and the hon. Gentleman pre-empts the next point that I was going to make, specifically about local accountability. This is important. The NSIP consenting process provides substantial opportunity for interested parties, including local communities and local authorities, to have their say on proposals going through that process.
Under the Planning Act 2008, local authorities are invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on their area, which the Secretary of State must have regard to when deciding the application. The examination process, which all NSIP applicants need to go through, provides the opportunity for local communities, interested parties and statutory bodies to make representations and for them to be considered by the examining authority in examination of the application and in the subsequent report that will be made to the Secretary of State for a decision on whether to grant development consent.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
This is a little parochial to London, but can we ensure that local authorities in London are consulted, along with the Mayor of London, so that their power to decide is not usurped by the mayor?
Matthew Pennycook
As I said, the NSIP regime provides for local communities, local authorities, other statutory consultees and stakeholders to input into that process. In a similar way to how a local planning authority undertakes a period of consultation to enable views on a planning application to be expressed, the examination process under the NSIP regime—which all NSIP applications must go through—provides the opportunity for local communities and interested parties to make representations to be taken into account by the examining authority in examination of the application and by the Secretary of State when they come to decide whether to grant development consent.
In the time I have, I should respond to a couple of other issues that were raised. Power usage was a point made by the hon. Members for Orpington and for Taunton and Wellington. Energy and carbon footprint are a key issue for data centres. The sector operates under a climate change agreement to encourage greater uptake of energy efficiency measures among operators. The UK has committed to decarbonising the electricity system by 2030, subject to security of supply, and data centres will increasingly be powered by renewable energy resources.
Newer, purpose-built and modern data centres can provide compute at a higher efficiency than older, converted data centres, in terms of the amount of power they draw on, but data centres will play a major part in powering the high-tech solutions to environmental challenges, whether that is new technology that increases the energy efficiency of energy use across our towns and cities, or development and application of innovative new tech that takes carbon out of the atmosphere. We are, however, very conscious that data centres draw on quite a significant amount of firm power, and the Government will take that into account in making decisions as to whether individual applications go through.
Lastly, I should address heat, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly mentioned. He is absolutely right to say that data centres produce a significant amount of heat. The technology exists to capture that heat and to use it in district heating networks, or to meet significant demand. There is potential, therefore, for the heat to be captured and used to further benefit than happens currently, but there have already been successful examples—which are worth highlighting—of using data centre heat for hospitals, homes and other uses. One such example is the use of a data centre to heat a local swimming pool in Devon. We will take that into account, as I am sure DSIT did in the drafting of its national policy statement and in its conversations with other Departments. However, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments are brought to the attention of the relevant Minister.
Gideon Amos
I intervene simply to place on the record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I recently undertook a study trip to Denmark to look at waste heat. I probably should have put that on the record, but it is in the register.
Matthew Pennycook
I hope the point is well made that, as part of the NPS process and more widely, we are engaging with developers and operators to determine whether the Government should be making further interventions that are necessary and proportionate to encourage the take-up of such solutions.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
In the States, a lot of data centres have had pushback from local communities, which are seeing an increase in their energy bills. We cannot quite work out why. Will the Minister commit to work with me, DESNZ and possibly DSIT to ensure that when data centres are built as national infrastructure—because of this change in legislation—that will not mean that consumers end up paying higher prices for whatever reason? I welcome the focus on using waste heat to benefit local communities, but I feel somewhat anxious about that increase in consumer bills because of the building of data centres.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but she tempts me to stray way outside my departmental responsibilities. Instead, I commit to ensure that the relevant Minister from DESNZ is notified about her concerns and that we all reflect, as a Government, on the point made.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the range of considerations about data centres that we have discussed, I wish to draw the Committee back to what the draft regulations seek to achieve. They are merely an enabler for data centres that might be considered of national significance to be capable—only at the request of developers of such projects—of being directed to an alternative mechanism for obtaining development consent. Applications for data centres directed to the NSIP consenting route will undergo a thorough and robust process. As I said, that will include examination by an independent examining authority where local communities and others can participate and register their views before the Secretary of State decides whether to grant consent. I hope that the Committee will agree that it has considered these amending regulations and will be supportive of them.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I declare an interest: my wife sits as an immigration tribunal appeal judge in the Bradford Tribunal Hearing Centre.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. The immigration skills charge was introduced in April 2017. Its aim is to incentivise UK-based employers, including the UK branches and subsidiaries of overseas businesses, to take a long-term view of investment and training. It is designed to address historical under-investment in training domestic workers by UK employers and to deter some from turning to immigration as a cheaper alternative.
The skills charge is paid by employers looking to sponsor skilled workers for visas lasting more than six months. It also applies if they wish to extend the employment for a further limited period. Senior and specialist workers also pay the charge, unless they are an EU national coming to work in the UK for less than three years. The increase will not prevent service supply by intra-corporate transferees from continuing, as it does now in line with our international trade commitments. The charge is paid up front when the employer assigns a certificate of sponsorship to a migrant worker and is calculated automatically based on dates provided by the employer as part of the sponsorship process.
The charge has raised approximately £2.7 billion since it was introduced. The income provides financial support to help maintain existing skills budgets across the United Kingdom, which is important for a range of reasons, such as ensuring that immigration is not seen as the sole solution to dealing with the skills needs in our economy. As education and skills are devolved, the income raised helps to maintain funding levels for each of the devolved nations. It is distributed between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland using the formula devised by Lord Barnett.
The draft regulations give effect to the commitment in the Government’s immigration White Paper, published on 12 May, to raise the cost of the immigration skills charge by 32% in line with inflation. From 16 December 2025, therefore, medium-sized and large employers will need to pay £1,320 per person they sponsor per year. There will continue to be a reduced rate for small and charitable organisations of £480 per person per year.
The money raised will continue to support skills programmes and give those already in the UK the opportunity to fill high-quality jobs needed for the future growth of the country. Upskilling workers already here in the UK will also help us to fill future jobs from within our country. That will reduce the need for businesses and organisations to rely on recruiting international workers, in turn helping to bring down overall levels of net migration. The Government have been clear that the levels of net migration have been too high and must continue to come down.
As is the case now, there will continue to be exemptions from the charge, such as employers seeking to recruit people into PhD-level occupations or to recruit a person who is switching from the student route, or where the person is being recruited for less than six months. The draft regulations make a minor update to the list of exempt occupations to reflect the latest occupational codes from the Office for National Statistics. They do not add or remove any occupations that are currently exempt, but in some cases reflect where occupations have been separated from groups.
The immigration White Paper set out a comprehensive plan to restore order to our broken immigration system. We must ensure that the immigration system strikes the right balance between bringing in workers who can fill skills gaps and investing in our domestic workforce. The immigration skills charge is designed to ensure that employers contribute to our continued investment in developing the skills that the country needs, sending the clear message that immigration should not be relied on as an easy alternative. The draft regulations support the Government’s ambitions to reduce overall levels of net migration and to aid our resident workforce in finding high-quality jobs through skills training. I commend them to the Committee.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Turner, and I am pleased to respond to the regulations on behalf of the Opposition.
Increasing the immigration skills charge is a welcome move, and my party has no objection to the legislation. Our priority must be to ensure that every British citizen has the opportunity to gain the right skills and find good work. When an employer hires from abroad, it is only fair that they should pay their share towards investing in our own people. That sound principle was established by my party in government. However, the regulations alone will not achieve the transformation that we need in our immigration system.
The Home Secretary has said that the Government
“will do whatever it takes to secure our borders”,
and the Minister said just now that net migration remains too high and must come down, but tough words have not led to a real plan for cutting immigration yet. Ministers have tried to claim some credit for the almost 50% fall in net migration triggered by the visa changes introduced at the end of the last Parliament. I want to be clear that my party believes that even that leaves immigration unacceptably high. The Government’s impact assessment forecast an absurdly tiny reduction—of only 14,000—in net migration through the measures in the immigration White Paper, which the immigration Minister mentioned.
Where the Government have acted, they have announced several proposals to make it easier for people—such as Afghan dependants—to come to the country and even to create a new scheme for Gazans and their dependants. The Government said that they would “smash the gangs” and stop the crossings, but the deal with France has already failed. It is not even one in, one out and back again. Ninety-four people have been sent back to France but more than 12,000 have come here since the deal came into effect. On the training of British workers, the Government have defunded level 7 apprenticeships for anybody over the age of 22.
Pumping the economy with cheap foreign workers has harmed our productivity, undercut wages and changed the social fabric of our country. We have a short-termist economic model that prioritises consumption over investment and imported labour over British workers. My party’s position is clear: net migration must be brought down drastically, but we must also have a robust and ambitious post-16 education system that gives young people in this country the chance to thrive in the trades and industries of the future.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
After years of mismanagement by the Conservatives, our immigration system is a mess. Public trust has been shattered, and it is up to this Government to restore that confidence and rebuild our broken immigration and asylum system. It is right for the Government to increase the immigration skills charge in line with the rate of inflation, and it is right that it was introduced in the first place to ensure that we invest in our domestic workforce. However, the Liberal Democrats believe that increasing this charge for those in the health and social care sector is a mistake. It makes zero sense to penalise hospitals and care homes that are trying to hire the staff they desperately need. It transfers money from the NHS to the Home Office at a time when our GPs, hospitals and hospices desperately need money, so please will the Minister consider putting the health and social care sector on the reduced rate?
Mike Tapp
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. I am pleased that the hon. Member for West Suffolk agrees with this policy. There is endless amusement for me in being lectured by the Conservatives on the immigration system. I hope that continues, because we need some amusement in this place.
Nick Timothy
Is the number of channel crossings up or down in the last year?
Mike Tapp
The crossing rates are very similar to those of 2022. In 2018, 400 crossed; more than 150,000 have crossed since then. There is no doubt that we inherited open borders from the Conservatives, and that is why the amusement continues. We have said that we will do whatever it takes. By that we mean that there is more to come. I am not going to ruin the party with policy announcements in this Committee.
Regarding the Gazan refugees, we are a firm but fair Government. Where we need to help people, we will. It is a shame that that view is not shared by the Opposition. I will touch on the pilot scheme with France, which was criticised. It is what it says on the tin: a pilot. The Conservatives were begging for that pilot from the French, but obviously could not strike the deal. The scheme will grow and as it grows, it will form more of a deterrent to those sitting in Calais. We look forward to that.
I welcome the questions of the hon. Member for Woking about the NHS. His points are valid. However, we are clear that we need to ensure that the public sector, as well as the private sector, recruits from the British workforce. There are plenty of young people, and elderly people, who would love to—and could—work in the NHS. The measures will encourage that.
Mr Forster
Will the Government agree to study the impact on the health and social care sector of increasing this charge?
Mike Tapp
When we froze the social care visa route, lots of consultation was conducted to ensure that we fully understood the implications. We fully understand that to go in the right direction for this country we need to incentivise the public sector and the private sector to recruit from the skills that we have here. We are the sixth richest nation on Earth: there is a lot of talent here; we did not get there by accident. We must continue to encourage all companies and the public sector to recruit from within.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (Permitted Disclosures) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (Permitted Disclosures) Regulations 2025.
With your permission, Mr Dowd, I will make a brief statement on the sudden and tragic passing of Baroness Helen Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner. Baroness Newlove was a formidable champion for victims, and her work will be carried on by many who have known her and who have had the privilege of working with her for so many years. It has been a genuine honour to work with her in my role as the Victims Minister. All my thoughts and, I am sure, those of the whole House are with her family and loved ones at this difficult time.
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. The draft statutory instrument amends section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. Section 17 was brought into force on 1 October this year, and makes it clear in statute that confidentiality clauses—also known as non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs—cannot be enforced in so far as they seek to prevent victims from reporting a crime to the police. Section 17 also extends that protection to certain other disclosures required for victims to obtain confidential advice and support essential to coping with, and recovering from, the effects of crime.
Now that section 17 is in force, NDAs entered into on or after 1 October 2025 will be legally unenforceable in so far as they attempt to prohibit such disclosures. That means that individuals who are a victim of crime, or who reasonably believe they are a victim of crime, are allowed to disclose information. That information must be to certain individuals for certain purposes related to the criminal conduct they have suffered. That is the case even if an NDA they have signed seeks to prevent them from disclosing that information.
Under the legislation, victims are permitted to make disclosures to the following bodies: the police or other bodies that investigate or prosecute crimes; qualified lawyers; regulated professionals, including regulated healthcare professionals; victim support services; regulators; and a victim’s close family. Those are known as the permitted disclosures. Disclosures to each of those bodies are permitted only if made for the relevant purpose for the body specified in the legislation, each of which relates to the criminal conduct. However, disclosures made for any other purpose, or to bodies not listed in the legislation, are not permitted, and the NDA may remain enforceable in such instances.
To ensure that section 17 comprehensively achieves the policy aim, this instrument makes three changes to it. The first is to add the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to the list of bodies to which victims can make a permitted disclosure. That is for the purpose of pursuing a claim under the taxpayer-funded compensation schemes that it administers—the criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012 and the victims of overseas terrorism compensation scheme 2012.
Victims sometimes feel unable to tell the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority about settlement agreements they have signed related to the criminal conduct they are seeking compensation for, and that can be because of a confidentiality clause in such agreements. That hesitation can make it harder for the authority to assess their eligibility for compensation. It can also affect how much compensation they receive. Including the authority in the list of permitted disclosures will ensure victims can share relevant information with the authority for the purpose of a compensation claim related to the criminal conduct they have experienced, without fearing legal consequences under the NDA.
Flowing from that, the second change will amend section 17 to allow disclosures to courts and tribunals for the purpose of issuing or pursuing proceedings in relation to a decision by the authority on such claims. That makes it clear that appropriate disclosures are permitted throughout the entire legal process for pursing compensation from the schemes that the authority administers, including in the small number of cases where a compensation decision is challenged in the courts. It is vital that the Courts and Tribunals Service has access to all relevant information, and this amendment makes it clear that an NDA cannot be enforced against a victim sharing certain information with courts and tribunals in that context.
The third and final change the instrument introduces is an amendment to the definition of a qualified lawyer in section 17(6) of the 2024 Act. Currently under section 17, victims may disclose information to a qualified lawyer for the purpose of seeking legal advice about criminal conduct. However, the definition does not include registered foreign lawyers—those who qualified outside England and Wales, but are registered with and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Those lawyers can own and manage authorised law firms and, in certain circumstances, provide reserved legal services. The provision will ensure that victims can make disclosures to any regulated lawyer in England and Wales for the purpose of seeking legal advice about criminal conduct, without needing to verify where that lawyer qualified. That change removes unnecessary barriers and ensures that victims can seek legal advice without fear of breaching an NDA. If this instrument is approved by Parliament, the changes will apply to NDAs entered into on or after the date it comes into force.
As hon. Members may know, the Government are seeking to make further changes to NDAs through an amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that was tabled on Report in the Commons in October. The amendment will void NDAs to the extent that they seek to prevent a victim of crime, or someone who reasonably believes they are a victim of crime, from speaking about the criminal conduct to anyone and for any purpose.
That measure complements an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill that provides similar protections for workers in relation to certain work-related harassment or discrimination. Once commenced, the Victims and Courts Bill measure will repeal and replace section 17 of the 2024 Act, including the changes proposed by this instrument. This is effectively a bridging measure. However, we recognise that the Victims and Courts Bill may take time to achieve Royal Assent and to be implemented. As such, commencing section 17 from 1 October 2025 and then taking forward the changes proposed under this instrument ensures that victims can benefit from these protections without delay while work continues on passing and implementing the Victims and Courts Bill.
This instrument seeks to make three technical changes to section 17 of the 2024 Act to ensure that it comprehensively achieves the policy aim. The changes would make sure that victims of crime are able to access appropriate support from the right agencies and professionals without the fear of legal consequences from an NDA, in order to cope with and recover from the impact of crime. They will pave the way for future reforms under the Employment Rights Bill and the Victims and Courts Bill. I therefore commend this instrument to the Committee.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I join the Minister in paying tribute to Baroness Helen Newlove, somebody I had the pleasure of getting to know and working with over the past 12 months. She was a fierce advocate for victims and their families, and her direct experience of an appalling crime made her credible and impactful in all the work she did. I remember discussing the changes that were being made in Committee to the Victims’ Commissioner and using her as an example of someone who made the most of the power she already had. She would have made even more use of the new legislation that strengthens the Victims’ Commissioner.
As the Minister said, we are considering delegated legislation to make an addition to section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which was passed by the previous Government. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston—the original sponsoring Minister for that legislation—is with us on the Committee. That Act rightly ensured that victims can never be prevented from reporting crimes to the police and other bodies because of non-disclosure agreements.
We can be proud of introducing that measure. It was passed with a clear mechanism for extending the bodies to which a disclosure could be made. Today, we are making use of that power, to enable victims who have signed NDAs to disclose information to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority when making a claim for compensation, and to the courts or tribunals that deal with any related proceedings. That will ensure that the CICA has a full picture of the circumstances that it should properly consider before deciding what, if any, award should be made to a victim. At present, victims are unable to tell it whether any compensation has already been received, which is a matter it should be able to consider.
The regulations also extend the definition of a qualified lawyer to include registered foreign lawyers. That practical step will allow victims to seek appropriate advice wherever they are based.
As I am sure the Minister will confirm, the original legislation was carefully considered and had various checks and balances in place. As she said, the wholesale recasting of those mechanisms in the Victims and Courts Bill was part of a relatively late amendment that did not have the full and detailed consideration that the House would have been able to give it in Committee. She will therefore understand why we want to see further debate, discussion and consideration of this new approach as the Bill progresses through the House.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am slowly beginning to get used to life on the Back Benches and to sitting on neither the Government Front Bench nor the Opposition Front Bench in Delegated Legislation Committees.
Following the Minister’s announcement earlier, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Helen Newlove. I had the privilege of working with her in both her first and second terms as Victims’ Commissioner, both times while I was serving as the Victims Minister—the role the Minister now occupies. Helen brought to her role integrity, decency, kindness and fun; indeed, when I first met her, she had been on “Desert Island Discs” and we ended up singing one of her choices, “Bring Me Sunshine”, before our first ministerial meeting. That set the tone for how we worked together, and she became a friend, so I will miss her hugely. I know the same will be true of victims up and down the country, because whatever her friendship she was always fearless and forthright in speaking up for the rights of victims and in making sure their voices were heard loud and clear. Today, this country—but especially the victims community—has lost a very powerful champion.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, for his comments: I did take the legislation on which this statutory instrument is based through in the wash-up period just before the last general election. I also pay tribute to Dame Maria Miller, who campaigned very hard on this issue, and to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who was a forceful advocate—although always polite and friendly—in banging on my door and seeking to nudge me a little further.
I will not comment on the amendments before the House more broadly in the Victims and Courts Bill. All I will say is that I welcome the pragmatic and sensible tidying-up in this instrument, which is a bridging measure, but also a means to fill in a few gaps that were, I suspect, missed by both sides of the House in their desire to get the 2024 Act through before the election. I therefore welcome the instrument the Minister has brought before us today.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the contribution from the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, who did sterling cross-party work on the original legislation. I look forward to debating further measures relating to this issue when we look at the Victims and Courts Bill. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.