Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
Good afternoon and welcome to an afternoon of debates on statutory instruments. As is often the case, I am required to say that if there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn for 10 minutes. But, as everybody knows, the Budget debate has just started and will go on until 7 pm; there is no risk of a Division. The only risk is that I am due to speak in the debate later.
Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, these technical regulations will ensure that the Down Syndrome Act 2022 is up to date with current NHS structures. There are an estimated 47,000 people in the United Kingdom with Down syndrome. Despite existing legal duties, individuals with Down syndrome continue to face significant challenges in accessing the care and support they need. This Government are determined to break down barriers for people with Down syndrome and other disabled people. The Down Syndrome Act 2022, alongside the broader aims set out in the Government’s 10-year health plan for England, will help us to achieve this.
I will begin by outlining the requirements of the Down Syndrome Act. The Act requires the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to issue guidance to relevant authorities across health, social care, education and housing on the actions they should be taking to support the needs of people with Down syndrome. On 5 November we launched a public consultation on draft guidance under the Down Syndrome Act. We recognise the importance of ensuring that our documents are accessible, and Easyread versions of the draft guidance and survey questions have been made available so that everyone is able to make their voice heard. People can respond to the survey online, via post or by email, according to their individual preferences and needs.
The draft guidance consolidates and raises awareness of the practical steps that relevant authorities should take to meet the needs of people with Down syndrome. Additionally, it helps to clarify the support and services that individuals with Down syndrome can expect to receive. We expect that the guidance will not only improve support for people with Down syndrome but benefit those with other conditions or a learning disability who have similar needs.
This Government are committed to working with disabled people to ensure that their views are at the heart of what we do. The development of the draft guidance involved significant engagement with people with lived experience, as well as organisations that support them. The consultation offers another chance for these communities to express their views.
For the guidance to deliver the improvements we want it to, effective local implementation will be essential. On 9 May 2023, NHS England published statutory guidance that says that every integrated care board should identify a member of its board to lead on supporting the ICB to perform its functions effectively in the interests of people with Down syndrome. The guidance also says that each ICB should have a designated lead for learning disability and autism, and for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. Collaboration between ICB leads and other partners across the integrated care system will be crucial. The ongoing legislation will help us assess whether the guidance is clear and informative for relevant authorities in meeting their legal duties to support people with Down syndrome. We will carefully consider all feedback to ensure that the final guidance is fit for purpose.
I will now explain the changes that these amendment regulations will make. The regulations are designed to bring the Down Syndrome Act in line with changes to NHS structures made by the Health and Care Act 2022. Under the Down Syndrome Act:
“Relevant authorities must have due regard”
to the final statutory guidance
“in the exercise of their relevant functions”,
but the Act does not create any new functions beyond this duty. The Schedule to the Act specifies which authorities must have due regard to the guidance and the functions to which it applies.
The regulations will amend this Schedule, replacing outdated references to clinical commissioning groups with integrated care boards and updating references to the National Health Service Commissioning Board with NHS England. This is an important technical change, as the Health and Care Act 2022 abolished CCGs, replacing them with ICBs, and renamed the National Health Service Commissioning Board as NHS England.
For authorities not listed as relevant authorities in the Schedule to the Down Syndrome Act, the guidance will not be statutory, meaning that they are not legally obliged to have due regard to it. These amendments will bring ICBs and NHS England within the scope of the Act’s requirements, providing clarity and helping to ensure effective implementation. The regulations also align legislation with NHS England’s statutory guidance on ICB leads for Down syndrome. ICB leads are responsible for implementing the guidance, and it is therefore essential that ICBs are referenced in the legislation.
It is important to note that the final guidance under the Down Syndrome Act will not be published until after these amendment regulations come into force. Our intention is to publish the guidance before the planned abolition of NHS England comes into effect. However, we recognise that other ongoing government reforms may affect the timing and content of the final guidance. To maintain accuracy and relevance, the guidance will be kept under review and updated to reflect new policy and legislative frameworks as necessary.
A practical consideration is the timing of these regulations. They are drafted to come into force the day after the day on which they are made. This will ensure that the Down Syndrome Act duty to have due regard will apply to the correct authorities as soon as the final guidance is published. The regulations will not have any material effect until the final guidance is published, so we do not believe that further public engagement or notification is needed at this stage.
By making these important and timely updates to the Down Syndrome Act, the regulations before the Committee will offer vital assurance that guidance is implemented effectively and in the spirit intended when the Act was passed. This supports our aim to improve life outcomes for people with Down syndrome and ensure that they receive the care and support they need to live the lives they want to. I beg to move.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of these regulations. I reflect that in politics there are times when you have some difficult days, but there are also days when you feel it is worth while. I remember when we passed the Down Syndrome Act. I was a Health Minister at the time, and it was one of the most rewarding days I have had as a politician. The credit was not to me; it was to all the legislators who got involved, as well as the many charities, but it is at such times that you feel the work we do here is incredibly worth while.
As the Minister explained, these are technical measures, and we understand that they update references in the Down Syndrome Act 2022 to reflect the changes in the Health and Care Act. As the Minister said, this particularly concerns the establishment of ICBs, or integrated care boards, to replace the clinical commissioning groups. Clearly, the current wording is out of date. For that reason these are sensible regulations, and we are obviously happy to support them. We also welcome the Government’s commitment to help those with disabilities and learning disabilities, which the Minister outlined.
While the changes are technical, they take place against a backdrop of significant structural change. Only yesterday I was contacted by the Minister to discuss some of the changes that will happen when NHS England is abolished and where some of those responsibilities will lie—I understand that there will be a Bill before Parliament.
The Government have announced plans to abolish NHS England by April 2027, but there is as yet no clarity on when the required health Bill will be introduced—I hope we can get something on that—and how the statutory functions under the Down Syndrome Act will be transferred or continued. I completely appreciate that these are early days, but I wonder whether the Minister can answer now or in writing what input there has been and what the thinking is behind transferring some of these statutory functions when that restructure takes place. We would welcome some reassurance that the duties currently held by NHS England ICBs in relation to the Down Syndrome Act will be maintained until the future health Bill provides a new framework. I think that is obvious, but we need some sort of reassurance. We believe that people with Down syndrome and their families deserve that certainty and want to make sure that they are not disrupted by the organisational change.
We also note that the Explanatory Memorandum confirms that there is no statutory review clause for these regulations and, while the technical amendments themselves are straightforward, the absence of a formal review means that there is no mechanism to ensure that these provisions are revisited. I understand that the Minister said that they have come to a stage where they do not necessarily believe that further consultation is required, but I just wonder about some of the reviews. The absence of a formal review could mean that there is no mechanism to ensure that these provisions continue when they are revisited, such as when NHS England is abolished or when the ICBs’ responsibilities are altered. We want to ensure that the statutory duties continue and so we would welcome some clarification on that. Also, how do you monitor the continued effectiveness of statutory guidance and make any more adjustments if required?
Finally, we note that the consultation is ongoing and welcome the fact that the Government have continued to engage with stakeholders throughout this period, ensuring that the guidance remains practical and responsive. I understand that it might be felt that there is no need for any further consultation because all views have been heard, but I think that would give some reassurance in case there are views that need to be heard and have not been. We may say with certainty that there are no more views, but we just do not know what will happen in the future. Also, both the Health and Care Act 2022 and the Down Syndrome Act mandated responsibilities for the ICBs but there is a difference between having responsibilities and ensuring that they are carrying out those responsibilities, and how we monitor that.
Aside from those questions, we support these regulations. We recognise their technical purpose and necessity. At the same time, we hope that the Government will provide reassurance regarding the transitional arrangements and the ongoing oversight of statutory functions so that the objectives of the Down Syndrome Act 2022 are fully realised for the people it is designed to support. We recognise that when the Act was passed it was only the first step to make more people in the system aware and make sure that they are aware of their statutory duties. I am not going to comment on the merits of the changes that are coming—some are positive and some will cause concerns—but we have to ensure that those statutory functions continue so that people with Down syndrome continue to be served in the way that the Act was originally intended. I look forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his very constructive comments. I completely agree that we have some difficulties with Bills moving across but we are absolutely committed to improving services for people across the country who have significant needs and we are pleased to update noble Lords on our progress. He quite rightly reflected that we are going through a period of structural change, but I hoped I outlined in my opening remarks that that should not get in the way of progress on this. I think that there are enough checks and balances in place to make sure that we have an open door for comments to come in.
In particular, we have a set process for the current legislative framework. A clear consultation framework has been laid down with specific timings, explaining how that will all fit together with the legislative changes. The most important reassurance that the noble Lord asked for is that we will keep the guidance under review and ensure that we accommodate any changes or lessons learned. In my view, consultation needs to be a live experience; it cannot be done just once and put in the history books. I hope that that gives him the reassurance that he needs.
I also take this opportunity to reaffirm that our absolute aim, which I know is shared by the noble Lord, is to improve the lives of people with Down syndrome and people with other conditions. Of course, this is a Private Member’s Bill, which brings its own strictures around how it can be covered. I emphasise again that we will achieve this by publishing guidance under the Down Syndrome Act. We hope that the guidance and the process around the consultation will continue to raise awareness and improve our understanding of the needs of people with Down syndrome. The progress that has been made has been significant and I place on record our thanks to all the organisations and people who have raised the profile of Down syndrome and done such an incredible job. It is important that all relevant authorities are brought together to continue to deliver that effective care and support, regardless of NHS structures.
I hope that I have given the necessary assurance that the guidance will be implemented as intended. With that, I thank noble Lords for their attendance and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his contribution.
Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 21 October this year. Before I proceed further, I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip issued for these regulations in October for minor drafting changes related to the date of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the Explanatory Notes and the order of words for the title of an offence inserted by paragraph 2 of the regulations.
The Government remain firmly committed to tackling the most serious and harmful online behaviours. This statutory instrument strengthens the Online Safety Act by designating new priority offences aimed at addressing cyber flashing and content that encourages self-harm. By doing so, we are ensuring that platforms take more proactive steps to protect users from these damaging harms.
Evidence shows that cyber flashing and material promoting self-harm are widespread and cause significant harm, particularly among younger age groups. In 2025, 9% of 18 to 24 year-olds reported experiencing cyber flashing and 7% encountered content encouraging self-harm in a four-week period. That equates to around 530,000 young adults exposed to cyber flashing and 450,000 to self-harm content. This is unacceptable.
Further, 27% of UK users exposed to cyber flashing reported significant emotional discomfort. There is also compelling evidence that exposure to self-harm content worsens mental health outcomes. A 2019 study found that 64% of Instagram users in the US who saw such content were emotionally disturbed by it. Another study in 2018 revealed that 8% of adults and 26% of children hospitalised after self-harming had encountered related content online. These figures underline that these are not marginal issues—they are widespread and deeply harmful.
As noble Lords will know, the Online Safety Act, which received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023, imposes strong duties on platforms and search services to protect users. Providers must assess the likelihood that their services expose users to illegal content or facilitate priority offences, and then take steps to mitigate those risks; these include safety by design measures and robust content moderation systems.
The Act sets out a list of priority offences for the purposes of illegal content duties. These represent the most serious and prevalent forms of online illegal activity. Platforms must take additional steps to address these offences under their statutory duties. This statutory instrument adds cyber flashing and content encouraging self-harm to the list of priority offences. Currently, these offences fall under the general illegal content duties. Without priority status, platforms are not required to conduct specific risk assessments or implement specific measures to prevent exposure to these harms; that is why we are adding them as priority offences.
Stakeholders have strongly supported these changes. Organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation and Samaritans have long called for greater protection for vulnerable users. These changes will come into force 21 days after the regulations are made, following approval by both Houses. Ofcom will then set out in its codes of practice the measures that providers should adopt to meet their duties. Our updates to the Act’s safety duties will fully take effect when Ofcom makes these updates about measures that can be taken to fulfil the duties.
We expect Ofcom to recommend actions such as enhanced content moderation; improved reporting and complaints systems; and safety by design measures—for example, testing algorithms to ensure that illegal content is not being promoted. If providers fail to meet their obligations and fail to take proportionate steps to stop this vile material being shared on their services, Ofcom has strong enforcement powers to enforce compliance. These include powers to issue fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is higher.
This statutory instrument upgrades cyber flashing and self-harm content to priority status, reinforcing the Online Safety Act’s protections. Service providers will be required to take more proactive and robust action to detect, remove and limit exposure to these harmful forms of illegal content. This will help ensure that platforms take stronger steps to protect users, reduce the prevalence of these behaviours online and make the internet safer for all. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I hope this is one of those occasions when we agree that what is coming here is a good thing—something that is designed to deal with an evil and thus is necessary. I want just to add a bit of flesh to the bones.
If we have regulation, we must make sure—as we are doing now—that it is enforced. I congratulate the Government on the age-verification activities that were reported on this morning, but can we get a little more about the tone, let us say, with which we are going to look at future problems? The ones we have here—cyber flashing and self-harm—are pretty obviously things that are not good for you, especially for younger people and the vulnerable.
I have in front of me the same figures of those who have experienced disturbing reactions to seeing these things, especially if they did not want to see them. Self-harm is one of those things; it makes me wince even to think about it. Can we make sure that not only those in the industry but those outside it know that action will be taken? How can we report across more? If we do not have a degree of awareness, reporting and everything else gets a bit slower. How do we make sure that everybody who becomes a victim of this activity knows that it is going on?
It is quite clear that the platforms are responsible; everybody knows that. It is about knowing that something is going on and being prepared to take action; that is where we will start to make sure not only that this is unacceptable and action will be taken but that everybody knows and gets in on the act and reporting takes place.
I could go on for a considerable length of time, and I have enough briefing to do so, but I have decided that the Grand Committee has not annoyed me enough to indulge in that today. I congratulate the Minister, but a little more flesh about the action and its tone, and what we expect the wider community to do to make sure this can be enacted, would be very helpful here. Other than that, I totally welcome these actions. Unpleasant as it is that they are necessary, I welcome them and hope that the Government will continue to do this. We are always going to be playing a little bit of catch-up on what happens, but let us make sure that we are running fast and that what is in front of us does not get too far away.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, this instrument amends Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 to add cyber flashing and content encouraging self-harm to the list of priority offences. I thank the Minister for setting out some of the most alarming facts and figures associated with those offences.
As well as passing the Online Safety Act, which placed duties on social media sites and internet services to tackle illegal content, the previous Government outlawed cyber flashing and sharing or threatening to share intimate images without consent by amending the Sexual Offences Act 2003. We welcome the draft regulations, which we agree are in line with the Act’s overarching purpose to tackle harmful content online. As has been highlighted, young people are especially vulnerable to cyber flashing and content encouraging self-harm, and we must be proactive in tracking the trends of illegal activity, especially online, and its impact on UK users, to ensure that the law continues to be proportionate and effective.
We therefore support the move to categorise cyber flashing and content encouraging self-harm as priority offences under the Act rather than as relevant offences. We share the Government’s view that this will oblige services to remove such material as soon as they are made aware of it, as well as to prevent it appearing in the first place through risk assessments and specialised measures. However, I feel there are some broader issues that we should take into account, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on these.
First, on the use of VPNs, or virtual private networks, to override protections, my belief—I would welcome the Minister’s view on this—is that the Online Safety Act creates an obligation on platforms to prevent users gaining access to the wrong content for them, regardless of any technical workarounds they may be using. In other words, it is not a defence for a platform to claim that the user had deployed a VPN. Can the Minister confirm this? Needless to say, I am seeking not to downplay the VPN issue but merely to establish clearly where responsibility lies for addressing it.
Secondly, on the use of AI in ways that drive self-harm, obviously AI that assists in suicide ideation or less extreme forms of self-harm is subject to these controls. But where an AI that is not initially designed for a harmful purpose gradually takes on the role of, say, a psychotherapist or—I am told—in some cases a deity, the conditions become highly propitious for self-harm. Can the Minister comment on how the Act’s protections cover these emergent rather than designed properties? The noble Lord, Lord Addington, put this very well in his question too, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on that.
Thirdly, and more generally, online harms are, of course, created faster than the rules that ban them, and a key part of Ofcom’s role is to monitor for gaps in the legislation as they emerge so that rules can adapt as needed. As far as the Government are aware now, what gaps has Ofcom identified so far in the existing legislation, if any?
We therefore support these regulations to strengthen the Online Safety Act, to better protect UK users from cyber flashing and content encouraging self-harms. We count on the Government to be proactive in ensuring that legislation is kept updated to tackle the changing ways in which unlawful content is proliferated and to be transparent about the way the Government and regulators balance the broader considerations mentioned. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their broad support for adding these offences to the priority offences list. This is an important step in improving the online safety regime and improving the environment in which we all use the internet, particularly children and vulnerable people. This will help fulfil the Government’s commitment to improving online safety and strengthening protections for women and girls.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about tone and proactivity, it is really important that we communicate what we are doing, both in the online world and in terms of violence against women and girls in the physical world. We know that we must all do more to tackle misogynistic abuse, pile-ons, harassment and stalking, and the Government’s whole approach to tackling violence against women and girls is an active one and is something that we have real, serious goals on. We welcome everyone supporting that move forward. For example, the publication of Ofcom’s guidance, A Safer Life Online for Women and Girls, sets out the steps that services can take to create safer online spaces, and the Government will be setting out our strategy for tackling violence against women and girls in due course as part of that. I think that the publication of Ofcom’s report this morning, which sets out the activity that it has taken and will take, will help raise the profile, as the noble Lord says, about what is expected of services in terms of the urgency and the rigour with which these changes are made.
On the question of VPNs, which we talked about a little earlier, we do not have a huge amount of information or research about their use, particularly by young people to circumvent age assurance. We know that there are legitimate reasons to use VPNs, and we do not have a huge amount of evidence about their use by young people, either very young people or older teenagers. Ofcom and the Government are committed to increasing the research and evidence for how VPNs are being used and whether this is indeed a way that age assurance is being circumvented, or whether it is for what might be legitimate reasons, such as security or privacy reasons. That is an important piece of the evidence puzzle to know exactly what measures to take subsequently.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am particularly interested in whether it is a legitimate defence for a platform to say, “We could not have prevented this access because a VPN was in use”, and therefore whether it falls to the platforms themselves to figure out how to prevent abuse via VPNs.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I think we may need to have this conversation together with Ofcom. My understanding is that doing the risk assessments and putting these offences on the priority list increases the level of risk assessment that must be done. When a platform is doing its risk assessment, it will have to take into account the way in which children, young people or other users will access the service. Thus, depending on what its service provided and how people accessed it, if that was a factor that needed taking into account, it would therefore have to take that into account in the controls it was putting in place, as a platform, on the basis of its knowledge of its user base. Thus, it would, perhaps, go to the more conservative as opposed to the more permissive end of controls. That is my understanding, and if it is not correct, I will correct it.
Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made points about emerging technology, making sure that this measure is fit for purpose and that we keep all Online Safety Act duties, defences and coverage very much up to speed with what people are experiencing in their daily lives. Many others have raised the issue of AI chatbots, including what is currently covered and not covered under the Act. The Secretary of State has commissioned work on AI chatbot activity to make sure both that there is no gap in coverage and that we are keeping up to speed with the emerging technology.
That is an example of how we want to approach emerging technology: making sure that we are getting all of the best research and information, and, if there are gaps in any areas, plugging them. This is the approach we have taken so far, and it is one we are committed to continuing. Whether enacted through advice, guidance, codes or additional offences, all of those are open to us to take forward, whatever the technology shows.
Those were the main questions that were asked. On enforcement, the point is absolutely well made. Enforcement is good only if platforms and services know that these things will be enforced. We have been very clear that Ofcom has our backing to carry out enforcement activity. We have funded the online safety part of Ofcom year on year to ensure that it has the capacity and resources to enforce whatever it needs to enforce in this area. We are very committed to continuing to protect children online. We welcome Ofcom’s recent consultation on additional measures to build on its safety codes—including additional protections on live streaming, which many have called for, as children should not have harmful content pushed on them and should have age-appropriate experiences.
We remain committed to keeping young people safe online, and we will continue to work closely with campaigners, charities, industries and Ofcom to achieve this goal. We will also work with all civil society campaigners and those with an interest. The Secretary of State has also announced that DSIT will support an NSPCC summit at Wilton Park next year in order to bring together experts and young people to discuss the impact of AI on childhood.
Turning back to the SI under discussion, today’s update is another step towards a safer digital environment—one that protects the most vulnerable and addresses emerging risks. I thank the Committee and, on that basis, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, this is my first appearance before the Grand Committee—and a very welcome one for me. In my previous parliamentary career, I spent a lot of time trying to take statutory instruments apart as a member of the Opposition. I would pick little bits from those statutory instruments into pieces, to try to put the then Minister on his or her toes. I am sure that practice will not be followed in this House for statutory instruments, but I accept that, if it is, I will have only myself to blame for what transpires.
These regulations were laid before the House on 13 October 2025. They seek to establish the legislative basis for creating a statutory open data scheme—fuel finder—which will increase fuel price transparency across all UK petrol filling stations, empowering consumers to compare prices on a near real-time basis.
In recent years we have witnessed the rise in fuel prices and the profound impact that this has had on households, businesses and communities across the UK. Between 2021 and 2022, the price of petrol and diesel rose by over 60p per litre, driven by global supply and demand shocks stemming from the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In 2022, drivers paid an estimated £900 million more at the pumps across major supermarket retailers than the previous year. By 2023, higher fuel margins across the whole market had cost drivers a further £1.6 billion.
The CMA found that price rises for fuel and disparities between prices at a local level were largely driven by major retailers using this volatile backdrop, and the lack of transparency, to unfairly increase their profit margins at the expense of consumers across the UK. That therefore contributed to the cost of living crisis and the hardship that families up and down the country have felt in recent years. That is why we are delivering change to protect consumers, to put an end to unfair pricing practices and to increase transparency in the fuel retail market.
In line with the CMA’s recommendations as part of the road fuel market study, we are rolling out a statutory open data scheme for fuel prices—fuel finder—at the end of this year. These regulations will supersede the CMA’s current voluntary scheme and mark a decisive step in empowering motorists across the UK to compare prices easily and to make informed choices about where they purchase their fuel. Motorists across the UK will have greater visibility on the range of choice available to them, and retailers will be incentivised more than ever to offer more affordable prices in a more competitive market. Perhaps the fuel finder name ought to be “cheaper fuel finder” because that, I hope, will be the inevitable consequence of what these measures will put forward for the motorist.
I turn now to the detail of this instrument. These regulations will require all petrol filling stations in the UK to register and report changes to their fuel prices within 30 minutes of a change. The information will be freely available, and almost in real time. This marks a fundamental step towards restoring competition and fairness in a market that has proved that it will not self-correct without government intervention. By making this information openly available to any third parties that request it, we will enable the market to integrate this data into digital mapping services and vehicle satellite navigation services to help motorists locate the best prices in their area.
We recognise that this represents a change in operations for industry, and because of this we are taking a pragmatic approach. From 2 February, forecourts will need to be registered with fuel finder and begin reporting price changes. For the first three months, until early May, the CMA’s emphasis will be on supporting businesses to comply with the new regime, rather than enforcement. This will allow businesses a chance to adapt smoothly. We want retailers to succeed in meeting these obligations, and we will work with them to make sure that the transition is as straightforward as possible.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument forward. This was indeed a Conservative initiative, started under the previous Government and designed both to increase competition and to benefit consumers; His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of course pleased that the current Administration are continuing our work.
The need for this measure was made apparent by the excessive profits earned by major retailers due to a sudden rise in fuel prices in the wake of global supply shocks resulting from the Covid pandemic and Russia’s attack on Ukraine. By 2023, higher fuel margins across the whole market were costing drivers a total of £2.5 billion, £900 million of which went to major supermarket retailers as a result of a 60p per litre hike in fuel prices for consumers.
This instrument aims to create a fairer fuel market. Competition is its aim, and competition is best achieved through the transparency of data and information. Artificially increasing margins becomes materially more challenging when the consumer is no longer on the wrong side of asymmetric information and fully knows that he or she can drive just a few minutes down the road to save money. Being aware of pricing is one part of this, but knowing whether margins are fair and whether their past increases were proportionate is another equally important factor.
Although this instrument requires petrol filling stations to report price changes, it does not extend to reporting on the availability of fuel types. We would be most grateful if the Government could address this issue at pace. It cannot be logical that a driver will be able to see a competitive price but then be disappointed by an empty pump when they arrive at their destination. Is the Minister giving consideration to this? Do the Government accept that an individual using a fuel finder app will indeed be disappointed to arrive at the pump only to find that what they want is not available and will, as a consequence, potentially lose faith in the system?
If it occurs within the Government’s timeframe, the launch of the fuel finder will come two years after the CMA’s recommendation and a year later than originally planned. The Chancellor included the fuel finder in her Budget speech, but she failed to mention that it is a continuation of a Conservative policy and avoided saying that the measure was delayed by her own Government. Instead of the Government delaying for a year then, potentially, blaming complexity for not being able to introduce more thorough transparency measures while protecting low-volume providers, can we please have actions, not words? A potential solution would be to create categories of petrol filling stations and to require major retailers to report in more detail. We must ask: why is this out of the Government’s scope?
We are also concerned about the instrument’s timescale. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Consumers confirmed that guidance and training would be published before the rollout of the whole programme, but this will come as little reassurance to petrol filling stations. Both stations and providers need time to adapt, prepare and comply with these new regulations. It will do little to help them if the guidance is released as the regulations come into force. That will potentially happen if the Government leave this too late. Additional last-minute costs will be passed on to the consumer, which is precisely what this instrument aims to prevent.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the scheme is to be launched at the year end, but the full provisions of this instrument will come into force only on 2 February next year. Can the Minister please confirm that the guidance will come out before the end of the year, given that the Member in the other place was slightly less clear as to which date the guidance will be published by?
Despite these reservations, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcome the introduction of this measure that we initiated. It will provide a more competitive market and drive the rate of price increases down. Our aim should be to create a more certain and more competitive market for the consumer, bringing costs down for hard-working people. We very much hope the Government will take our suggestions on board and action them accordingly.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and in particular the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his very constructive contribution. As he rightly points out, this proposal originated with the previous Government but, I think, fell at the time of the general election—it had started to go through the House. The present Government have been able to take that original proposal and have some extensive consultations and discussions with industry and various other key actors in this field to make sure that the fuel finder was as streamlined and as effective as it could be. That is the form in which it comes before us today.
In terms of the regulations coming in in February, the aim is to make sure that this proposal comes in by the end of the year but, as the noble Earl will appreciate, there is a large number of technical issues to resolve in order to meet that date. What I can best say today is that there is an aim to do that by the end of the year and we hope that will be possible. I hope the noble Earl will understand that there is a lot of work to get this in place and we hope that will be finished in time for that target date to be achieved.
When the fuel finder was originally introduced, there was some suggestion that availability at the pumps should be included among the things that petrol stations had to provide. However, following substantial consultation and considerations of the practical challenge of reporting fuel unavailability—officials did conduct a thorough analysis—it was decided to postpone that and remove the requirement from the fuel finder scheme. But, as I have emphasised, that is a question of postponing and removing for the time being.
If a number of those really practical difficulties can be resolved, that might be something for the future as far as the scheme is concerned, but what the Government wanted to do was make sure that we could introduce a practically implementable and early actionable scheme so that we could get this running on an open access data arrangement as soon as was conceivably possible. I do, however, understand the noble Earl’s concerns. I happen to have an electric car, so perhaps I am a little outside the considerations in this instrument, but I know the problems of an electric car owner thinking that they have found an electric charge point only to find that someone else has been using it for the past three hours and they cannot get near it. There are measures in the industry to resolve that sort of problem, so this is something worth looking at for the future.
I emphasise that the first three months of those technicalities will be until early May. The CMA’s emphasis, as the enforcer, will be on supporting businesses to comply with the new regime rather than enforcement, as I have said, so there will be a period coming in to make sure that the scheme works well and that everybody is undertaking it properly. This scheme is well founded—I welcome the support that has been given to it by the noble Earl and the party opposite—and I am sure that, with a good wind from everybody in this place, it can be in place as soon as possible, to the benefit of motorists across the country.
Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before Parliament on 15 October 2025.
The immigration skills charge was introduced in April 2017. Its aim is to incentivise UK-based employers to take a long-term view of investment and training. It is designed to address historic underinvestment in the training of domestic workers by UK employers and to deter some from turning to immigration as a cheaper alternative. The skills charge is currently 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 continuing as it does currently, in line with our international trade commitments.
The charge, which is paid up front by employers, has raised approximately £2.7 billion since it was introduced. That income is providing financial support to help maintain existing skills budgets across the whole of the United Kingdom, which is important for a range of reasons, including ensuring that immigration is not seen as the sole solution to deal with skills shortages. As education and skills are devolved, the income raised is helping to maintain funding levels for each of the devolved nations; it is distributed between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Barnett formula.
These regulations give effect to a government commitment in the immigration White Paper, published on 12 May, to increase the immigration skills charge by 32%. That is in line with inflation and takes into account the period since the charge was introduced, when no increases have been effected. This will mean that, from 16 December 2025— a few days from now—medium and large employers will need to pay £1,320 per person whom they sponsor per year. There will continue to be a reduced rate for small and charitable organisations of £480 per person per year. As I mentioned, the money raised will continue to support skills programmes across the country.
Upskilling workers already here in the UK will also help us fill future jobs in our country. It will reduce the need for businesses and organisations to rely on recruiting international workers. The Government have been clear that the levels of net migration have been too high and must come down.
As is currently the case, there will continue to be exemptions from the charge, such as where an employer is seeking to recruit people into PhD-level occupations; where they are recruiting a person who is switching from the student route; or where the person is being recruited for less than six months. These regulations also make a minor update to the list of exempt occupations to reflect the latest occupational codes from the Office for National Statistics. Crucially, they do not add to or remove any occupations that are currently exempt, but, in some cases, they reflect where occupations have been separated from groups.
We have set out a comprehensive plan to restore order to our broken immigration system. We must ensure that the system strikes the right balance. The immigration skills charge is designed to ensure that employers contribute to our continued investment in skills. These regulations support the Government’s ambition to reduce overall net migration and to aid our resident workforce in finding high-quality jobs through skills training. I commend them to the Grand Committee and beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest: I am supported by RAMP. Inflationary increases are recognised as an appropriate way to deal with charges of this sort. I will return to the amount and what has been happening since 2017 in a moment, but the core policy intent of the charge remains the same: to encourage employers to look at training resident workers rather than recruiting internationally.
The impact assessment accompanying the regulations suggests that the increase will have only a small disincentive effect, putting off “less than 1%” of sponsorships that would have occurred without the higher charge. The overall package of immigration measures, including the ISC increase, is estimated to reduce net immigration by between 1,000 and 2,000 people per year. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that this net effect is very small in relative terms as compared to the number of people in this country: it represents about 0.3% of long-term immigration figures.
Although the Government aim to reduce reliance on international recruitment, the job needs are exceeding training provision. In any case, there are the implications of the increasing need for jobs as we face the growing older demographic—a subject to which I will come in a moment. For employers, the ISC is simply a mandatory fee that must be factored into hiring budgets, and there is no direct benefit or service provided in exchange for the outlay; the fee cannot be passed on to the sponsored worker.
For us, a significant point of contention is the application of the increase to the health and social care sector. Increasing the charge for the health and social care sector is a mistake in our view, because this penalises hospitals and care homes attempting to hire desperately needed staff. The increase transfers money from the National Health Service to the Home Office, when GPs, hospitals and hospices desperately need funds. The Government are trying to ensure that the public sector, like the private sector, recruits from the British workforce, but transitioning takes time, and estimates of posts required are far outstripping the provision and recruitment to training opportunities in order to fill those posts.
The ISC rates have not changed since the charge was introduced in 2017. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that, when asked why the charge had not increased previously, the Home Office responded only that
“there have not been any substantive reviews of the ISC”
and, importantly,
“Ministers had not sought to make changes”.
I am not suggesting that it was the current Minister, but somebody somewhere was asleep on the job. Perhaps the Minister can inform us why that has not happened in the intervening years and why businesses will therefore now be subjected to a large increase because we did not continue with the proper process of increasing with inflation each year.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also considered the Home Office’s replies on plans for future timely reviews of the charge to be “unhelpfully vague”, so it remains for the Minister today, I am afraid, to be encouraged to ensure that the ISC will be kept under regular review to ensure that it retains its real-terms value and to avoid large step changes in the amounts payable in the future.
The SLSC says that the Home Office “did not respond” to it regarding consultation on these increased charges. The SLSC says that, if no consultation was undertaken, it regretted that and suggested that that would continue a trend of “inadequate consultation” on many immigration policies. Can the Minister correct the committee? Alternatively, will he take into account its criticism of what is happening inside the department? The Home Office deemed a formal public consultation unnecessary, arguing that it would be
“disproportionate given the nature of the changes”.
A 32% increase is not a disproportionate amount, so some form of public consultation should have been undertaken.
I have five questions. First, I want to concentrate on the impact upon the health and social care sector and the transfer of money from the NHS. I do not know whether the Government plan to undertake a study of what impact this has on the NHS and our care services, but if they wanted to find out how much cost falls upon the National Health Service, it would be difficult to track down. The Budget produced last week—these are documents from the Budget—says that, between now and March, £48 million will be raised from these charges. In the year from next April, it will be £180 million. Altogether, that is a substantial amount of money in the next 15 or 16 months. It is necessary to understand how much of that charge falls upon the National Health Service, because taking with one hand and giving with another is not a way of ensuring that we get appropriate transparency of public funding. The documents produced for the Budget say that the £180 million next year will be offset by increased DEL expenditure, but we have just heard from the Minister that the DEL expenditure is going on training.
My main question is: if they are putting this money towards training, to achieve the objective set out by the Minister at the outset, getting domestic employment rather than none, it is important to understand how much of that charge is being taken from the NHS budget. According to the statement just made by the Minister, it is certainly not transferred back into the National Health Service, as far as we can understand it. This is really a question about how we can measure that impact and whether, if there is a negative impact, the Government will try to reduce the rate for the National Health Service to the charitable small organisation rate, so that we can at least minimise the hit upon that service.
The impact assessment estimates that the increase in the immigration skills charge will deter less than 1% of sponsorships. Does the Minister believe that this modest impact is sufficient to address the stated objective that levels of net migration—I am talking here about illegal migration for work—have been too high and must continue to come down? That impact is quite small compared with what I suspect the need is.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations and setting out their purpose. These regulations increase the immigration skills charge, or ISC, for the first time since its introduction eight years ago in 2017, and they align it with inflation. This is a sensible measure, and we are pleased to support it.
As has been noted, the ISC raises revenue to support skills funding, and, in the words of the Migration Advisory Committee, it also encourages employers to invest in the development of domestic workers rather than relying on migrant labour. We welcome the Government’s recognition that the charge should reflect the rising cost of living and their continued focus on linking skills, migration and wider labour market policies. By increasing the charge by 32%, it is estimated that the ISC could raise an additional £180 million. This could contribute to funding skills development in priority sectors and, over the medium term, reduce reliance on migration.
We also observe that, while this measure is straightforward and proportionate, it is important to consider its impact on businesses. We recognise that the charge is lower for certain sponsors, such as charities and small businesses, which helps to mitigate any disproportionate effect. None the less, we encourage the Government to continue monitoring the balance between supporting skills investment and avoiding undue burdens on employers.
We also take the opportunity to underline that the original purpose of the ISC is to support skills development in the United Kingdom. While the income raised is not hypothecated, it does contribute to maintaining the Department for Education’s skills budgets, which, in turn, supports apprenticeships and workforce development. We hope that the Government will continue to ensure that this connection between the charge and skills investment remains robust and effective.
In conclusion, we welcome the increase in the immigration skills charge. We recognise its potential to help upskill the domestic workforce and encourage employers to invest in British talent, while also contributing to the broader objective of aligning skills and migration policy.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his broad support for the measure before the Committee. I am also grateful for his questions, which I hope to answer in line with the questions from the noble Lord, Lord German.
As noble Lords will be aware, the immigration skills charge has not been increased since it was introduced in 2017. The noble Lord, Lord German, asked me why that was the case. Had I been the Minister then, it would have been increased on an annual basis, but that was not the case. Now that I am the Minister, it is being increased. I hope that that is helpful.
The charge has risen by 32% because that is the rise in the consumer prices index between 2017 and March 2025. That is a fair increase to make in these times, in order to achieve the Government’s objectives, which remain to invest in training and to ensure that we reduce net migration.
Both noble Lords asked whether this will be kept under regular review. The answer is yes. I am responsible overall for examining budget matters with the Home Secretary in the Home Office. I will make sure that, as part of our annual reviews, this charge is looked at—along with a range of other charges for a range of other services. It is important that we undertake that.
Noble Lords asked whether there was consultation on this matter. The skills package, which was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the measures on raising the charge price were trailed in the immigration White Paper, which was subject to widespread consultation; it has also had much debate and discussion in both Houses, as well as among the public at large. I accept that there has been no specific consultation on the immigration charge itself, but the trail was put in the immigration White Paper. As noble Lords know, the Explanatory Memorandum says that, when the immigration White Paper was published, the devolved Governments were invited to discuss and contribute to it. It is a tax, and therefore a full regulatory impact assessment is not required.
The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the National Health Service. First—this also goes to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst—the Home Office is the point of collection for money, but that money is given to the Treasury, which disburses it elsewhere. As ever, the Treasury remains all-seeing and all-powerful in all matters; we are simply the conduit for such funds to be passed on in due course.
Following another question from by the noble Lord, Lord German, it is difficult to give a figure on the costs to the National Health Service because of a range of factors. They include: which organisations sponsor a worker; whether they are large or small organisations, in the health service context; whether the people being recruited are exempt, such as those with PhD roles and students; and how many people are ultimately recruited. Again, I have overview of this, so I will look at that and at the impact on the health service as a whole.
We keep all immigration routes under regular review, including charges. We also keep under review—in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst—the impact on businesses.
As I hope both noble Lords have recognised, the broad purpose of this instrument is to encourage businesses, first and foremost, to look at training a UK-based workforce, recruiting a UK-based workforce, and recruiting workers from overseas only if they have a shortfall or feel that such workers bring specific skills. If they bring a set of specific skills or are on the exempt list, there will be no charge. If they are not on the exempt list and do not bring specific skills, there will be a cost to the employer, but, again, the employer must decide whether that is a cost worth bearing because they are recruiting individuals who help make them productive and efficient.
I hope that, with those remarks, I have answered both noble Lords’ concerns; I welcome their views. I commend these regulations to the Grand Committee.
Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 21 October 2025. They set out criminal offences for breaching regulatory requirements relating to the operation of unmanned or uncrewed aircraft systems—referred to henceforth as UAS—which includes drones and model aircraft. These regulations will ensure that the regulatory requirements remain enforceable and that operators and pilots of UAS remain subject to the appropriate penalties where they fail to comply with the regulatory framework.
Noble Lords will wish to know that the draft regulations have been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not have any comments on them and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had one comment. It asked how awareness and understanding of the regulations will be improved. My department has since responded to this by advising that the Civil Aviation Authority, or CAA, has launched a communications campaign to improve the awareness of the regulations. Activities include emailing all registered drone users—roughly 500,000 operators—promotion via Google advertisements, issuing communication on social media with paid promotion to reach specific audiences, and using other communication channels to spread awareness.
I will provide some background information about these regulations. My department commissioned the Civil Aviation Authority to review the regulatory framework for UAS. It carried out a public consultation for this purpose. The consultation set out proposals to simplify regulation, improve education for users of UAS, improve safety and security, and consider options for support for the sector during the transition to the new regulations. The CAA worked closely with government, industry and law enforcement partners in developing a number of policy recommendations.
Together with the regulatory updates made through the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, laid in this House on 21 October, this instrument will implement the CAA’s recommendations, supporting a more future-proof, enforceable and robust UAS regulatory regime in the United Kingdom. The draft regulations will revoke and replace existing offences for breaches of the UAS regulatory requirements, ensuring that the offences remain enforceable and facilitating the enforcement of new requirements. The instrument also makes consequential amendments to the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 and the Police Act 1997.
The draft regulations set out criminal offences for breaching regulatory requirements relating to the operation of UAS as set out in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft, which I will refer to as the “implementing regulation” for short. This is an EU regulation that was directly applicable in the UK prior to exiting the European Union. Following that exit, the regulation was retained in an amended form in the UK and has subsequently been further amended. This now forms part of assimilated law in the United Kingdom.
The implementing regulation is amended by the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025 to update the rules on UAS, simplifying the regulatory regime and ensuring a safe and secure airspace. The implementing regulation establishes a framework for the operation of UAS to ensure that they are used safely and regulated proportionately. In this framework are three risk-based categories of operation: “open”, or low-risk operations; “specific”, or those with a greater level of risk than the open category; and “certified”, or the highest-risk operations. The implementing regulation, among other things, includes requirements for registration and competency testing. It also provides for model aircraft operations in the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations under a bespoke authorisation.
The offences in this instrument largely replicate offences currently set out in the Air Navigation Order 2016, which I will refer to as the ANO 2016 for short. The draft regulations also provide for penalties for these offences, largely replicating the penalty provisions in the ANO 2016. Owing to the amendments made by the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, it is necessary to revise the offences by removing them from the ANO 2016 and remaking them in this instrument.
These regulations will ensure that the rules for drones and model aircrafts are safer and clearer for current and future use. I commend them to the Grand Committee.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am flattered that I am considered such a threat, on my own, to the passage of government legislation that I have to be faced by not only a Minister but two Whips at the same time, in addition to a team of very helpful civil servants at the back.
Broadly speaking, we support these regulations. It is a curiosity both that we support this statutory instrument and that the regulations are made under the negative procedure, so we do not actually see them. However, the criminal offences flowing from the regulations are made under the affirmative process, so we see only part of the process here in front of us today. I am sure that it is correct but it seems slightly curious, because it might have been better for everyone if the whole picture had been presented and we understood both the regulations and the criminal offences that flowed from them as part of one sweep. However, in general, we are in favour of them.
I will take up the point about communicating these very detailed regulations to those who might be caught by them, especially to those who might be caught by the criminal offences that flow from them. The Minister referred to that in his opening remarks. Surely it is the case that drones and unmanned flying things are becoming ever more popular and more widespread—and not only in the leisure sector but, I hope, in the commercial sector, because they have the potential to add great efficiency in the world of logistics, thereby benefiting us all and helping the economy to run more smoothly and prosperously. Therefore, it is terribly important that these regulations are not overly onerous, that it is possible to comply with them without being an expert or having a lawyer at your side everywhere you go, and that they are properly communicated.
Although I hear that the Civil Aviation Authority has written an email to 500,000 people, I hope that the Government do not feel that their responsibility for communicating these regulations and their consequences is discharged simply by that. This is not a responsibility that they can offload on to the CAA and imagine that everything has been done. It is the Government’s responsibility; they are the lawmakers, so to speak, and the enforcers of the law, so they need to make sure that this is being done properly, repeatedly and extensively, so that those who are affected understand it.
The only other point I will make is that this is an amendment to EU-assimilated legislation. It departs from that legislation to some extent, but in a very modest way as I understand it. It is part of a pattern whereby the Government are taking existing EU law and, to a large extent, cutting and pasting it into British law. Not only is that unimaginative but it fails to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities that Brexit has created for our economic growth, including the opportunities we have for freer trade, and so forth, around the world.
I hope that, when the Government come back with similar regulations in similar circumstances in the future, we have that imagination and sense of purpose that shows that we have regulations that work for Britain and not simply for Romania or whatever other country may have been involved in drafting those from which these are essentially derived. Otherwise, with those caveats, we tend to support this statutory instrument.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his consideration of these draft regulations. I will respond to the two substantive points he made.
He is absolutely right that this needs to be communicated properly, because the use of drones—both for recreational purposes and, increasingly, for commercial purposes—is becoming very important in the United Kingdom. I draw the noble Lord’s attention to some further details on the consultation in 2023 and 2024, which received 3,500 responses. The respondents included recreational and commercial UAS operators, manufacturers, service providers and aviation sector organisations. We believe that that is a considerable response that shows the interest in the effective and lawful use of drones. The consultation tested support for a broad package of proposals, and the feedback to the consultation formed the basis for the final policy recommendations.
The noble Lord is absolutely right that it is important that drone users are very much aware of the rules and regulations for their use. I said what activity had been carried out by the Government, but, in support of that, I add that the Civil Aviation Authority also updated the drone code and flyer ID test on 22 September this year. The reason was that that was ahead of the peak renewals period for pilots needing to retake the online test. That seems to be a good thing to do because someone taking the online test should be aware of the up-to-date regulations and the penalties for failing to comply with them.
On the alignment with the European Union, I modestly disagree with the noble Lord opposite, because the regulation does diverge from the European Union, but only where it is important to do so—either to improve our national security or to use our limited airspace better. The divergence is there to benefit the UK overall and to support our ambition to lead globally on UAS regulation, while still enabling our British aviation industry to trade internationally with other nations. With that, I commend these regulations to the Grand Committee.
Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (Permitted Disclosures) Regulations 2025
Lord Lemos
That the Grand Committee do consider the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (Permitted Disclosures) Regulations 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, the draft instrument before us seeks to amend Section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act. Section 17 was brought into force on 1 October this year. This has been debated in the House of Commons and is now to be debated in this House. Section 17 establishes in statute that confidentiality clauses, also known as non-disclosure agreements or, commonly, NDAs, cannot be enforced where they attempt to prevent victims reporting a crime to the police. In addition, Section 17 broadens this protection to include certain other disclosures necessary for victims to obtain confidential advice and support essential to coping with and recovering from the effects of crime.
With Section 17 now in force, NDAs entered into on or after 1 October 2025 will be legally unenforceable to the extent that they seek to restrict such disclosures. This means that anyone who is a victim of crime, or reasonably believes they are, may disclose relevant information to specific individuals or organisations for certain purposes related to the criminal conduct they have suffered. This applies notwithstanding the terms of any NDA they have signed.
Under the legislation, victims may make disclosures to the following bodies: the police or other bodies that investigate or prosecute crime; qualified lawyers; regulated professionals, including regulated healthcare professionals; victim support services; regulators; and a victim’s close family. These are known as the “permitted disclosures”. However, disclosures are to be permitted only if made for the relevant purpose specified in the legislation for each body. Disclosures for other purposes or to bodies not listed in the legislation are not permitted, and the NDA may remain enforceable in those cases.
To ensure that Section 17 fully achieves its policy aim, this instrument introduces three changes to it. First, it adds the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, known as the authority, to the list of bodies to which victims can make a permitted disclosure. This is for the purpose of pursuing a claim under the taxpayer-funded compensation schemes it administers. These are the criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012 and the victims of overseas terrorism compensation scheme 2012. Victims sometimes feel unable to tell the authority about settlement agreements they have signed related to the criminal conduct they are seeking compensation for. This hesitation often stems from confidentiality clauses in those agreements. Such reluctance can make it harder for the authority to determine eligibility and may affect the amount of compensation awarded. Adding the authority to the list of permitted disclosures ensures that victims can provide relevant information to the authority for the purpose of a compensation claim related to the criminal conduct they have experienced without fear of breaching an NDA.
Secondly, the instrument 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. This makes clear that appropriate disclosures are permitted throughout the entire legal process for pursuing compensation from the schemes the authority administers. This includes the small number of cases where proceedings are pursued in relation to a compensation decision. It is essential that courts and tribunals have access to all relevant information, and this amendment makes clear that an NDA cannot be enforced against a victim sharing certain information with courts and tribunals in this context.
Thirdly, this instrument amends 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 the 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. These lawyers can own and manage authorised law firms and, in certain circumstances, provide reserved legal services.
This change ensures 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 confirm where their lawyer qualified. It removes unnecessary obstacles and ensures that victims can seek legal advice without fear of legal action under an NDA. If this instrument is approved, the changes will apply to NDAs entered into on or after the date on which it comes into force.
As noble Lords may know, the Government are seeking to make further changes to NDAs through an amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill tabled on Report in the Commons in October. This amendment will void NDAs to the extent that they seek to prevent a victim of crime, or someone who reasonably believes that they are a victim, speaking about criminal conduct to anyone for any purpose. This measure complements an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill that offers similar protections for workers in relation to certain work-related harassment or discrimination.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument, which concerns an issue of real importance to victims of crime and to the integrity of our justice system. These regulations, made under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, clarify and expand protections for victims who have signed non-disclosure agreements, otherwise known as NDAs.
We on this side of the Committee are proud to have brought forward the 2024 Act, and, crucially, to have created a mechanism to extend the list of bodies to whom disclosures may be made without fear of breaching an NDA. Today’s instrument makes use of that mechanism in a sensible and necessary way.
It is already well established that no NDA can prevent someone reporting a crime to the police, yet too often such agreements have a chilling effect. Victims may be unsure whether they can speak to a support service, a lawyer or even a close family member. Section 17 of the 2024 Act was intended to bring clarity and to void NDAs to the extent that they purport to prevent victims, or those who reasonably believe that they are victims, from speaking to specified bodies about criminal conduct.
These regulations go further. They add the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to the list of permitted recipients and ensure that victims can disclose information needed for a compensation claim without risking legal consequences. No victim should face a choice between honouring an NDA and seeking redress for harm suffered. They also permit disclosure to a court or tribunal when challenging a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. That is a necessary provision for meaningful challenges.
The misuse of NDAs to obscure criminality has long troubled campaigners, lawyers and victims’ organisations. These regulations close important loopholes. They will ensure that victims can speak to the compensation authority, the courts and regulated lawyers, whether domestic or foreign, without the shadow of a legal threat. In conclusion, these are proportionate and sensible measures that strengthen the statutory framework that we established in 2024.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his support for these measures and his contribution to this debate. As I have said, I believe that the changes we are seeking to make through this instrument will help to ensure that Section 17 comprehensively achieves the policy aim, and I therefore commend this draft instrument to the Committee.