Draft Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mrs Hobhouse. The regulations are part of a secondary legislation programme implementing the reforms of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Combating economic crime remains a priority for the Government. At the same time, it is crucial that we ensure that the UK lives up to its reputation as a country in which legitimate businesses can thrive. The reforms in the 2023 Act strike that balance. As the implementation of the 2023 Act continues at pace, I am pleased to present the Committee with these new regulations as part of the next wave of reforms.
As a quid pro quo for running a limited liability company, those controlling them have to register their details publicly at Companies House. That provides transparency for members of the public, so they can find out who those people are. At the same time, it means that the owners and controllers of the company can be held to account for the company’s affairs. However, the Government are conscious that by having personal information on the public companies register, individuals can be subject to increased risk of harm, including the risk of fraud and identity theft, and other matters such as stalking. The regulations aim to ensure that the register does not become a tool for abuse, and to strike the right balance between transparency and privacy.
Currently, it is possible for an individual to protect their residential address from the public register in certain limited cases. When I say protect, I mean that the register cannot display the addresses publicly. That does not mean that the address has gone away entirely; Companies House retains the address and can share it with those who have functions of a public nature, such as law enforcement, if required to do so.
The new regulations deliver another instalment of the reforms to enhance the protection of personal information on the register. They build on regulations that came into force on 27 January this year. The previous regulations expanded the circumstances in which an individual can apply to protect their residential address from the public register.
The regulations will expand that existing protection regime further still. They will allow individuals to apply to protect their business occupation, signature and date of birth. They will also make it possible to protect a residential address in even more cases than is already allowed. The only exceptions will be where it is not possible because the company names make it so, and in certain charge-related filings. That is because of the importance of those filings for due diligence purposes. The Government will keep those exceptions under review.
We believe that the reforms align with the Government’s mission to kick-start economic growth. They will encourage enterprise and entrepreneurship, giving prospective directors greater confidence that their personal information can be protected if they decide to start a company or accept an appointment as a director.
The regulations will also remove the requirement for certain community interests, company documents and statements of solvency to be signed. That means that those documents can be authenticated via printed name, bringing them in line with other company-related filings. By reducing the number of signatures on the public register, the measure will reduce misuse of the register for fraudulent purposes, including identity theft.
In addition, the regulations will remove the requirement for directors of overseas companies to provide a business occupation. As the 2023 Act will remove the requirement for UK company directors to provide their business occupation, the regulations ensure consistency with the requirements for overseas company directors.
Further, the regulations expand an existing protection mechanism for people with significant control. They can currently make an application to request that the registrar refrains from disclosing their usual residential address to a credit reference agency. The regulations allow a person with significant control over a company to make applications in more cases—for example, where they are at risk as a result of being a partner of a limited partnership. The regulations make other minor amendments to secondary legislation relating to people with significant control, which are applied to limited liability partnerships and eligible Scottish partnerships.
The regulations apply the changes that they make to company law to the law governing LLPs and unregistered companies, such as companies formed by royal charter. This will ensure that the framework for other entities aligns with that of standard companies.
I reiterate that the regulations strike the right balance between privacy and transparency. They mark a further step towards the successful implementation of the 2023 Act, and I therefore hope that the Committee will support them.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse.
We are scrutinising the draft Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations. That may sound dry, but I imagine that every colleague here has come across a case in which someone’s identity has been stolen because of the information about them that is available on the Companies House register. I am pleased that these regulations show this Government building on the good work of the previous Government. I therefore certainly will not object to their passage this afternoon, but I have a few questions for the Minister, in the interests of parliamentary scrutiny.
First, I could not see any mention in the explanatory memorandum of how long it will take for individuals to have their application actioned. Will the Minister shed some light on how quickly Companies House thinks that it will be able to process applications and, from approval, how long it will take to have the information removed from the register? Secondly, what are the Government doing to ensure that the application process at Companies House for removing details is straightforward? Thirdly, what is the administrative cost of these regulations to Companies House, and will those costs be recouped through any planned changes to the fees for registering a company?
Fourthly, how many individuals are expected to make use of these regulations? I note that an impact assessment has not been published, and given the limited financial implications, I can understand why. However, given that the intention of this statutory instrument is to remove information from the register that puts individuals at risk of theft and fraud, will the Minister please inform us how many people are thought to be the victims of crime as a result of the information that is currently publicly available in Companies House? How many cases are estimated to be prevented as a result of the statutory instrument that we are considering today?
Finally, given that the statutory instrument is intended to reduce the risk of theft and fraud by removing personal details from a public register, how does Companies House plan to publicly let people know about this change and its effective date? Has Companies House explored a more proactive approach, and has it thought about using artificial intelligence to remove this information automatically? I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s support. As she rightly pointed out, we can all understand why this sort of issue is important—I am sure we all have constituents who have been affected by it—and she asked a series of perfectly reasonable questions.
We do not have in mind a specific period for processing applications. It will very much depend on the level of demand and whether the information is provided in the correct manner in the first place. I understand that, because a similar process has already been set up under previous regulations for certain circumstances in which people can remove their information, the systems are in place and there are staff ready to go. The people at Companies House have assured us that they are confident they will be able to manage the demand.
There will be a fee, and I understand that it is currently £30. Of course, Companies House can recover fees only on a cost-recovery basis, so there will be no element of profit making—it will simply cover overheads. I understand that there is a wider review of Companies House fees, which will clearly be informed by the progress of the roll-out.
The application itself is straightforward. It can be done via email or on paper, and must contain the information that the applicant wishes to protect and the list of documents. There will be no need for individuals to justify why they need the information to be removed from the Companies House register. If the correct information is provided, the process will be fairly straightforward. I understand that Companies House will issue guidance shortly on how the process will work.
On the wider point about how the changes will be communicated to individuals who are on the register, I will come back to the shadow Minister if there is any further information. I will also do the same if we are able to provide estimates of how many people the changes will protect. With fraud, criminals often take information from a number of sources, so it is about limiting the scope for fraudulent activity, but if we can put a number on it, we will certainly do that. A number of actions have already been taken to prevent incorrect information from being put on the register under the new powers in the 2023 Act.
That probably covers the bulk of the shadow Minister’s questions. I will write to her with more information if I can give any more detail. A lot of this relates to the processes and the internal workings of Companies House. We have confidence that the people there will be able to deal with the change, as they have undertaken similar projects recently. I thank Members for their support for the regulations and commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Nuclear Installations (Compensation for Nuclear Damage) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Nuclear Installations (Compensation for Nuclear Damage) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 19 May, make technical changes to the way in which the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage, known as the CSC, will operate in the UK on accession to the treaty. The changes streamline the operation of the different conventions, as well as the domestic implementing legislation.
Nuclear power is central to the Government’s mission to become a clean energy superpower, and a key part of our industrial strategy to revive Britain’s industrial heartlands. It provides clean, home-grown energy, creates thousands of well-paid, skilled jobs, and complements other technologies by providing stable and reliable electricity to the grid.
To drive forward new nuclear and deliver on our mission, the Government made a series of bold commitments in the recent spending review. A £14.2 billion investment was announced to build Sizewell C, ending years of delay and uncertainty and creating 10,000 jobs, and we pledged £2.5 billion for small modular reactors, or SMRs, over the spending review period. Rolls-Royce SMR has been selected as the preferred bidder to partner with Great British Energy—Nuclear to develop the reactors. Together with Hinkley Point C, those announcements represent the biggest nuclear roll-out for a generation, delivering more nuclear to the grid than in the past 50 years.
Participation in nuclear third-party liability—or NTPL—treaties are important for supporting nuclear development, while also safeguarding the interests of potential victims in the highly unlikely event of a nuclear incident. NTPL treaties ensure that: minimum levels of compensation are available to victims of a nuclear incident; claims are channelled exclusively to the operator of a nuclear installation; and claims are channelled to the jurisdiction in which the nuclear incident occurred. The UK is party to the Paris convention on third-party liability in the field of nuclear energy and to the Brussels convention supplementary to the Paris convention on third-party liability in the field of nuclear energy, known as the Brussels supplementary convention. They are implemented domestically in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.
The Paris convention sets a minimum operator liability amount of €700 million, with an additional €500 million of compensation available above that to compensate victims in a Brussels supplementary convention country. Finally, there is a shared international fund of €300 million made up of contributions from Brussels convention members, again used to compensate damage in Brussels states.
To remove some potential barriers for investors and the nuclear supply chain, and to support exports, we are now pursuing accession to another treaty, the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage. The CSC is another international nuclear third-party liability treaty, under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The UK is the first Paris convention member to seek to accede to the CSC.
Accession to the CSC will expand the number of countries that the UK has NTPL treaty relations with by 11. The expansion will remove some potential barriers to inward investment, and support UK exports in the future. Accession will enhance the UK’s attractiveness as a destination for nuclear investment and support the successful delivery of future projects. That is because the mutual respect of the principles of NTPL treaties will apply to more countries.
In the highly unlikely event of a nuclear incident, accession to the CSC will also increase the amount of compensation available for potential victims. The CSC establishes a shared international fund made up from contributions of the contracting parties to compensate victims of a nuclear incident. A country’s contributions are calculated based on installed nuclear capacity and UN contribution rates, expressed in special drawing rights. At present, with the UK as a member, the shared international fund would be approximately £120 million, with the UK’s contribution set at £7 million. To date, there have been no calls on this fund.
As the first Paris convention country to seek accession to the CSC, there is no established path for countries seeking participation in both conventions, and the UK is therefore a pioneer in this respect. To enable CSC accession, provisions were included in the Energy Act 2023 to amend the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, which provides for the UK’s participation in various NTPL regimes. Our initial approach had been to reflect the minimum national compensation amount required for claims at 300 million special drawing rights, equivalent to €370 million, by setting this as the liability limit for operators. This was to come out of operators’ existing financial security provision.
This instrument makes a technical change to the way the CSC will operate in the UK upon accession to the treaty. The technical amendment will align the compensation available under the CSC with that of the Paris convention, which is to say it creates a single first tier of compensation available under both conventions with a limit of €700 million. This remains within the existing financial security provided by operators, meaning no increase in the liability burden for operators. For sites with lower liability levels, namely low-level and intermediate sites, their financial security requirements will also remain unchanged.
This approach will simplify the operation of the different conventions and the classification of claims in domestic legislation. It will benefit the administration of funds by ensuring that the CSC shared international fund comes into operation only once operator financial security limits under the Paris convention are exhausted. It will continue to ensure the additional funds available under the Brussels supplementary convention and the CSC go only to those entitled to make a claim under these conventions.
In conclusion, the instrument makes a technical change to the way the CSC will operate in the UK. We continue to work towards CSC accession, which will support the delivery of new nuclear projects and exports while continuing to safeguard the interests of victims in the highly unlikely event of a nuclear incident. The Government have been clear on our support for nuclear, and these measures contribute to creating the best possible investment climate. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It is an unusual experience to be in full agreement with most of what the Minister has said. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Do not get used to it.
I took the Energy Act through the last Parliament, and it is under section 22 of the Act in which the amendments necessary to implement the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage are contained. Section 306 of the Act outlines the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning the CSC. The regulation before us today seeks to amend the classification of claims for compensation in respect of the convention on supplementary compensation, as set out under section 22 of the Energy Act/Nuclear Installations Act 1965.
Under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, if compensation claims, excluding CSC-only claims, reach an aggregate of €700 million from the responsible person, the appropriate authority may be required to satisfy further claims, including CSC claims up to the equivalent of the aggregate €700 million and the value of the CSC international pooled funds. For CSC-only claims, the responsible person’s liability limit is 300 million special drawing rights, after which the appropriate authority’s liability is limited to the aggregate of 300 million special drawing rights and the value of the CSC international pooled funds.
Regulation 2(3)(b) will omit section 16(1ZAA) of the Nuclear Installations Act. Subsection (1ZAA) sets a financial limit on the compensation payable by a responsible person for CSC-only claims. Thereby, this regulation seeks to remove the lower liability cap for claims that relate only to the CSC, which is in place for claims arising under the convention on third-party liability in the field of nuclear energy: the Paris convention. As a result, the liability for claims under either convention is brought to €700 million. Any claim brought under the CSC, or under the CSC and the Paris convention, would have a cap on liability of €700 million plus the value of the CSC international pooled funds.
As a nation seeking to build a golden age of new nuclear—not quite as golden as it might have been had the Government stuck to our plans, but a golden age none the less—and to implement a revival of civil nuclear in the UK as part of our secure, affordable, clean energy ambitions, it is incumbent on us to put in place the necessary mechanisms to ensure consistent liabilities in the event of damages. That is what the draft regulations seek to do. I am in violent agreement with the Minister on this point, and we do not oppose any of these changes today.
Question put and agreed to.