Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Vaux of Harrowden

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I want to speak to Motion B1. Like, I think, many noble Lords, I start to become a bit uncomfortable when we have multiple rounds of ping-pong; and I generally hesitate to vote against the Government in more than one round, but I am expecting to make an exception in this case, for four main reasons.

First, I firmly believe that introducing day-one unfair dismissal rights will cause real and permanent harm to young people and others who are seen as higher-risk hires, such as those who have been on benefits for a long period, ex-offenders and people who have had long career breaks, perhaps because of parental or other caring obligations. When I say permanent, I mean that; if you are unemployed for a year, it becomes considerably more difficult to get on to that ladder and to make a success of your career. This is really important.

I am supported in that belief by every business group. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has listed many such groups; I would add another: the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member. There is the Resolution Foundation, the Tony Blair Institute, and perhaps most importantly, the Government’s own impact assessment, which is very clear on this. I would love to hear the Minister’s views on his own impact assessment—he has never actually addressed that point. None of the several Ministers in this place or the other place has made any coherent argument to the contrary. So I put the question very simply to the Minister: will restricting the reasons that may be used to dismiss someone during a probation period, and thereby opening up the risk of an employment tribunal from day one, make it more or less likely that an employer, especially a smaller employer, will take a risk on, or give a chance to, a young person with no experience? Is it more or less likely? It is very simple. I think most of us know the answer to that. Is he going to argue that his own impact assessment is wrong?

Secondly, this measure directly contradicts other government policy. The Government’s youth guarantee, something I am strongly in favour of, will offer every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months guaranteed paid work. To do that, you need employers who are willing to give them a job and to take that risk. Why would an employer do that if they can be taken to the employment tribunal from day one if the employment does not work out? It does not make sense.

Thirdly, despite, frankly, the clear harm that this will do, the Government have not provided any evidence that the change will create any material tangible benefits for workers. No evidence has been provided to show that the qualifying period is being abused or is causing actual harm. There is no evidence provided in the impact assessment; there is evidence that doing this will cause harm, but none about the harm we are trying to solve. No evidence has been provided in this or the other place.

The Resolution Foundation is also very clear: if we are going to harm the life chances of young people, which is what the Government confirm in their impact assessment, we must have real evidence that there is a genuine greater benefit, not just the usual statement that it cannot be right that someone can ever be dismissed for no reason.

Fourthly and finally, I want to look more closely at the claim that this is a manifesto commitment. It is in the manifesto, but it is part of a wider commitment that includes the explicit commitment:

“We will consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation is passed”.


We have heard several times today that the Government will consult afterwards. They might argue that that is because the rules for the probationary period will be in a statutory instrument.

Let us unpick this light-touch probationary period the Government are talking about. The problem is that the Bill expressly and specifically sets out the reasons why someone can be dismissed from day one during that probationary period, meaning that it is not genuinely a probationary period. Under the Bill, it cannot become a light-touch probationary period; that is simply impossible, given the way the Bill is drafted. I would love to understand more about the light-touch probationary period because we have had no detail about what it really means. However, the employer is obligated by the Bill—the Act, should that come to pass—to give specific reasons which are limited by the Bill. It cannot be light-touch, so I would like to understand better what the Government mean by that.

There is a possible way forward, however, which is where I start, perhaps, to part company with the Opposition. It is because the Bill sets out that there have to be specific reasons for dismissal that is the problem—that is what allows the employment tribunal to get involved during a probationary period and all the rest of it. I wonder—I am thinking aloud—whether there is a solution to the problem by taking that element out.

For those reasons, I am inclined to support the Opposition on Motion B1. I urge the Minister to take this seriously. As the Resolution Foundation put it so well, let us not

“needlessly put employers off hiring”.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard four very good speeches, and I do not intend to repeat them. I listened very carefully to the Minister and, unusually, I will read what he said in Hansard rather than just saying I will, because there was some interesting stuff there. I picked out the phrase, “We will not compromise on the fundamental principles of the Bill”. It would help if those could be set out because they are currently in the eye of the beholder.

The Minister also raised the notion that someone who had worked just less than two years should not be unfairly dismissed. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, recognises that point fundamentally but there are 730 days between day one and two years. We do not have to go from 730 to one; there are stages. We may disagree on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pulled out the issue of light-touch rules and the criteria for fair dismissal in the Bill. I have some problems with the noble Lord’s suggestion, because if it is not in primary legislation, it will come as secondary legislation. We all know that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition never kill secondary legislation—I am looking at them. We would like to from time to time because it should happen; there should be a sense of jeopardy in secondary legislation, which currently there is not. Without that sense of jeopardy, I am not happy with taking things out. However, if it is in primary legislation, the consultation is not worth anything because it is already there, so we might as well forget about that.

Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Fox and Lord Vaux of Harrowden

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her post, as it is the first time I have been across the table from her. She was not here when we were debating the two economic crime Bills, but I am sure she is aware that the subject of the use of trusts to obscure the beneficial ownership of UK property on the ROE and obscure ownership of UK companies, which this instrument does not cover, was one of the major areas of our debates at the time.

These regulations are a small step to improve transparency around the use of trusts to own UK property. I understand the balance around the protection of minors and others at risk, so I welcome the regulations, but slightly question how much difference they will make in practice. At least the progress is in the right direction.

I will ask a couple of questions about some general, related areas, if I may. I could not resist this opportunity. First, the latest information that I could find indicates that the true identity of the beneficial owner of UK properties owned by overseas entities—there are 152,000-odd—is not published in about 70% of cases, at the moment. For about 35% of cases, the true beneficial ownership is not known even to law enforcement agencies. There may be a number of reasons for that, including simple non-compliance, which accounts for about 10% in the last numbers I saw; the use of opaque corporate structures, which claim no beneficial ownership, or the use of nominees; and the use of trusts, which is the biggest one, particularly in our overseas territories. Transparency International’s latest numbers identify about £6 billion worth of suspicious transactions in UK property coming through our overseas territories, using trusts.

Could the noble Baroness provide up-to-date statistics on both level of compliance with the rules and the number of properties where the ultimate beneficial ownership remains unknown, for whatever reason? I am happy for her to write, if necessary, if she does not have the numbers to hand. Is she happy with the level of identification of beneficial ownership as it stands? What impact does she think these regulations will have on that? What further steps are planned to make sure that we know who beneficially owns the properties? In particular, what plans does she have to make the information from our overseas territories more transparent? The British Virgin Islands, in particular, appear to be the jurisdiction of choice for obscuring beneficial ownership, at the moment.

Of those entities that have not complied—10% was the number that I saw, which is about 15,000 entities—how many have been fined? Of those, how many have paid those fines and gone on to comply subsequent to payment? How many charges have been taken against the properties in relation to non-payment of the fines? In other words, does Companies House have sufficient powers to deal with non-compliance, and is it using those powers effectively?

Secondly—and I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for going slightly off-piste—another way to hide beneficial ownership is through the use of nominee shareholders. I notice the noble Lord, Lord Fox, smiling; I hate to be predictable, but there we go. This is particularly true for UK companies, where the persons with significant control or PSC rules can be sidestepped by the use of nominees. An entire industry has built up around that. The previous Government accepted that there was an issue around the use of nominees for this purpose and agreed to include a power in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 to take further action against the use of nominee shareholders and the industry that supports them, if they felt it was necessary. This is now Section 790IA of the Companies Act 2006. I want to take this opportunity to ask what assessment this Government have made of the use of nominees in that respect and whether they intend to make use of the powers they have under the Companies Act to address it.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

When the discussions were had with the noble Baroness about her becoming a Peer, I wonder whether they mentioned that she would be in the Moses Room presenting statutory instruments. I bet they did not. But I welcome her, and thank her for the clear explanation as well as the Explanatory Notes, which worked very well. To some extent, the Minister is at a disadvantage—or perhaps it is an advantage—in that the three speakers in this debate are the old gang getting together. We were all involved very extensively in both this and the predecessor Bill that came though.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am sorry to labour the point, but the way in which it is being depicted is as if people will accept the registrar’s ruling and say, “Oh, yeah, right, I understand why you’re not letting me do this”, or, “I understand why you’re letting this person look at my identity”. It seems to me that human nature will operate in exactly the opposite direction and that there will quickly be a huge backlog of people who do not agree with the registrar’s decision, one way or the other. There does not seem to be a defined appeal process. If it is all getting lumped into judicial review, we all know how long that takes and what it leads to—and if there is no system and it all ends at the registrar, there is huge pressure on the registrar to be right every time, which will be extraordinarily difficult. While I can understand how it is being described, my sense is that it will be a lot messier than that.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

Just to add to that, I cannot see anywhere in the regulation where the registrar has to inform the subject of the application that an application is being made. I can see that they can, but I do not see that they have to.