Employment Rights Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

Debate on whether Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, we now come to the general subject of unfair dismissal rights from day one, which we have just touched on in relation to apprentices. Many of the same arguments are going to apply more widely. For me, this is most damaging part of the Bill because the unintended, but well understood, consequence is that it will damage the life chances of the young and the most vulnerable. I thank the Ministers for their time last week; I am not sure if I persuaded them, but I will try again now.

At Second Reading, I asked why these changes are required. What is the evidence that there is a genuine problem, or that the qualifying period of two years is being abused in any material way? The Minister did not answer the question, so I have therefore given notice that I intend to oppose the question that Clause 23 and Schedule 3 stand part of the Bill, so that I can probe further into what problem these changes are intended to solve.

Rather than hearing my views on the subject, I am going to tell noble Lords what the Government’s views are, and what they think the impacts of these changes to the qualifying period will be. According to the impact assessment,

“it is likely employers will make changes to hiring, dismissal and management practises to minimise the risk of litigation for dismissal and minimise unproductive employee-job matches. The burden of these changes could be in the hundreds of millions per year”.

It goes on to say:

“The impact on businesses is expected to be negative and driven by familiarisation costs, and administrative costs from providing a written reason for dismissal, as well as the costs associated with additional early conciliation and tribunal cases, which is also likely to create additional burdens for the Employment Tribunal system”.


So, the Government agree that there will be a substantial cost to business, an increase in litigation risks and additional burdens on the tribunal system. They also state that these impacts will fall disproportionately on smaller businesses. I assume that nobody in this Chamber thinks that any of those are a good thing.

More importantly, what are the impacts on employees, especially those who are trying to find work? The impact assessment is pretty clear on that too. It says that

“there is some evidence of a negative relationship between stronger dismissal protections and hiring rates … this suggests that if not implemented with care ‘Making Unfair Dismissal a Day One Right’ could damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire (e.g., younger workers with less experience, ex-offenders, etc.)”.

It later says that

“there is evidence that the policy could negatively impact on hiring rates. For example, employers may be slower to take on workers due to the liability and increased protections, particularly for those that are seen as riskier hires”.

Again, I cannot believe anyone thinks those are good things.

The Government accept that this policy will create costs in the hundreds of millions for businesses, add burdens to the already stretched tribunal system and, most importantly, damage the hiring prospects—the life chances—of the very people we should be helping to get into employment. I hate the term NEETs, but we have heard a number of comments about the nearly 1 million young people who want to get into work. It goes directly against the Government’s admirable policy to get people off welfare and into work. So, why do this? Surely there must be some hard evidence that the current two-year qualifying period is causing some genuine problems, or evidence of material abuse, to justify these changes that will have all the damaging consequences that the Government themselves accept.

However, the impact assessment makes no such claims. It provides no evidence whatever that there is a problem. It simply makes a number of very vague and unquantified statements about people benefiting from increased job security. For example, it suggests a direct benefit to households driven by the welfare benefit arising from increased job security, with absolutely no attempt to quantify it. It also goes on to say that there are benefits from

“additional settlements and awards from additional early conciliation and employment tribunals”.

That last one really is extraordinary. This Bill has been described as a bonanza for employment lawyers; the Government appear to be confirming that, and actually seem to be suggesting that it is a good thing.

To read or listen to what the Government say, noble Lords would be forgiven for understanding that there are currently no protections from unfair dismissal for employees during the qualifying two-year period. That is quite wrong. There is a whole list of reasons for dismissal that are automatically unfair from day one. I will give a few examples, rather than go through the whole list—I do not want to keep everyone here all night. They include dismissal for reasons of a protected characteristic, such as age, disability, race or religion, et cetera; for being pregnant or on maternity leave; for being a trade union member or representative; for taking part in industrial action; and for being involved in whistleblowing. There are many others. So, let us stop this idea that new employees are unprotected from day one. It is just not true.

I ask the Minister, as I did at Second Reading, when she did not answer: why are the Government doing this? What evidence do they have that the qualifying period is really a problem? Presumably, there must be some tangible benefits from the policy to justify all these disadvantages that the Government have described. What are they?

The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt—and happy birthday to him—would require impact assessments of the changes, which I support, but surely it would be better to get this right in the first place. The impact assessment does say:

“The impact of hiring and labour mobility will ultimately depend on the final regulations on what is permissible in the ‘initial statutory period’ of employment”.


That is absolutely right, and that is what the rest of this group tries to deal with: to reduce the negative impacts of this change.

Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 says that the Secretary of State may make regulations about dismissal during the initial period of employment, which is generally called a probationary period. My Amendment 104, along with Amendment 334, is intended to make it a requirement that the Secretary of State “must” make, rather than “may” make, such regulations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for his support on this and other amendments. He sends his apologies that he is unable to be here tonight.

As the Bill stands, the two-year qualifying period can be abolished and not replaced with anything. I understand that is not the Government’s intention, and we heard earlier about the nine-month preference, but it is what the Bill says. Having no probationary period at all would be extremely damaging, so it is important that it should become a requirement that these regulations are issued, and not just a “may”.

My Amendment 108 would ensure that any probationary period is at least nine months long. What is important is that the employer should have adequate time to assess whether the new employee is right for the business, including by giving them a good chance to get up to speed through training and so on. I agree that the current two-year period is very long, and from discussions I have had with business groups and from my own experience in business, I am confident that the shorter period would be acceptable to most businesses. I think the Government’s suggestion of nine months is workable, and that is what I have proposed in the amendment, so I hope it is not particularly controversial from that point of view.

The other critical factor for a probationary period is that it must work in a way that enables an employer to give the person the benefit of the doubt, rather than acting as a disincentive to hire them, especially for the riskier hires that the Government described and that I mentioned earlier. For that to be the case, it is essential that the employer can dismiss them without having to give a reason during the probationary period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

Of course; that is always the way whenever there is litigation. Whatever the subject matter, people do not want the burden of defending the case and the people bringing the case do not want the burden of bringing it. That is just the reality of litigation.

I will say one last thing before I sit down. The argument that the noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite have put forward is all about what they perceive to be the consequences of this matter, which my noble friend Lord Monks just addressed. But nobody can seriously advance the case that employers should have the right to dismiss anybody unfairly and without recourse to the law.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

Does the noble Lord accept that these are not simply arguments that people around this Chamber are putting forward but matters that are in the Bill’s impact assessment? It is the Government’s own statement that the Bill will have these impacts. It is not being made up by any of us: the Government accept that this will be the impact.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

That may very well be, but it still does not remove the fundamental point: what is being proposed is a category of worker who can be dismissed unfairly for the most extreme reasons without resort to any justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. She will know that I share her ambitions for the tech sector. The UK remains the number one country for venture capital investment, raising $16.2 billion in 2024—more than either Germany or France—and since last July we have secured £44 billion in AI investment. Strengthening employment rights and giving day-one protections can help support talented people to take the leap into a start-up company.

I turn to Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Setting a statutory probationary period during which light-touch standards will apply is a crucial part of our plan to make work pay. I can reassure the noble Lord that setting out the detail in regulations is fundamental to fulfilling this commitment. It is not necessary to make this a requirement in legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked a number of questions. He, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others asked why the Government are doing this. The UK is an outlier compared to other OECD countries when it comes to the balance of risks and entitlements between the employer and the employee. We believe that it is an important principle that employees should have greater security at work. Our reforms will mean that around 9 million employees—31% of all employees —who have been working for their employer for less than two years will have greater protection against being unfairly dismissed.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I hate to interrupt the noble Baroness at this late hour, but that is just a repeat of what has been said before; it is not a tangible quantified reason for doing this. Yes, for a short period of time, they will have greater security in theory, but the downsides of this—they are in the Government’s own impact assessment—are really clear. The Government say that this will reduce the life chances of people who are riskier hires. It will cost business hundreds of millions of pounds. There is no quantification of that benefit against those downsides, and I am still not hearing that.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I will talk about the impact assessments in more detail shortly, but the noble Lord will know that it is a lot easier to identify the costs in impact assessment than the benefits. We have worked with academics who are looking at this subject. I reassure the noble Lord that we have looked at this and are confident that the benefits in this particular case will outweigh the risks.

I will pick up the point made by other noble Lords about cultural fit and other reasons why an employer might want to dismiss somebody during their probationary period. Dismissal for “some other substantial reason” is a catch-all category designed to allow employers to terminate an employment contract where no other potentially fair reasons apply. There can be cases where dismissal is legitimate and reasonable; “some other substantial reason” dismissals depend on the facts and circumstances of the employment relationship. “Some other substantial reason” is broad, and case law supports personality clashes in workplace teams or a business client refusing to work with an employee being a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The Government do not believe that an employee not being a cultural fit within an organisation should be a fair dismissal per se. We would expect an employer to be able to dismiss someone fairly only if any cultural misfit was relevant in a reasonable manner to the employer’s business objectives and the needs of the workplace.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned employees with spent convictions. I gently point out to her that dismissing an employee solely for having spent convictions is currently unfair and potentially grounds for an unfair dismissal claim—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Baroness that not only have we thought about this but we are working very closely with the business sector to get this right. We understand that some of these things will take time. It takes time to change systems, and a lot of it is about changing computer systems for processing and so on. We are aware of this and, when the noble Baroness sees the implementation plan, it will reassure her that we have allowed space and time for it, as well as proper consultation with those who will be affected.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, it has been a long debate so I will try not to detain the Committee much longer. I thank the many noble Lords across the Committee who have contributed. It has been long because this is really important. I confess that I come out of the end of this debate feeling somewhat depressed. I still have not heard really why we are doing this, and what the real, tangible benefits are, to offset against the very real negative impacts, particularly on those who are looking for employment and are perhaps disadvantaged in one way or another: they have not worked before, they are young, they have a gap—we heard all the various examples. The Minister did not really address that point terribly clearly in her speech, and it is so important.

This may be, as the Government have regularly called it, a Bill for workers. However, as I said at Second Reading, it is not a Bill for people who want to work—the potential workers who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. He stole my Charlie Mayfield quote, but I will not worry about that. It is true that Denmark has much easier hire and fire, and he was using that as a paragon of virtue because it allows people who are harder to hire to get into employment, which is so important.

In the interests of being constructive, I hope the Minister understands the real concerns about those people and the impact the Bill is going to have on them, and the negative impacts this section of the Bill will have. I hope that she will be prepared to spend a bit of time with us between now and Report to try to find solutions to those negative impacts, to minimise the problems and downsides that they will cause. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monks: I am not making this up, or crying wolf, as with the national minimum wage, as the noble Lord suggested. This is what the Government say will be the impact. I cannot emphasise that enough. It is not me saying that; the Government say this will be impact. If we can try to work together before Report, to try to find ways of knocking the edges off this and reducing the negative impacts, that would be very helpful. With that, I will not oppose Clause 23 standing part of the Bill.

Clause 23 agreed.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am a little puzzled by the groupings between this and the previous amendments. I have gone the opposite route and decided to speak to this group rather than the last one, but everything that I say in this group applies equally to Amendment 75, which would have created a review of the impact of the changes on small and medium-sized businesses. This group would require impact assessments to carried out for the various other effects that the Bill would have—so really it is the same subject.

Frankly, a lot of this would not be necessary if the Bill had been properly thought through from the beginning, if there was not so much detail to be filled in later by regulation and, in particular, if a proper impact assessment had been carried out on the various changes proposed. The Bill will, by the Government’s own admission, impose costs on business, disproportionately on smaller businesses, of around £5 billion, and will, again by the Government’s own admission, have potentially negative impacts on employment opportunities for those with poorer employment records. It is deeply unsatisfactory that it should not have been properly impact-assessed.

The Regulatory Policy Committee rated the impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”. It is worth reminding noble Lords what it said:

“Given the number and reach of the measures, it would be proportionate to undertake labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis, to understand the overall impact on employment, wages and output, and particularly, the pass-through of employer costs to employees. The eight individual IAs and the summary IA need to provide further analysis and evidence in relation to the rationale for intervention, identification of options (including impacts on small and microbusinesses) and/or justification for the preferred way forward”.


It is damning that that was not done before the Bill was presented to us.

Now, before the Minister points this out, I concede that the statutory sick pay individual impact assessment is the only one of 23 that is rated as good—in itself a pretty damning statistic. However, the impact assessment for the monitoring and evaluation plan for the statutory sick pay part is rated as weak. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already referred to the potential behavioural aspects that arise, which are not in any way covered in the impact assessment. In fact, there is a complete cop-out; it says, “We can’t do this because of the behavioural impacts”.

Sadly, these proposed amendments and Amendment 75 in the previous group are clearly necessary, as are the others that we will debate later today and throughout the Committee process. The five-year review that the Minister referred to earlier frankly does not cut it, given the significance of the measures in this Bill and how quickly how they will have impact. Five years is way too long to wait to understand whether it is damaging.

I do not wish to test noble Lords’ patience by repeating this speech multiple times during the process of the Committee, so I ask the Minister to take as read my support for proper and timely reviews and assessments of the impacts of this Bill as we go forward.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as noble Lords have identified, we are now continuing the important debate on statutory sick pay and specifically to address the impact of these measures on businesses.

It is important to highlight that the statutory sick pay system, and the changes that we have brought about as part of this Bill, is designed to balance providing support for the individual with minimising the costs to the employer. This group of amendments, Amendments 74A, 74B and 74C, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would require impact assessments on absenteeism, enhanced sick pay schemes, occupational health, and short-notice shift working.

As I mentioned earlier, and as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already identified, the Government have already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment which considered the likely direct business impact of SSP changes. This included considering the impact on small and medium enterprises and sectoral impacts.

Overall, in the regulatory impact assessment, the Government estimated that the cost of delivering these measures would be approximately £15 extra per employee, a relatively modest amount when compared to the positive impacts that these changes will have for employees and overall productivity. I thank the noble Lord for the three amendments tabled in this group, all of which would require impact assessments. I look forward to debating those with the other 23 or so requests for impact assessments that the Opposition have already tabled. We have a plethora of requests for impact assessments. I reassure the noble Lord that we are at the same time updating our regulatory impact assessment and operating a post-implementation review of the measures—so the Opposition’s requests are probably not necessary.

On the noble Lord’s Amendment 74A, requiring an assessment of the impact of the changes to SSP in the Bill on absenteeism, we acknowledge that overall sickness absence may increase as a result of this Bill. This is not a loophole, nor are the Government not considering businesses; rather, it is the very objective of these changes to enable the lowest-paid employees to take time off when they are sick. Under the new system, employees will be able to take the time that they need to recover from short-term illness without struggling through work and often risking the spread of infectious diseases such as influenza. Similarly, employees with long-term or fluctuating conditions should feel able to take a day of sickness absence to manage their condition to prevent it worsening. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that employees might be encouraged to misuse the system. However, if employers have the right policies and practices in place, the risk of inappropriate absenteeism can and should be mitigated.

Additionally, the noble Lord’s amendment would be quite difficult to deliver in practice. There is not a standard measure of absenteeism versus legitimate sickness absence, and in many instances, it would depend on whether you asked the employer or the employee. The Government intend to build on the regulatory impact assessment and, as I have said, we intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill.

I turn to Amendment 74B, to assess the impact of the reforms in the Bill on employers’ ability to continue offering enhanced sick pay and occupational health services, particularly in low-margin sectors such as retail. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern about the potential impact on this matter, and the Government certainly agree that it would not be in anyone’s interest for there to be a rollback of occupational sick pay or occupational health provision. However, the Government’s view is that these changes will serve only to strengthen the link between the workplace and the employee. I question why any business would want to use these changes as a reason to reduce the support that they provide their employees to help them stay in, and return to, work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked about the Government’s policy on getting people back to work, and she was right to raise the issue. We are talking about a balance here; when people are sick, they should have the right to be off sick. I also accept the point that she made that being at work can in itself be a healing experience, and we should not lose sight of that—that there can be a positive health impact from being at work.

I once again draw noble Lords’ attention to the Keep Britain Working review. As I set out earlier in the debate, Sir Charlie Mayfield will consider recommendations on how the Government can support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces and support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence. That review is expected to produce a final report in autumn this year. I believe that much of what the Keep Britain Working review is doing will address the noble Lords’ concerns, and I hope this reassures them that the Government are taking this matter seriously. We look forward to the results of the review.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 74C, which seeks to review the effects of the SSP changes on shift management and short-notice scheduling in the workplace. As discussed in relation to Amendment 74A, the number of sickness absences may go up as a result of these changes. This is because it would enable employees to take time off when they are sick.

I again reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to understand the impact of these changes on businesses. We intend to conduct a post-implementation review of these measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, as I set out in the earlier debate, the Department for Work and Pensions conducts regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of SSP changes on a range of employers and employees.

However, this amendment would require the Government to collect a significant amount of data from businesses on what noble Lords will understand is quite a wide range of issues. We believe that this would be administratively challenging for them to provide, particularly in less than six months. This is the very thing that the noble Lord is seeking to avoid—the extra bureaucracy that he has talked about. For example, asking employers, including SMEs, to accurately record and report to government the frequency of shift cancellations and redeployments because of sickness absence is not practical or reasonable.

We have had a worthwhile, short debate on these issues, but I hope I have persuaded noble Lords that we are on the case and therefore that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I accept that the intentions behind this Bill are well meant, but I am concerned about the unintended consequences. There are some positives—the rules on fire and rehire, and bereavement leave, are just two examples—but overall I am afraid I have to conclude that the Bill will damage growth and, most importantly, the employment opportunities of the most vulnerable people. Others have mentioned omissions from the Bill. I am supportive of the comments that have been made on NDAs and on whistleblowing, and I look forward to seeing what comes up on those.

The impact assessment says that the Bill will impose costs of around £5 billion on business. Worse, it confirms that those costs

“will be proportionately higher for small and micro businesses”.

That goes directly against the Government’s drive for growth. Noble Lords need not take my word for it. The OBR said yesterday that changes would

“likely have material and probably net negative economic impacts on employment, prices and productivity”.

There is already evidence that small businesses are reducing hiring, so I hope the Government will be willing to consider constructive ways to reduce the burdens on SMEs.

Speaking of the impact assessment, the bar is not high, but this is one of the worst I have ever read. The Regulatory Policy Committee rated it not fit for purpose, stating:

“Given the number and reach of the measures, it would be proportionate to undertake labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis to understand the overall impact on employment, wages and output, and particularly the pass-through of employer costs to employees”.


It beggars belief that any Government would propose changes of this importance without carrying out such an analysis.

That problem is made worse because this is, in effect, yet another skeleton Bill, with much of the important detail to be added later by regulation. I counted 173 regulatory powers—I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, came up with the same number—including 11 Henry VIII powers. That restricts proper analysis and scrutiny. At the very least, can the Minister confirm that all material regulations will be provided in draft before we reach Report, to allow at least some scrutiny of those important rules? It is not acceptable to continue having these endless skeleton Bills. We are seeing more and more of them.

Given the time limit, I will raise just two detailed issues. First, I agree that zero-hours contracts can be exploitative and that some tightening is required, but they can work well for people such as students, as we have heard, and we should try to retain some level of flexibility for them. More importantly, the new rules are likely to drive perverse behaviour. Basing future guaranteed hours on the previous 12 weeks is burdensome on businesses, but it may also mean that people will not be given extra shifts during those busy times. The unintended impact of the Bill might be that people get less work, not more.

Secondly, there is the introduction of day-one unfair dismissal rights. This will directly reduce opportunities for vulnerable people. That is not just my opinion, it is the Government’s opinion too. The impact assessment says:

“There is evidence that the policy could negatively impact on hiring rates. For example, employers may be slower to take on workers due to the liability and increased protections”—


I stress this last part—

“particularly for those that are seen as riskier hires”.

I am sure we all support the Government’s intention to get people off sickness benefits and into work. But, to achieve that, we need employers willing to employ them. Is this really the moment to introduce rules that will, by the Government’s own admission, make that less likely? Is there any real evidence that the two-year qualifying period is being abused? In my experience, the opposite is true. The qualifying period allows employers to give people with little experience or poor employment records the benefit of the doubt when hiring them in the first place and at the end of any initial probation period. Can the Minister please provide evidence that the two-year qualifying period is in fact a real problem? The only winners here will be employment lawyers, and the losers will be the very people the Government say they want to help.

We have heard lots of comments about this being a Bill for the workers. What it definitely is not is a Bill for those who want to work.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, like others, I think I am experiencing the same sense of déjà vu that has been referred to. As others said, one of the more welcome aspects of this Bill is that it is not the same as its predecessor, which was introduced by the previous Government and which was mercifully a casualty of the election. Many of us lost far too many hours of our lives on that Bill, which was, frankly, a bad one—others have called it egregious.

So, I am pleased that this Government have clearly taken account of those debates—perhaps some of those hours were not wasted after all—and have produced a slightly slimmed-down version. That, in part, is because some of the old Bill has been removed from this one, but I am afraid it is expected to reappear again; I hate to disappoint the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Stevenson, but we are going to see those DWP bank account access clauses in a separate Bill. However, at least it will be a stand-alone Bill rather than tucked in the background of a two-inch-thick data Bill.

I will start with a general concern which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned, which is that of EU data adequacy, which a number of us raised in the context of the last Bill. The helpful letter from the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, the chair of the European Affairs Committee, dated 22 October to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, sets out very clearly the

“significant extra costs and administrative burdens on businesses and public-sector organisations which share data between the UK and the EU”

that would be incurred if we were to lose that data adequacy ruling, which is due to expire in June 2025—so very soon. I do not think I have seen a response from the Government to that letter, so I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that. Although this Bill is clearly less contentious than its predecessor and the risk is therefore clearly lower, it is not zero risk, and we need to be careful to ensure that there is nothing in the Bill that risks significantly the loss of that ruling.

To that end, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what assessment the Government have made of the risk of losing the EU data adequacy ruling and, perhaps more importantly, tell us the extent to which the Bill has been discussed with our European counterparts to ensure that there is nothing in it that is concerning them. Clearly, we do not need to and should not follow the letter of the EU data protection rules, but we should at least work with our EU counterparts to ensure that we are not risking the adequacy ruling.

Part 1 deals with so-called smart data. I welcome it but note that it consists mainly of a series of powers to regulate rather than any firm steps, which is a little disappointing. The only current live example of smart data that we have is open banking, which a number of noble Lords have referred to—maybe, one day, we will see a pensions dashboard; who knows? However, open banking has been rather slower to take off than had been hoped. It has been six or seven years since it was first mooted. I urge the Government to carry out a review of why that is, before they start to make the regulations that the Bill proposes around smart data. There are lessons to be learned from open banking, to ensure that what we do with smart data in the future is more successful. The claims that smart data will boost the UK economy by £10 billion over the next 10 years looks a little optimistic, especially as the impact assessment from the Department for Business and Trade accompanying the Bill fails to monetise any costs or benefits of the smart data elements. I think that the smart data concept is good but hope that we get it right.

Part 2 of the Bill deals with the digital verification services. Again, on the whole, I am supportive of this. The Bill should improve security of and trust in digital verification. As the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, said, it is not about digital ID cards. However, a number of us raised a concern last time round. There is a danger that this could become a slippery slope towards a situation where people may find themselves compelled to use digital verification services and therefore excluded from accessing services or products if they are not able or willing to use digital verification. The “not willing” part of it is important. Some people are wary of putting detailed identity information online. I am increasingly wary, particularly as a resident of Dumfries and Galloway, where all medical records from NHS Dumfries & Galloway were recently hacked, stuck online for ransomware and probably published. Therefore, I have some sympathy with those who do not fully trust official systems. I am curious to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, about increased cyber- security in the public sector, as that is a good example of where it has gone wrong.

I know that there is no intention on the part of the Government at this time to make the use of DVS compulsory, but it is quite easy to see other providers, such as estate agents, financial institutions and, as one noble Lord mentioned, employers, making it a requirement. While supportive, I think we need some protections to ensure that people are not excluded from services by that. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts.

On Part 5, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud heard a number of times that banks and other financial institutions were unwilling to share data for fraud prevention purposes because they felt constrained by data protection rules. I suspect that they were wrong but am very pleased that data processing for the purposes of detecting, investigating or preventing crime is to be expressly included as a legitimate interest. I hope that the Information Commissioner will ensure that it is widely pointed out and that we will start to see greater co-operation between payment providers and the tech and telecoms companies where the vast bulk of frauds originate.

However, on the subject of the legitimate interest changes, I am concerned that the Secretary of State will be able to make changes to matters considered to be legitimate interests by regulation. That is a significant power in terms of data processing and potentially a retrograde step. It could also raise concerns with respect to the EU data adequacy points that I raised earlier. While the EU might be happy with what is currently proposed, the ability to change key aspects could raise alarm bells.

Other noble Lords have talked about automated decision-making, where I am also concerned about the weakening of rights. Currently, automated decision-making is broadly prohibited, with specific exceptions. This Bill would permit it in a wider set of circumstances, with fewer safeguards. In her introduction, the Minister seemed to indicate that the same safeguards would apply. As I understand it, that is the case only where special category data is used. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether I have got that wrong. It seems to me to increase the risk of unfair or opaque decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, talked about the Horizon/Post Office scandal. That should certainly give us pause for thought. The computer does not always get it right. There are myriad examples of AI inventing false information and giving fake answers. It is called “hallucination”. The right to challenge solely automated decisions should be sacrosanct. Why have the Government decided to weaken those safeguards?

Finally, I am pleased to get on to a point that no one else has raised so far, which is an achievement. I note with relief that the abolition of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner has been removed. However, issues remain in these areas. In particular, the previous commissioner has described a lack of an overarching accountability framework around surveillance camera and biometrics usage. Can the Minister explain what the Government’s plans are for the regulation of surveillance camera and biometric use, especially facial recognition and especially as the use of AI expands into that area?

In summary, it is a much better Bill, but there is a lot of work to do.

Social Media: Catfishing

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We are working closely with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice on the implementation of the existing legislation because, as I say, a number of pieces of legislation are already on the statute book. Some capture fraud offences —I note the Fraud Act—and others capture online frauds, including romance frauds on dating apps and so on, which, sadly, are all too widespread. Those actions are being taken. We are talking about this to the Home Office, which is also on a learning curve in relation to how it can tackle these issues more robustly. We are carrying on our dialogue with it.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned romance fraud and other frauds. Approximately 70% of fraud arises on social media platforms, particularly Meta, yet the reimbursement for fraud is all placed on the banks, and no liability applies to the social media platforms. What plans do the Government have to make social media platforms pay for their share of the frauds in order to incentivise them to do something to stop them?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We are acutely aware of this issue. We know that there is a live ongoing argument about it and we are talking to our colleagues across government to find a way through, but we have not come to a settled view yet.

Company Directors: Identification

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

The Minister will remember that during the passage of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act last year, we had a lot of debates on how to tackle the problem of nominees being used to hide shareholders’ real identities. During ping-pong on the Bill, he rightly referred to

“what we perceive to be an industry of nominee service providers prone to acting unlawfully”.—[Official Report, 11/9/23; col. 685.]

As a result, the Government introduced a power to make regulations that would impose obligations on nominees to enable companies to find out who their persons of significant control are. Can the Minister please tell us whether HM Government still intend to make such regulations? If so, when? If not, why not?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and his extremely collaborative input in the ECCT Bill over the past year or so. The statutory instrument that we are introducing today looks at the identity verification checks that ACSPs will have to undertake. As he will know, ACSPs are well covered by their various industry bodies, and, as I said, we have done an enormous amount to ensure that information on the register in Companies House is now true and verifiable. He will also know that we have gone even further to ensure that people with significant control are caught by the new regulations.

Registered Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out clearly and crisply the details of the four sets of regulations. I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is certainly not my aim to do otherwise than to support these regulations, which are consequential from the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, as the Minister explained, but I want to raise some brief points in relation to them.

I appreciate that, in relation to the address of a company’s registered office, one major concern is companies opting for PO box addresses or inappropriate addresses that are not the address of the company or any of its officers. I take the point about the importance of tackling this, particularly in relation to crimes of fraud, money laundering and so on. Does the Minister have any idea of the incidence of this type of misleading activity? If he does not have the figures to hand, I would be grateful if he could write to me.

I have two brief additional points. More widely, I wonder if the Minister can provide any details—he has given some indication—of when other provisions of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 will be brought into force. I appreciate what he said about 4 March but I wonder whether Section 60 of that Act, on confirmation of lawful purpose, is to be brought in on that date. I think it is but would be grateful for an identification in the regulations and any other regulations expected in that regard. It would be good to have that mapped out.

Lastly, is the Minister in a position to say something about a review of company law more widely? The last far-reaching review of company law took place in 2006. It was then the most far-reaching review we have ever had and led to the longest piece of legislation on any subject ever seen at Westminster, so it would be quite a task, but that was some 20 years ago and it is in need of some review and refresh. When the Minister responds, perhaps he can give some indication of when that might be tackled. I am most grateful.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, it was good to hear that Companies House is making such good progress. I wonder if it might make sense for the Minister to arrange an update session at some point with Companies House for interested Peers, as we had during the process of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act.

I will speak briefly on the three rectification of register SIs. I greatly welcome these regulations. They will enable people whose address is being used without their permission as the registered or service address, or principal office, of a company to have that remedied. We heard during the passage of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act of the case of the unfortunate individual in Wales whose address had been fraudulently used to register 12,000 companies, and how hard it was for him to have that corrected. It must be deeply stressful for such an innocent party to worry about whether they will find themselves being chased by HMRC for unpaid VAT or tax, or indeed by other creditors, and possibly even finding the bailiffs at their door chasing payment for debts of companies that are nothing to do with them. Until now, they were getting little or no help from Companies House or HMRC in that situation, so it is good that action is being taken but I have a few questions to ask.

First, when Companies House decides to change the company address to the default address, it must in most cases give written notice to the company. I am curious how that will work in practice if the original address was fraudulent, or even just an error. The Committee will be able to see a bit of a circularity there. It presumably just means that the innocent party receives yet more mail addressed to a company that he knows nothing about, which might add to his stress. If it was a genuine mistake, the company might never find out until it was struck off, so there is a practical issue there.

More importantly, though, the regulations relate only to the single company in question. As we know, when a false address is used many companies—in the case of the man in Wales, thousands of them—may often be registered at the same address. It would surely make sense to include a duty on the registrar to investigate all other companies registered at the same address when the decision is taken to change the address to the default; otherwise, the innocent party whose home is being fraudulently used will have to make an individual application in respect of every company of which he becomes aware. In the case of the Welsh gentleman, that would be 12,000 individual applications, which would be an enormous and rather unfair burden on an innocent person. Can the Minister confirm that the registrar will investigate all companies registered at the same address, even if that is not an actual requirement under these regulations?

Related to that, the regulations are not clear about how an application for an address to be changed can be made. Does it have to be in writing or will Companies House make available a more user-friendly system—online, email or whatever—to minimise the effort that an innocent party has to make to sort out the matter? In most cases, I imagine that a fraudulent company will use the same address for the registered office, service address and principal place of business as relevant. Under these three SIs, the innocent party will in that case have to make three separate applications for each such company—or indeed more than three if for each individual director. That 12,000 could then turn into 36,000 or more applications to sort out the issue for our man in Wales. Can the Minister explain to me how this will be streamlined to minimise the burden on the innocent parties?

As I mentioned, such fraudulent companies are often used for the purpose of VAT fraud. Would it not make sense, therefore, also to include an obligation on the registrar to inform HMRC every time such a situation is found? During its evidence sessions, the Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee heard how it is common for fraud victims to check Companies House as a sensible due diligence step before parting with their money. If a company has been moved to a default address, would it not make sense to highlight that on the register and flag the company as being a fraud risk, during the period before it is struck off, to protect potential fraud victims?

Overall, these regulations are a good, important step but they could usefully be added to in order to provide better, simpler remedies for the innocent parties in these cases.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 5th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, it is always good to be able to start a speech with the words, “This is a good Bill”. I am not the only person to have used those words. They have been used all around the Chamber; it is an unusual situation and very welcome. It is also getting to the point of the evening where it is quite difficult to say anything that has not been said several times before. I am going to try to avoid repeating what has been said. I may not manage that, partly because, as the Minister will have spotted, there is a high-level of consistency of theme emerging on all sides of the Chamber.

The various ways in which the large tech platforms can stifle competition have been well described by many noble Lords, including the Minister at the outset. Part 1 of the Bill empowers the Digital Markets Unit of the CMA to tackle the monopolistic behaviour of companies with strategic market status with a quicker, more flexible, tailored approach and a more efficient regime. It should make it easier for new, innovative companies to enter the market on a fair basis—so far, so excellent. It is a shame, then, that the Government have chosen to amend their own Bill in ways that may water down the effectiveness of Part 1. This has been alluded to by noble Lords all around the Chamber and I am sure that we will have a lot of discussions on those matters as the Bill progresses through its stages—but I will very quickly touch on the matters that worry me most.

First, it seems entirely wrong, and to conflict badly with the CMA’s independence, that any guidance issued by the CMA regarding the exercise of its functions relating to digital markets must first be approved by the Secretary of State. Worse, there is no timeframe or process for obtaining such approval; I think that is inappropriate. I can see a case for a defined period of consultation, but approval goes too far. Why did the Government decide that was required?

Secondly, again as we have heard several times, the Government have potentially weakened the ability of the DMU and CMA to implement and enforce rulings quickly by introducing a countervailing benefits exemption, proportionality restrictions and watering down the judicial review appeal process. The danger here is that these, individually or together, may provide an anti-competitive SMS entity with more ways to bog down the process in appeals and so delay implementation of any enforcement. In such a fast-moving market, speed and agility are critical; anything that delays the enforcement of a ruling could be the difference between a new entrant’s success or failure. We are talking about some of the world’s biggest companies here, with extremely deep legal pockets.

Part 4 of the Bill, which covers consumer protections, introduces some really welcome additions to consumer protection law, especially around subscription contracts. But they do not go far enough and there are some important omissions in what the Government have proposed. Others have pointed out the omission from the Bill of fake reviews. This is an important area and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government are planning—I know they are consulting, but I would like to understand what they are planning on doing in respect of fake reviews.

The other area that the Bill does not tackle is the more difficult question of drip pricing. This is perhaps a more nuanced area. There are genuine benefits to consumers from disaggregating pricing of core and non-essential elements of a service, such as an airline ticket: those who are prepared to travel without an assigned seat, with no luggage and so on, clearly benefit, but that is different for a parent and child, for example, for whom sitting together is essential. Having said that, I can think of a number of occasions when I would have paid good money to sit at the other end of the aeroplane from my children. I hope Ryanair is not listening; that might give it ideas.

There are those companies that push drip pricing too far by hiding unavoidable charges, fees for essential elements, commissions and so on until the very end of the process. That is clearly unacceptable. A well-known train booking company does this, as do event ticket sellers: you get to the end of the process, you are bought into going to see that particular concert, it is too late to turn around, and suddenly they hit you with all the fees and whatever at the end. It is time that real action is taken to ensure fairness and transparency, and this Bill seems the ideal opportunity for that.

On subscription traps, the Bill introduces some welcome changes that will help consumers, but I do not think they go far enough. That said, I have some issues with the cooling-off period; I am not sure that is necessarily the best way of doing it. As a point of principle, it cannot be right for businesses to make their money by deliberately designing subscription arrangements that rely on forgetfulness or making it difficult to cancel. For subscriptions that involve a free or reduced period up front, the contract should end by default unless it is actively renewed at the end of that initial period. It is too easy at the moment to join a free trial and then find yourself locked in because you forget to cancel on the due date. That will probably remain true even with the reminders the Bill will introduce.

It is often too difficult to find the end date of a subscription. For example, I have been looking at my home broadband contract recently. I ended up having to ring the company because I could not find the end date anywhere in any of the account details. The Bill will require a reminder as the end date nears, which is welcome, but it is often helpful to be able to find the date well in advance—for example, as in the case of my broadband, when a new and better service becomes available and you want to know when you will be able to transfer. Why not insist that the end date is included clearly on every invoice or other piece of correspondence? That would not add any great burden—companies seem to be able to do it easily enough if they are pushing you to upgrade—but it would make it a lot easier for the consumer to find out, at any time, when the contract will terminate.

Another pernicious trend seems to be emerging, especially among telecom providers, for longer, two-year contracts. That may be fine, but there is often a very small print price kicker, where periodically, often on a fixed date such as 31 March, the price rises by significantly more than inflation. That can happen within a short period of entering the contract—for example, if you sign up in March you can be hit by that price kicker within a couple of weeks of signing the contract. These price hikes are often hidden with an asterisk and a footnote in small print. I looked at my provider this morning. Down at the very bottom of the page it says, “Legal stuff”. In there, there is a sentence that says it will go up by 3.9% over inflation on 31 March. That is not acceptable.

Finally on subscriptions, it cannot be right that companies should be able to continue to take subscriptions for services that are clearly not being used after the initial period has come to an end. I suggest that, if a service has not been used for three months after the initial contract period has ended, it should be terminated automatically, unless the subscriber actively confirms that it should continue. It is not acceptable to rely on the fact that the subscriber has forgotten and said nothing if there is no use of the service.

At the risk of being predictable, I will put in a word on fraud, which I do not suppose will surprise anybody. One of the biggest risks that consumers face at the moment is online and digital scams. The majority of these arise from the telecoms industry or the online services industry, particularly where scammers use these organisations’ services to make contact and create the scam. This is a missed opportunity in the Bill, and I hope it is one we will come back to.

Overall, this is a good Bill, but there are areas where we can improve it. I look forward to working with everyone to do so.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 23A, and do propose Amendment 23D to Lords Amendment 23 in place of the words left out by Amendment 23A—

23D: Line 83, at end insert—
“113C Required information about members: nominees
If a member holds 5% or more of the share capital or voting rights of the company, the required information about a member includes a statement by the individual, or where the member is a body corporate, or a firm that is a legal person under the law by which it is governed, by an officer of that body corporate or firm, as to whether or not they are holding the shares on behalf of, or subject to the direction of, another person or persons, and if they are—
(a) where any such person is an individual, and the shares held on that person’s behalf or subject to their direction amount to 3% or more of the share capital or voting rights of the company, the information required by section 113A in relation to that individual;
(b) where any such person is a body corporate or firm that is a legal person under the law by which it is governed, and the shares held on that person’s behalf or subject to their direction amount to 3% or more of the share capital or voting rights of the company, the information required by section 113B in relation to that body corporate or firm; or
(c) a statement that the member is not holding shares on behalf of, or subject to the direction of, such person that amount to 3% or more of the share capital or voting rights of the company.””

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that Motion A1 is clear. Before I start, I remind the House of my interest as a non-practising chartered accountant.

On Report, your Lordships agreed Amendment 23, which included a requirement that shareholders should have to state whether they are holding shares on someone else’s behalf and, if so, on whose behalf they are holding them. This requirement was rejected, as we have heard, by the other place. Motion A1 aims to reverse that, while trying to take on board some of the matters raised in debate in the other place. If I may, given that the debate we had in this House was now some months ago, I will briefly remind the House of the issue that that amendment was trying to resolve.

One of the easiest ways to hide the true identity of an owner of a company is to use a nominee—somebody whose name will appear on the register of members but who is in fact acting under the instruction of and for the benefit of the actual beneficial owner. A substantial industry has grown up to provide these nominee services. There are of course legitimate reasons for using a nominee, such as an asset manager holding and managing a range of shareholdings, but it is quite revealing to do a Google search of nominee shareholding services.

A near-endless list of such services appears, and these services are usually sold very clearly as being primarily about creating anonymity for the true shareholder. Let me quote from one of them:

“The beneficial owner may choose to appoint a Nominee Shareholder because they do not want to register the shares in their own name. A Nominee Shareholder is a great way to keep shareholder information away from public records”.


Another one states:

“In the United Kingdom, the purpose of using nominees is confidentiality. Because of the confidentiality requirements, owners are reluctant to associate themselves with beneficial ownership, and the practice of nominating shareholders will hide their association”.


Most nominee service providers market their services in the same vein. A few of them refer to the PSC—persons with significant control—rules or to anti-money laundering in the marketing literature, but they are very much in the minority. As I said, there are legitimate reasons for holding shares through a nominee, but not wanting to register the shares in their own name and keeping shareholder information away from public records are not legitimate reasons. In fact, that is precisely what this Bill is trying to stop.

The amendment originally passed by this House was intended to strengthen the Bill to prevent the misuse of nominees to hide the true ownership. I continue to believe that this is a very real issue and, as a result, I have tabled Motion Al, which tries to reintroduce the original amendment, but changed to reflect some of the reasons for rejecting it made in the other place—in particular, the question of undue burden that the Minister referred to a moment ago.

However, since I tabled my Motion A1, I am very pleased to say that the Government has tabled Amendment 23C within their Motion A. It shows that they now recognise that there is a genuine issue here and, in particular, that the enabling industry needs to be incentivised to clean up its act. I especially welcome the fact that proposed new subsection (2)(b) will specifically allow the Government to impose obligations directly on those who act as nominees. The real flaw in the current rules is that those enablers face no real risk at all when acting as they do. I hope that this specific mention in the Government’s Amendment 23C will cause the nominee industry to take note and clean up its act, in the knowledge that if it does not, it will face regulation.

While I would have preferred to have taken action now and introduced something in the Bill, the fact that the Government recognise the issue and are proposing a regulating power to deal with it is most welcome. I very much welcome the commitments made by the Minister a moment ago. I thank him and, given that and what he has just said, I will not press Motion A1. I thank him and his officials for their continuing very constructive engagement, which has been the case throughout the Bill. I look forward to seeing the proposed regulations before too long—he will know that I will not be dropping the issue until we see the regulations.

I shall also comment very briefly on Motion C, which moves an amendment passed in this House that aimed to fix an anomaly in the register of overseas entities, which is that it has to be updated only annually. First, I point out the reason given by the Commons:

“Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason”.


That, frankly, is totally inadequate and nonsensical in this case. It has to be updated only annually. Other registers, such as the register of persons with significant control, have to be updated within 14 days of any change being identified. This anomaly means that the register of overseas entities can be up to a year out of date at any time. That introduces the risk that an innocent part might unknowingly find themselves entering into a transaction with a sanctioned person, for example.

Unfortunately, because of the way the register works in conjunction with the registration of property, this all becomes extremely complex. I thank the Law Society for its helpful and constructive engagement in many meetings over the Recess to try to find a solution to this. While we did find a possible way through, it was so convoluted as to be impractical—so I am not going to oppose the removal of this amendment, even if the issue it was trying to solve remains real.

The register of overseas entities is still in its early stage. While it has been successful up to a point, as I am sure we are going to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, there are still many properties the ownership of which is, at best, unclear. I am very pleased to hear the commitment the Minister made in his speech just now that they will keep this anomaly of annual updating under review. In the meantime, I caution any person who is buying or selling property from or to an overseas entity, or who is entering into a lease over a property with an overseas entity, to require it to be a condition of the transaction that the entity’s entry in the register is updated immediately prior to the transaction completing. Only by doing that can the innocent party know who they are actually transacting with. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak in favour of my Motion D. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his ongoing dialogue with me as we grind to the end of this Bill: he has been patient and courteous, as ever. My problem is that the Government continue to say one thing and then do something different. Just to remind noble Lords, the reason I pressed my original amendment was that a gaping hole had opened up in this newly created register of overseas interests. It is barely a year old and we have more than 50,000 properties owned by an entity whose beneficial owners are withheld from public view. That is approaching one-third of all entries. It is rapidly becoming the default advice from cute law firms to their overseas clients to use a trust structure that is opaque.

In rejecting my original Commons amendment, the Government claimed refuge behind the principle of financial privilege. This is bizarre, if not worse, but in a spirit of collaboration I will not use the word that I had planned to use. The costs to Companies House of publishing trust information are estimated on the back of an illusory envelope at between £600,000 and £2.8 million—a figure supported by absolutely no methodology—but under the Bill, Companies House funding is going to rise exponentially. The current filing fee of £13 will rise to anywhere between £60 and £90 if the guidance we have been given is followed. Taking the bottom-end number, £60 means an increase of £47 a year times 4 million companies, or £188 million a year, against this odd figure of £600,000 to £2.8 million. Even if the higher filing fees deterred some company creation or dissolution for non-viable entities, the additional cost, frankly, is a rounding error. Indeed, if the Government were to approach this logically and calculated that as a transparency cost, it would be around about 70p per registered company per year, or about 1.25%.

I give this example only because I continually worry that I get very clear assurances from the Minister but the actions taken by the Government are rather different. I accept through gritted teeth that we cannot debate that amendment as I was blocked from tabling it. This leaves us with a much watered-down proposal to try to hold the Government to account to get on with the consultation they say they need to ensure that there are no legal challenges. The Government have accepted that they need to start straightaway, in this calendar year, but they do not yet accept the principle of my proposed new subsection (2) that the consultation includes the principle of public access to protected data on a bulk basis.

This sounds arcane, but it is crucial because currently HMRC is not providing the information when requested, and it can be requested only on a case-by-case basis. As I have shown, there are already more than 50,000 hidden owners where the public are being denied the information, so doing it individually is simply not practical. I have consistently said that those with a bona fide need for confidentiality should have it, but this would be a very small proportion of the 50,000.

On the terms of the consultation, there are a couple of elephant traps that the Government should be aware of. A few years ago, when the consultation was issued to tighten up the non-dom loopholes, the lawyers’ excuse for not tightening them up was that anyone who declared non-dom status should have a reasonable expectation that it should last in perpetuity. That sounds pretty sinister to me, but apparently that argument has already been rolled out to civil servants on the issue of more transparency with trusts. I warn the Minister to be alert because, as I understand it, civil servants have already expressed their compliance with this idea. I hope that we as politicians are still running the country, not the civil servants.

We have heard from my noble friend the Minister and he has given commitments, which I very much appreciate. However, I hope he understands why I am extremely nervous: what he says and what the Government do are not always totally aligned. I will take his words exactly as he says them, though, and I ask him to keep a very careful eye on this process over the next few months. I think he has learned enough about me to know that, for all my many weaknesses, one thing I am is dogged. We will keep a careful eye on this. On that basis, I will withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his generous comments. I also thank noble Lords who have been so generous with their support throughout the passage of the Bill on these matters, which has allowed us to get to the point of achieving at least this compromise. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.

Motion A1 withdrawn.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I will now speak briefly to the government amendments, which deliver on the undertakings I made on Report, first in response to concerns raised about the robustness of the people with significant control—PSC—framework and secondly to close a gap in the register of overseas entities information requirements. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in particular, for raising these issues. I also welcome the contributions of my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton and of the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, Lord Cromwell and Lord Clement-Jones.

The majority of the amendments fall into the former category of the PSC framework. I reassure noble Lords that, although the number of amendments is higher than we might have liked to table at Third Reading, the majority are minor consequential or tidying-up amendments, and a lot of the new material is in fact a refashioning of existing rules to make them work in the new context of a central register, rather than locally held PSC registers. These amendments improve this by requiring companies to collect additional and more useful information, and by improving the mechanisms through which companies collect the information and report it to Companies House.

Currently, companies must record various “additional matters” in the PSC register. The Bill as drafted removed the regulation-making power through which these additional matters are prescribed. Amendments 26 and 32 preserve those requirements in the context of a centrally held PSC register. Amendment 26 means that a company will notify the registrar if the company knows, or has cause to believe, that a person has become a PSC but the company has not yet had confirmation from them. Amendment 32 means that a company must give notice to the registrar if it knows or has cause to believe that the company has no PSC. This will provide a hook for the registrar to query the statement that a company has no PSC, if she has intelligence to suggest otherwise.

The Bill as drafted removed an important measure to ensure that personal information is protected appropriately. Amendments 14, 17, 20, 22 and 25 ensure that protection mechanisms remain in place, otherwise a person who is at serious risk of violence or intimidation could be reported as a PSC without ever knowing, meaning that they may not have had the opportunity to apply for their personal information not to be displayed publicly.

To improve accuracy and transparency, and to make it easier to monitor and prosecute non-compliance, Amendment 1 requires a company that is exempt from the PSC requirements to explain why it is exempt in each confirmation statement. Amendment 15 improves existing provisions of the Companies Act 2006 which require companies to investigate and obtain information about their PSCs.

Amendments 33 and 34 widen the scope of a regulation- making power in the Bill so that the power can amend relevant parts of the Companies Act 2006 and to make consequential amendments to other parts of the Act. This is to ensure that the legislation is coherent, by avoiding having similar provisions spread across primary and secondary legislation.

Amendment 39 creates a reasonable excuse defence relating to the offence of failing to comply with information notices. This aligns the drafting of the offences with other similar offences.

All other amendments are consequential. I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments.

I turn to Amendment 9. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, tabled an amendment seeking to close a gap in the register of overseas entities’ information requirements relating to overseas entities acting as nominees. The Government agreed that this gap exists, and I thank the noble Lord and Transparency International for bringing it to our attention. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord was not quite right, but I hope that this amendment addresses his concerns. It amends Schedule 1 to the Economic Crime Transparency and Enforcement Act 2022 to ensure that, where there is a nominee relationship, this is declared. It then inserts a new definition of beneficial ownership into Schedule 2 to the 2022 Act: “registrable beneficial owners”. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this amendment and agree that it closes the gap that we discussed on Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for these amendments. As he said, I described at Report the loophole in the register of overseas entities that allows people to hide the true ownership of UK properties through nominee arrangements. As the Minister described, he tabled Amendment 9, as he undertook to do, which effectively closes that loophole. I am not sure what conclusion to take from the fact that my original 11-line amendment has turned into one that runs to three pages—it presumably says something about my amendment drafting skills—but I am most grateful.

The other amendments that the Minister tabled relate to the register of persons with significant control. These new amendments tighten the rules and will improve the ability to identify PSCs. In particular, I welcome the requirement for the information to be filed on a centrally held register, rather than locally held registers managed by the companies themselves. The requirement to explain why a company is exempt from the PSC requirements is also an important improvement.

I was slightly confused as to what happens if a company has become aware that it has a PSC but the PSC has not yet confirmed their status or information. Amendment 20 appears to deal with that situation; it requires the company to notify the registrar if it knows, or has cause to believe, that a person has become a registrable person but has not yet had confirmation. However, that seems to conflict with the explanatory statement to Amendment 17:

“This means that a company will only need to notify the registrar of a person with significant control if the person has confirmed their status and information about them”.


Amendment 20 says that the registrar must be notified of an unconfirmed PSC but Amendment 17, or at least the explanatory statement to it, seems to say exactly the opposite. Can the Minister please explain which is right and how the two work together? More importantly, can he reassure me that a PSC will not be able to avoid being notified to the registrar simply by failing to confirm their status or information.

I put on record that, while I welcome and support the amendments, I do not believe that they deal with the problem of nominee shareholders not having to declare themselves as such. The new amendments are not an alternative to the amendment that the House passed on Report that required shareholders to state whether or not they are acting as a nominee, and if so who for. I hope that the Government will continue to consider that amendment and look at it favourably in the other place, or at the very least meet with me and others to see whether we can find a workable compromise. It should not be possible for bad actors to hide behind nominees, and there should be consequences for those who act as nominees to conceal such bad actors.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and his officials for their helpful and constructive engagement throughout this process; they have been extremely generous with their time. In particular, I thank them for having addressed a number of issues, including the one we have just talked about, throughout the progress of the Bill. The level of engagement from all Ministers involved has been exemplary—if only all Bills were managed so constructively. I also thank all noble Lords who have been so generous in their support of the various amendments that I have proposed. When the Bill started in this House, it was generally seen to be a good Bill, and I think that it emerges from this House in even better shape.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, there are times when your Lordships’ House is confronted with so many Third Reading amendments that it can be somewhat irksome, but this is not one of those occasions. This is a useful and helpful response from the Minister and his team to the debate we had on Report, and for that I thank them.

I reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that these amendments do not replace those that we passed on Report, which I similarly hope the Minister and his team will continue to consider as we go forward.

Transparency of ownership and the registration of overseas entities are important to this. The point we have made on a number of occasions about keeping the whole Bill under review and looking at how it works once it becomes an Act will be vital. It is clear that we cannot second-guess all the reactions we will get out there, so having the fluidity and agility to deal with that will be important.

Although it is slightly confusing, I will offer my thanks and congratulations at this point, so that I do not do so twice. First, I congratulate the Ministers on getting legislative consent so smoothly. For many of the Bills that I have been working on of late, legislative consent never seems to come. However, unlike many of those Bills, this is one where all the House agreed on its objectives, so all we were discussing were the ways in which we could achieve those objectives. In that regard, I thank the Ministers for the great amount of time and effort they have devoted to listening to, and having meetings with, Members across your Lordships’ House and for seeking ways of accommodating our helpful suggestions. Particular thanks are due to the noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Sharpe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, who made appearances in Grand Committee.

Similarly, the whole Bill team, and organisations such as Companies House, have given up a lot of their time to speak with us, so thanks should be given to them. There have been many contributions from the Cross Benches and the Benches opposite. I will not single out anyone for praise, except to say that it has been a great pleasure working with everyone on the Bill; I felt that we were all pulling in the same direction.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their camaraderie on the Bill. I thank my noble friends Lady Bowles, Lady Kramer, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Oates on our Benches. Finally, thanks go to Sarah Pughe in our Whips Office, who has kept us all in order.