Justin Madders
MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough · Labour · United Kingdom
“Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard asked about, will consider the points raised in this debate and whether any of them can be put into future updates to guidance. As was mentioned, good passenger information is central to standards.”
“As the roads Minister, I of course recognise the importance of bus stops and the important effect they have on the streetscape. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made clear that she is passionate and informed about the importance of bus journeys to everyone.”
“Where responsibility for highways or individual assets sits elsewhere, close and effective working between the relevant authorities is essential. We expect local plans to join up services, infrastructure and passenger information, rather than treating them as separate issues. That will no doubt be music to the ears of my hon.”
“Our guidance encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to stops and interchanges, including keeping an inventory of infrastructure, identifying priorities for investment and setting locally appropriate standards for facilities and maintenance.”
“She is absolutely right that the quality of a bus stop is about more than accessibility, although of course accessibility is vital. Passengers notice whether a stop is easy to find and use, whether it offers shelter or seating where appropriate, whether it is clean, whether the surroundings feel safe and well maintained and, as we have di…”
“That approach reflects a simple principle: local transport authorities know their areas and are best placed to plan improvements across the whole local bus network. That is why the Department’s vision for buses, within an integrated transport system, puts local transport authorities at the centre of delivery.”
The complete record
Every one of 8,481 lines we hold for Justin Madders, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 170.
“The maritime labour convention has been amended several times, with new requirements coming in only last month for seafarers to be provided with food and drinking water free of charge during their engagement, as well as provisions in relation to personal protective equipment and ensuring that they have access to social connectivity while at sea. The new measures are important to improve the working conditions of seafarers, and we currently do not have a mechanism to update our own laws to reflect them. Previously, when we were a member of the EU, the treaties were considered to be community treaties, which meant they were dealt with through regulations. We now need powers in our own legislation to ensure that we can keep up to date with developments in maritime law and protections. The shadow Minister asked how the powers might be used.”
“It is about creating a level playing field and putting safeguards in place. I point out to Opposition Members that the conventions are already UK law. The measures in this group seek to ensure that when they are amended in future, there will be an opportunity to update our own laws to reflect any changes in the conventions. It was a fair question from the shadow Minister to ask what the conventions cover, and they obviously look at it important issues such as maximum hours of work, medical care, accommodation and access to food and drinking water.”
“We have heard two similar speeches from the Opposition that have raised a number of similar questions. The first question is: why do we need this? The whole suite of amendments and new clauses are in response to concerns that were rightly highlighted by all parties in condemning the P&O debacle and its underlying motives to undercut existing UK workers and employment laws by transferring people to lower terms and conditions. It is about stopping that race to the bottom. Members will recall the evidence from representatives of the sector in Committee sittings in November. They welcomed the provisions and were keen to see them introduced, because they wanted a level playing field. They did not want to be undercut by people who would seek to pay their staff the minimum necessary.”
“Its representatives have met the Justice Secretary recently, and they continue to do so, and I have spoken to them. I understand their view, but we cannot agree to this at this point. I do not know whether the amendment will be pushed to a vote—I suspect that it will not be, from what the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire said—but we will not support it.”
“The Government are committed to achieving that, but I believe that we can do so without the need for legislative change. Prison officers are essential to maintaining order and control in prisons. A withdrawal of their services, as we have heard, even if only partial, would create a risk to order and to the life and limb of individuals. There are limited contingency plans in place to deal with strike action and, during such incidents, reliance on a narrow pool of operational managers and support from the police would create risks. I am sure that Members do not need that spelling out. This would also result in significant disruption to the operation of the courts and the police, representing a significant risk to public safety. I know that the POA is very keen, understandably, to have this proposal enacted.”
“Under the current legislation, prison officers are prevented from taking industrial action, and their pay is governed by the independent Prison Service Pay Review Body, which acts as a compensatory mechanism for that restriction. Indeed, one of the first actions of this Government was to accept the pay review body recommendations for 2024-25, and we delivered on our commitment to launch the 2025-26 pay review body process in September, three months earlier than the previous Government did. Our written evidence to the body for the next pay round was published on 10 December, paving the way for a timely pay round. We are well positioned for that process to conclude. We need to ensure that everyone who works in a prison has the right to decent conditions and a fair reward for their hard work.”
“There are approximately 170,000 words in the “Oxford English Dictionary”, but I am struggling to find one to adequately encapsulate the speech by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. It is clearly a novel approach to a Bill Committee to move an amendment and then speak against it. I do not think anything he said would have persuaded me the other way had I not already been minded to oppose the new clauses, although he did his best. It is important that we put on the record our appreciation for the work of prison officers. They work in difficult environments every day, dealing with very challenging people, and we recognise that they are critical to keeping the public safe.”
“I say to him that although we are aware of this issue and know it needs attention, we are not able to support the new clause.”
“A worker may want to settle a dispute over harassment and receive the confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement. The proposal may also impact on their ability to reach a settlement and avoid going to an employment tribunal, or may indeed reduce the value of such an agreement. The amendment may also lead to uncertainty for both employers and workers who have entered into NDAs previously. The Government are looking into this. There is obviously some evidence, and there was a Government consultation, but that was some time ago, so we intend to look more closely at what we can do in this area. I have met some of the interested parties and there are other proposals to deal with this issue that might be slightly more workable than those in the new clause proposed by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.”
“We continue to listen carefully to representations on further action needed to curb the misuse of NDAs. The specific wording that is proposed today would make any provision in an agreement precluding a worker from making a relevant disclosure that relates to harassment carried out by a fellow worker, or client of their employer, unenforceable. Under the consequential amendment, the measure would come into force on the day that this legislation is passed. I have some reservations about the amendment as drafted, as it would make a significant change from the current position and there might be unintended consequences. To render provisions related to disclosures on harassment unenforceable could have negative effects on both workers and employers.”
“The Government are live to the concerns about the misuse of NDAs to intimidate and silence victims of crime and other types of misconduct, particularly harassment, discrimination, and bullying. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 contains a measure that, when commenced, will ensure that victims can report a crime, co-operate with regulators and access confidential advice and support without fear of legal action. It does so by providing that any clauses in NDAs seeking to prevent those actions cannot legally be enforced. The Ministry of Justice is carefully considering plans to bring the relevant section of that Act into force and will be working closely with the victim support and business sectors to ensure that the new measure is implemented and deployed effectively.”
“Last year, the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into misogyny in music and the Treasury Committee inquiry into sexism in the City reported on the misuse of NDAs in specific sectors and industries. Their reports highlighted how NDAs can have a silencing effect on some victims, who come under pressure to sign an NDA and are not aware of their existing rights, and how NDAs may be a part of wider organisational cultures and practices for some employers. We have heard a clear example of that today. The Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Services Board have also recently conducted a call for evidence and a thematic review into the use of NDAs among the legal profession. Overall, those reports highlight that, while we have seen some progress and some positive developments, the issues in this space are multiple and persistent.”
“The use of an NDA by an employer may amount to a criminal offence if it is an attempt by the employer to pervert the course of justice or conceal a criminal offence. A settlement agreement under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and any confidentiality clauses it contains is void if the worker did not receive independent advice on the terms and effect of the agreement. Speaking as one who has given such advice on countless occasions, I can assure the Committee that this a matter the legal profession takes very seriously. None the less, workers may not be aware of their rights. Both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACAS have published guidance on NDAs, but reports continue of improper use of NDAs, as the hon. Member for Torbay mentioned, particularly in relation to sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying in the workplace.”
“Of course their most common use is in allowing workers and employers to reach a settlement on a dispute or a claim. It goes without saying that a worker may want to settle a dispute and receive the confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement to avoid going through an employment tribunal, which can be a distressing experience in itself. Having a non-disclosure agreement can also increase the value of such an agreement, depending how negotiations go. There are existing legal limits to the use of NDAs in the employment context. For example, any clauses of an NDA that sought to stop a worker blowing the whistle to a lawyer or a prescribed person under the legislation would not be enforceable.”
“First, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for moving the new clause. This is his clause 4 moment—the road to socialism is often a long one, but I am glad to see he is taking steps towards it. He raises an important topic on behalf of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran); indeed, a number of Members of the House have discussed it with me over a period of time, because the use of non-disclosure agreements presents challenges. As has been said, NDAs can be used quite legitimately in different contexts and contracts. As the responsible Department for the use of NDAs in employment relationships, we recognise that they can have a legitimate role, such as to protect trade secrets, intellectual property and commercially sensitive information.”
“I think that the new clause would create a whole range of unintended consequences and exclude people from carrying out their legitimate business, but I assure hon. Members that I take this matter very seriously and I am doing what I can, before we have the review, to make sure that those companies that are employing people in this way are doing so safely and responsibly.”
“Clearly, we would not want to see that, because it is an important part of self-employment for someone to be able to provide a substitute for their services if they are unavailable, but we recognise that the law needs modernising in this area. We have committed to consulting on a simpler, two-part framework for employment status. We think that is really important to drive out the many abuses that we have heard about. I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk that it should not be left to the courts to determine whether someone has particular rights. That should be set down by Parliament, and it should be clear and make sure that there is no room for loopholes. It is important that we get that right.”
“In recent years, that has been turbocharged by gig economy companies to create this new network of workers, but there would be a number of unintended consequences in the wider economy if we accepted the new clause, because of its broadness. It would make people such as IT contractors or plumbers—indeed, there was a case involving a gym instructor who had a substitution clause—unable to provide a substitute. There are all sorts of jobs out there—many thousands and possibly millions—where substitution clauses are used perfectly well, and unfortunately, because of the way the new clause is drafted, it would mean that none of those people could continue to use them.”
“They do not all take that view of substitution, but it is clear from what we have heard that this is not being policed properly at the moment, so we want these companies to step up and make sure that those who are working for them are entitled to do so legally, that they know who they are and that they are who they say they are, and that all the checks that we would expect any responsible employer to make have been made. The challenge is that there is a broad definition of self-employment and substitution clauses are used far more widely than the gig economy. There have been cases going back decades on whether someone has employment rights, and that often centres on the use of a substitution clause.”
“In fact, we have now met the Home Office twice on this issue, because we are aware that there are concerns about how substitution clauses in the gig economy, in particular, are operating. I have recently written to Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber, because their substitution clauses—certainly some of them—do not appear to have any cognisance of whether the substitute has the right to work in the UK. I would not say that applies to all gig economy companies—I could say “employers”, but of course they would say that they are not employers.”
“I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for West Suffolk for raising this matter, because I take it extremely seriously. I am pleased to see that he and the shadow Minister do too. It has clearly become more and more of an issue in recent years. It is based on exploitation of vulnerable individuals. It is about a race to the bottom and about a labour market that is, as Matthew Taylor identified all those years ago, fundamentally not working. That said, we are not able to accept the new clause, and I will explain why. That does not mean I am not sympathetic to it. We have been doing a number of things. I recently met the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, and the Home Office to discuss this matter.”
“One of the fundamental weaknesses with that legislation was that it was so unworkable and so damaging to industrial relations that no one ever thought it was a sensible idea to implement it. There were also powers in the Trade Union Act 2016 that were never used. Where powers were used—for example, on facility time and the requirement to report that in the public sector—the figures at the start of the period for reporting were exactly the same as they were at the end. So there was a lot of hot air and posturing in that previous legislation, and it was not conducive to good industrial relations. We are more than happy to see the back of it, but of course we will continue to consult and engage with all stakeholders as we move forward on implementing our clear manifesto commitments. On that note, I would oppose these proposals.”
“That shows that not putting industrial relations on a sensible footing and a collegiate basis is detrimental to them. The impact assessment for the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 made it clear it would worsen industrial relations, and so it proved. The shadow Minister talked about the burden and the red tape. A number of measures in the Bill will actually reduce burdens on employers’ organisations and trade unions in terms of notification and reporting requirements. He also challenged us on what the impact of some of this stuff will be. We can never say for sure that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 will have any impact, because it has never been used.”
“As we move forward, get the Bill through Parliament and lay secondary legislation, there will be ongoing consultations and discussions about the provisions in the Bill, the application of codes of practice, and some of the matters that have been left for regulation. I do not believe that there is criticism about the level of consultation. We have engaged extensively with all stakeholders on a number of matters, and we will continue to do that almost weekly. The shadow Minister challenged me about how we can push the Bill forward, without there being questions as to whether it would lead to increased industrial action. The evidence we have is that legislation introduced by the Conservative Government led to increased industrial action in the last two years, and saw the highest levels of industrial action in decades.”
“I was not entirely clear whether he was referring just to the amendments to the 1992 Act by virtue of part 4 of this Bill or to the entire Act; in any event, there is some overlap between the two. We are pretty clear that the intention behind the new clause is to delay the Bill as much as possible. It would impinge on our desire and our manifesto commitment to improve workers’ rights and the ability of workers to have a meaningful voice through collective bargaining to secure pay and conditions. The shadow Minister will be aware that the Government have already undertaken a number of consultations, with four over the Christmas period, including one on modernising the framework for industrial relations, which would cover many of the provisions of the 1992 Act.”
“The shadow Minister seeks through the new clause and amendment to relitigate a number of the issues we debated last week, and he will not be surprised to hear that I will pick up on just one or two of his comments. He said that the 100-day deadline was unrealistic, but it was not, because we achieved it. All involved made a fantastic effort to ensure that we had a Bill published within that 100-day deadline. There have been some minor technical amendments to the Bill as we have moved along, and there are important issues of principle that we continue to engage and consult on. As the shadow Minister said, the new clause would require a consultation on the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by part 4 of the Bill.”
“There will be a consultation on that in due course, and I am sure the shadow Minister can submit something about trade unions contacting people if he wants to do so, but I suspect he will be the only one who does. But I am afraid I cannot support this new clause—or indeed take it seriously—so I reject it on that basis.”
“There is nothing to stop a union member ignoring communication from their union. There is no obligation on them to respond to messages at any time. The employment relationship is, of course, very different to membership of a trade union, because there is a division between home and working lives, and a recognition that that has to be respected. Unfortunately, there is also an expectation that people should be constantly contactable outside of work hours. We will not be legislating to ban all communication outside of working hours; what we are looking to do is implement the statutory code of practice, which will set out clear expectations and obligations to get the balance right between allowing flexibility and making it clear that people’s home lives should be respected.”
“If we start getting into the right to switch off from people we might not want to hear from, we could end up in a very dark place. The shadow Minister will see from the reaction on the Government Benches that we have never had any issue with nuisance calls or pestering from trade unions when we have been in the workplace—it is really not like that at all. These proposals are indicative of the rather outdated idea that some Opposition Members have about how trade unions operate. Were they passed, one of the unintended consequences would undoubtedly be increased demand on facility time—something I am sure the shadow Minister would not be too pleased about. Put bluntly, there is no demand for this requirement. I do not think anyone has suggested it to officials—certainly not trade unions or, indeed, employers.”
“Once the agency is fully established, it will produce its own accounts as part of its reports, and those accounts will be consolidated into the Department’s annual accounts, which, of course, will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Consequently, I do not believe that new clause 22 would add anything to the multiple channels that are already available for parliamentarians to establish and identify the costs and benefits of the agency.”
“As would be expected, merging different structures together is a complex task, so costings are still being developed at this stage. Nevertheless, securing value for money is clearly a key consideration in that process. The shadow Minister made an interesting point about behavioural change. Clearly, such change is very difficult to model in, but we hope that by establishing the fair work agency we will send a very clear signal that we expect employers to comply with the law, that the best standards should be adhered to, and that the race to the bottom should end. As a result of all that, we will see far better employment practices across the country. The fair work agency will be part of the Department for Business and Trade, so its costs will be in the Department’s accounts, which Parliament can scrutinise in the normal way.”
“Other witnesses agreed with that assessment; indeed, I recall that a huge range of witnesses at the evidence sessions spoke in favour of a single enforcement body. The CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the Food and Drink Federation, the Co-operative or Co-op, the Women’s Budget Group and the Work Foundation all spoke in favour of a single enforcement body. The shadow Minister mentioned the impact assessment, but the Bill was in fact green-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee. There is a commitment to keep the performance and cost of the fair work agency under review. There will be a review three years after implementation of the agency.”
“Let me start by explaining once again why we believe the fair work agency is so important. As we know, the current landscape for employment rights is, as was actually recognised by the previous Government, fragmented and in need of reform. I believe there is widespread agreement about that. As a Committee, we heard evidence from Margaret Beels, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, that the current fragmentation creates a barrier to providing effective sector-wide enforcement. She noted that bringing powers together in the fair work agency would allow for better information sharing and a more flexible and adaptive approach to enforcement, enabling resources to be directed where they are most needed.”
“Impacts will be considered, and I am also looking at ways to ensure that the tribunals system is able to deal with any additional claims that may arise as a result of the Bill, and how it can work more efficiently with the significant backlogs that it already has. As the Committee will appreciate, that is within the purview of the Ministry of Justice, but clearly it is something that we intend to work closely with it on. I therefore invite the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clauses and amendments.”
“We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework. That will account, in those areas, for any ways in which the Bill has been amended in Parliament that change significantly the policy impact on the enforcement system. That will be published alongside the enacted legislation. I therefore assure the Committee that there is no need for the Bill to require the Government to undertake further assessment of the impact on tribunals before commencement, because we will do that as we go along.”
“Our analysis includes illustrative assessment of the impact on employment tribunal cases, which we intend to refine over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. The shadow Minister mentioned the concerns about unfair dismissal, especially for those on the margins of employment. Such concerns are, of course, one reason why a statutory probationary period has been proposed. He also mentioned the experience of the statutory dismissal and grievance procedures in the early 2000s. I assure him, having lived through that, that we do not wish to repeat those mistakes. We will look to ensure as much clarity and certainty as possible in the legislation before it is enacted.”
“I therefore reassure the shadow Minister that there is no need for the Government to be required to bring new impact assessments before Parliament, as we intend to publish further analysis alongside future consultations, ahead of secondary legislation, in accordance with the better regulation requirements. The shadow Minister also seeks to insert new clause 25, which would include an assessment of the impact on employment tribunals of changes to protections against some kinds of dismissal in the Bill. Amendment 129 then seeks, again, to delay commencement of those changes until the review has been laid before Parliament. As I said, we have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, which were published at Second Reading and based on the best available evidence for the potential impact.”
“The quantifiable impact of the measures on zero-hours contracts is estimated to be an annual increase of about 1,000 additional cases for employment tribunals per year. That assessment was published at Second Reading and was based on the best available evidence for the potential impact on business, workers and the wider economy. We will also publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework. That will account for ways in which the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to change significantly the impacts of the policy on employment tribunals. That impact assessment will then be published alongside the enacted legislation.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for moving the new clause, and for tabling new clause 25 and amendments 128 and 129. In new clause 24 and amendment 128 he seeks, first, to insert into the Bill a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact on employment tribunals of the Bill’s zero-hours measures in clauses 1 to 6; and secondly, to provide that those measures cannot be commenced until that review has been conducted and laid before Parliament. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments. Our analysis included illustrative analysis of the impact on employment tribunal cases, which we intend to refine over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders.”
“In addition, we are committed to consulting with businesses and workers ahead of setting out secondary legislation, which will be necessary to implement the provisions, and we will work with the sectors listed in the proposed new clause as part of that. We will publish further analysis alongside those consultations to meet our better regulation requirements. There is no need for the new clause—there will be many opportunities for further analysis and refinement before the commencement of the regulations—and I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it.”
“We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, businesses and the economy are considered, and that the analysis considers those potential impacts. We will refine our analysis of the impact over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics and think-tanks, and continue to engage with the relevant sectors and Government Departments on these issues. We will publish enactment impact assessments in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework, which will account for ways in which the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament so as to change the impacts of the policy on businesses significantly. These will be published alongside the enacted legislation.”
“As the shadow Minister has identified, his new clause 31 seeks to require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact on specific sectors of the economy of the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours workers in clauses 1 to 6, and to lay the assessment before Parliament within six months of the passage of the Bill. Amendments 153 and 154 seek to ensure that the proposed new impact assessment requirement comes into force on the day that the Bill is passed, and that the provisions in clauses 1 to 6 cannot be commenced until the impact assessment has been published. I point out to the shadow Minister that we produced a set of impact assessments at Second Reading, which included analysis of the best available evidence on the specific sectors that he referred to.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024.”
“Identity verification requirements will eventually apply to other entities registered at Companies House, so it is necessary that we make these regulations relating to unique identifiers to ensure these requirements can operate in practice. Finally, I want to update the Committee on the timings of identity verification. Companies House published its outline transition plan last October, which confirmed that it aims to start requiring identity verification from autumn of this year. In a few weeks, ACSPs will be able to register and individuals will be able to voluntarily verify their identity with Companies House, giving people lots of time to complete the process before legal requirements actually start.”
“These are technical and apply provisions on unique identifiers contained in the Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024 to other entities. A key mechanism underpinning the operation of identity verification is the use of a unique identifier or personal code, which we use to identify individuals who have had their identity verified, as well as registered ACSPs. The first set of regulations we covered will enable allocation of unique identifiers to individuals associated with companies. These regulations give the registrar the power to allocate unique identifiers to ACSPs and individuals associated with other entities, namely limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, companies authorised to register, unregistered companies, and Scottish qualifying partnerships.”
“ACSPs will be required to maintain records relating to the identity verification for seven years from the date they determined the identity verification request. The registrar can suspend and de-authorise an ACSP if they do not consider it to be fit and proper to carry out the functions of an ACSP. Finally, the registrar can perform spot checks on ACSPs and ask them to provide information about their identity verification obligations. All those provisions combined ensure that Companies House has the tools at its disposal to ensure that the ACSP regime is as effective and robust as possible. I now turn briefly to the second set of regulations, the draft Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024.”
“That will ensure that both routes achieve the same level of assurance in identity verification. Once an ACSP verifies an applicant’s identity, it will deliver a verification statement to Companies House to confirm that it has followed the correct procedure. The verification statement will be published alongside the applicant’s appointments on the register to maximise transparency. Alongside this verification statement, ACSPs must give the registrar information about the evidence they relied on to verify an individual’s identity. That means that Companies House will not lose access to crucial identity data if someone uses an ACSP and will also be provided with an assurance that the identity checks have been completed correctly. The regulations add other checks and balances to the ACSP regime.”
“An individual will create an account and can verify their identity using a range of evidence, such as a passport or driving licence, or through knowledge-based verification questions based on their credit record or banking information. The process also includes checks to ensure that the individual matches the picture on their photo ID. For most people completing the purely digital route, the process will take a matter of minutes. Individuals can also complete the process in person at a post office. If an individual decides to verify via an ACSP, the ACSP must follow the legal procedure established in these regulations and in the registrar’s rules. Companies House will issue guidance to ACSPs to explain how the procedure should be applied in practice and what checks they must perform on the information received.”
“Companies House has produced a draft version of the registrar’s rules—I hope that they are in the Committee Room for Members to see—which I hope will provide some examples of the kind of information that might be required from applicants. When the registrar or ACSP receives all the correct information from an applicant, they will grant the identity verification application if they are satisfied that the information provided is true. That is the broad legal process for identity verification. In practice, Companies House will use the gov.uk One Login platform to deliver its identity verification service. One Login is a cross-government verification platform that enables users to have a single login and verified identity for multiple government services.”
“The identity verification procedure will involve an individual delivering specific information to the registrar or to an ACSP, which must include their name, date of birth and any further information specified in the registrar’s rules, which are a form of tertiary legislation. Given the technical and increasingly evolving mechanisms for identity verification, it would be inappropriate to list every single identity document that must be provided to the registrar or an ASCP, or every single step that an individual must take in the regulations. Instead, the registrar is enabled to specify the requirements in a more suitable form and adapt or tweak the detail quickly where necessary.”