Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Drake and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I am conscious that Members of the House want to move on to other business, so I shall concentrate on two issues in the regulations that I think warrant being brought out and receiving attention.

There is a cross-cutting concern that, in referring to directors’ reporting responsibilities in relation to engagement with and having regard to the interests of their employees, the regulations do not refer to their “workers”; they refer only to their “employees”. This is a weakness in the regulations, as they do not encompass the reality of modern employment practices and business models, explicitly referred to in the Taylor review and the impact assessment. Reporting on a company’s impact on employment should be reflective of the entire workforce and not just direct employees.

A significant minority of the UK’s workforce is now not covered by the term “employee” and there is a correlation between indirect employment and low pay and insecurity. Excluding indirectly employed workers, some of whom are the most vulnerable, from the scope of these regulations contradicts a key rationale for statutory intervention—promoting equality and fairness. It will mean that directors’ reports will present an incomplete picture of engagement with the people whose work contributes to companies’ output and value. Therefore, do the Government intend to review Section 172 of the Companies Act to allow reporting on directors’ duties to address the workforce as a whole and not restrict it to employees only?

Another element of the regulations concerns me. Regulations that require reporting on the pay ratios of CEOs’ remuneration to employees’ remuneration are to be welcomed, but there is a risk that these regulations will fall short of what is needed. Again, they refer to employees and not the whole workforce, and that could result in misleading evidence on those pay ratios. The public interest is in the gap between wider workforce pay and executive remuneration. There is a precedent: gender pay-gap reporting covers both workers and employees, not just employees.

If evidence on pay ratios is to contribute to restoring public trust in business, it is important that there is integrity around the data collected and reported. Clear audit requirements need to be put on these pay-ratio exercises, and the lessons learned from the reported gender pay gap, highlighted by the Financial Times analysis, should not be missed. The Financial Times revealed that one in 20 UK companies that has submitted gender pay-gap data to the Government has reported numbers that are statistically improbable and therefore almost certainly inaccurate. Therefore, when do the Government intend to extend pay-ratio reporting to cover both workers and employees, and how will they satisfy themselves about the quality of the data provided on these pay-ratio reports?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am conscious that the House wants to move on but it would be wrong to pass over these regulations, because there are rather important points within them. My noble friend Lord Haskel raised a number of points about the overall shape of the Government’s response to company powers. He talked about the need to think again about the way that shareholders are always given priority and the missed opportunity to stress the importance of productivity. My noble friend Lady Drake raised a number of points about how the figures can be used in a positive way, and I want to come back to that, although I will not go through all the points in detail. In fact, a lot of them were covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, although I am afraid that she lost the House during her speech. It may be worth reading again what she said, because a lot of it was very relevant to what our future agenda needs to be.

First, I congratulate the team behind these regulations. The Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies them runs to 55 pages and is one of the best that I have seen, but I bet that very few people here have read it. They should do so because, even if they are not up to speed with the latest arithmetical terms, it will tell them about averages and means in a way that will bring home any questions that they might have had about why people use one term or another. If I may say so, it has chosen the wrong term, but has done so in a way that has allowed it to at least shine a spotlight on the difficulty of comparing, for instance, the pay of the top person in a company with the median or average or whatever other term you want to use. It points out more difficulties than it solves so it is worth reading.

Secondly, on the date of application of the regulations, some Members of the House will be aware that I have concerns about the fact that we are observing in its absence the common commencement dates for when new regulations are placed on companies and businesses. These regulations come in 21 days after they are passed and not on the common commencement dates, which are 6 April and 1 October. I am keeping a score of the Minister’s efforts in this matter. He will be delighted to know that, of the 13 regulations he has brought forward recently, his score is now 11:2, and even those two were almost cheating because one of them was done by exception and another was done a year late. Nevertheless, I appeal to him to try to up his game.

The key point is: why are the Government not doing more on Section 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006? This section requires directors to act in a way that they consider in good faith promotes the success of their company as a whole and to have regard to, among other things, the long-term consequences of their decisions and the interests of their employees. This needs to be looked at very seriously and rewritten for the 21st century. As part of that, the review should look at the issues that should be in place for all directors, whether in private or public companies, and should include matters such as late payment of suppliers, productivity and the use of powers to try to ensure that stakeholders of the company benefit from it.

Thirdly, the point has already been made that the threshold of 250 UK employees mirrors existing thresholds, but it does not make any sense for it to be limited to UK citizens only. The Government should make it clear that the intention of the legislation is for companies to report on their whole workforce. My noble friend Lady Drake asked why we are not including “workers” as well as “employees”. All employees are workers but not all workers are employees, and it is time that this was updated to reflect that. I think the Minister has already accepted that, in time, they will do that.

My final point is that, without some central registry of reports, this requirement will not be satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will take account of what I have said and perhaps write to us on the key points, in order that we might make progress today.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Drake and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 3rd November 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I support all of the amendments in the group, but I want particularly to speak to Amendment 105P. The mere existence of the payday loans, high-cost consumer credit market is to me a consumer detriment, particularly for vulnerable consumers who access it, but of course that is not an issue which is up for debate under these amendments. The FCA remit is to regulate markets, not to outlaw or to ban these companies. Only the Government can drive the policy needed to secure for not-for-profit affordable lenders sufficient capital liquidity to provide an alternative source of credit. Amendment 105P seeks to address the issue, because notwithstanding the regulation of payday lenders, the need for affordable credit still remains for a particularly vulnerable group of people. As I say, only the Government can drive the policy to address this issue. In the mean time, given that the payday loan market exists, the demand side has certain key characteristics with which we are all familiar. A high proportion of borrowers experience financial distress. Many will come from less well-off socioeconomic groups and will have few assets. A significant number of borrowers will have two or more loans, exposing them to unsustainable and spiralling debt.

Many borrowers get payday loans to cover basic needs, including the needs of their children, yet many are in acute repayment difficulties. According to the CMA, more than one-third of loans were not repaid on time or at all, often bringing considerable consumer harm relative to the amounts that were borrowed in the first instance. That is a demographic crying out for intrusion by the Government to create a sustainable market for affordable credit, as these people will still be vulnerable to the need for that credit. Amendment 105P turns its attention to the fact that the standing need for affordable credit for this vulnerable demographic has to be addressed by the Government.

Amendment 105P also captures the argument that the introduction of a broader levy funding base should not be a lost opportunity to significantly expand the availability of a free debt advice service. That is a compelling argument. By comparison, the new pension freedoms and choice agenda due in April 2015 comes with a guaranteed guidance service on the assumption—quite rightly—that the position of pension savers and consumers in the marketplace will be more vulnerable to poor decision-making without such guaranteed guidance. A levy is being raised from among the relevant providers of financial services which is to be dedicated to funding that guaranteed guidance.

No doubt the argument will be made that significant numbers who would benefit do not seek debt advice and that the allocation of funding to a debt advice service has to be proportionate to the demand for such guidance. My response to that is to say that the Government should take the lead in stimulating or creating the demand and the take-up for that debt advice service. I am sure that the proposed pension guarantee guidance would not be deemed a great policy success if few people took advantage of it—even more so with vulnerable people exposed to unsustainable debt and high-cost consumer credit, missing the opportunity to expand the availability and the take-up of a free debt advice service would not be a policy success. Amendment 105 in particular says that we are dealing with a particular manifestation of the need for credit. However, even in addressing the payday loan companies, the systemic problem will still need to be solved: how people can get access to affordable credit and how they can get access to and use a free debt advice service.

I should perhaps declare an interest in that I am a member of the TPAS board which is currently involved in delivering the pension guidance guarantee. Hopefully, that will not detract from the merits of my argument.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the retiring chair of StepChange, the leading debt advice and solutions charity, which has already been mentioned this evening.

This has become a rather wide group of rather disparate amendments, and I worry that some of the important points that need to be made in this area might get lost. As well as dealing with the very important issues about the impact on children of payday loan advertising, the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hayter propose measures, as we have just heard from my noble friend Lady Drake, to ensure a further clearing up of the payday lending sector as a whole. There are other amendments still to come which deal with elements that go together as part of this overall policy.

This is rather a dense set of amendments, and I apologise in advance for spending some time on the two amendments to which my name is attached, Amendments 105P and 105Q, but I think they are important. However, I do not want to lose the very good speeches that we have already heard. Somebody asked what the state of play is now in childhood. My noble friend Lady Crawley said that we have to think quite inventively about how the language of children’s protection needs to be modernised when we are dealing with issues such as advertising more generally. Even to talk about restricting adverts in a system which is 50 years old—the watershed—is to ignore the complete change in viewing habits that we are currently living through, with people watching individual programmes in a variety of different information-gathering machines, such as tablets and iPads.