Business Hiring
Debate between Baroness Lloyd of Effra and Lord Livingston of Parkhead(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I talk to a number of businesses and work in very major businesses, and I see the issues that they are having about employing young people just now. When will the Government accept that, in addition to technology changes, the raft of legislation that makes it more expensive, more difficult and more risky to recruit young people is an issue? At what point will the Government look back and say, “We want growth, we want to employ young people and we want to give them a chance, so we will have another look at our legislation because we got it wrong”?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Where I can agree is that we want to create an economy where people feel confident to employ young people. I draw some figures and analysis to this House’s attention: under the last Government, between 2021 and 2024, the number of young NEETs increased by 250,000. I mention that because the noble Lord drew attention to measures that have happened subsequently, thus putting his analysis into question. Businesses are able to employ NICs reliefs for those under 21 and under-25 apprenticeships. I highlight those changes on NICs. Obviously, the NICs changes that came in last year do not apply to young people, so I do not accept the noble Lord’s analysis. I highlight to the House the measures we are taking to support young people and give them opportunities so that they get experience of work—employers mention that young people should have good experience of work in order to get their employability up.
Companies: Online AGMs
Debate between Baroness Lloyd of Effra and Lord Livingston of Parkhead(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
If my noble friend is referring to Section 172 of the Companies Act, which already requires directors to have regard in their decision-making to employee interests and
“the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment”,
that is a very important principle.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have been a director, and not a cowardly one, at more than 50 AGMs over the last 30 years. Some AGMs have one attendee or none, some have a few tens, some have hundreds. The costs can often be thousands of pounds per attending shareholder. Given that shareholders can vote and ask questions remotely, should it not be up to the companies to decide—which shareholders can vote on—whether they wish to have in-person AGMs or to do it completely remotely, depending on the companies’ circumstances?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord sets out the rationale for why this will form part of the modernising corporate governance consultation. It will be in the hands of the shareholders and the businesses to decide. In fact, 85% of OECD Factbook countries, including the US, Germany and Japan, already allow virtual AGMs. So this is a proposal to bring the UK into line with other comparable countries, and to clarify the legal situation.