UK-India: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who is a pillar of our committee.

First, I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his leadership of the International Agreements Committee. In my view—this is widely agreed, and not simply in this Room—he has been an exemplary chairman on and off over the course of several years. I am honoured and, frankly, slightly humbled, which is not my usual state, to step into his place.

I also pay homage and offer my thanks to the existing members of the committee, who have been so supportive of my new role. I recognise, as so many of us do, the incredible level of expertise, as demonstrated by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, just now.

I declare my interests in this debate. This is the fact about me that many noble Lords may find surprising—my noble friend and study mate Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon knows this well because I have told him it many times—but I am the first member of my family not to have been born in India since 1880. I am passionate about trade with India. My family’s businesses have invested in India. We had a cotton milling floor in Madurai with 60,000 spindles—it is still, by the way, the largest in the world—which I then continued.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn and return in 10 minutes.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I was just getting to the good bit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I was giving a great oration to demonstrate my interests and biases towards India, my passion for that great country, my own heritage and how important I felt it was, in the run-up to the India free trade deal, that we celebrated our joint community and shared roots. I am also a passionate free trader. I believe without equivocation that lower tariffs and the free movement of goods, capital and ideas are what leads to prosperity and happiness. As Libanius said:

“And so He called commerce into being, that all men might be able to have common enjoyment of the fruits of the earth, no matter where produced”.


But my vision of a tariff-free world is not shared by many. We all say that we are for free trade, but there is always a sector that needs protecting or some inconsistent view, held by many of my own colleagues, that we need to produce our own steel, children’s plimsolls or whatever it may be for whatever excellent reason. The fact is that, even if we do not receive reciprocity, so long as the trade is on a level and fair playing field, which I admit it is sometimes not, our consumers benefit and, most importantly, capital can be better allocated to investment rather than consumption. It is the duty of the Government to deliver this.

That is why the India comprehensive economic and trade partnership is so significant. It is significant not just because we have opened up new markets to our goods and services but because, as we have heard from noble Lords, we have made an important dent in the protectionist carapace of the Indian nation. I congratulate India on allowing us to do that—on being dented—and hope that this example and template negotiated by us will serve it well as it opens up its economy to the benefit of its vast and excellent population. We are seeing this with the deal that it has done with the EU and the potential deal with Canada. These are good things; they benefit the world. This agreement is important because it helps drive that change.

As our report states clearly, this deal is very powerful for the UK. We know the headlines, where whisky seems to have grabbed much attention. The high commissioner of India, who generously gave us tea last week, explained that 2 billion bottles of whisky are consumed in India every year, so it is clearly an important market to us. But, frankly, there are other areas of huge significance, as noted in the report. One of the most significant is the ability of our businesses to access the Indian federal procurement sector, which is truly massive. I request that the Government do far more to promote this win and help our companies navigate it before other countries sign up to such opportunities. It is a race we must win. Can the Minister tell us how we are going to do this? I refer him to a question I asked some weeks ago about the number of people the Department for Business and Trade is employing. I would join him in fronting up against the Treasury, which no doubt wants to reduce that number, and suggesting that, in situations like this, we should be increasing it.

This is also a living agreement, with various bodies designed to explore further ways of opening up our markets to each other. This new model is one we originated under the previous Government; the Conservative Government did some things right, and it is unquestionably the most effective way to trade further and make these agreements future proof as our economies evolve. Some noble Lords have mentioned some of these points, but I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some more details here, particularly on areas such as AI and future technologies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, referred to. How will this agreement evolve and adapt?

However, as with all our reports, we note the limitations. The section on services is too light, as has been mentioned. This is often an issue with trade agreements, where people focus, not unreasonably, on agriculture and goods. The reality is that we are a services economy and in areas such as the law—this was mentioned but, with no disrespect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, I was puzzled —which is regarded in India as a noble profession, we could and should have pushed much further. Will the Minister comment on how we are going to achieve this very important point?

I am also concerned about the lack of details regarding the double contributions convention. I distinctly remember that, when I was in government—by the way, I congratulate my department’s excellent officials on achieving this deal—it was a key sticking point, and we seem to have just rolled over on it without comment. How come there are no real costings of this? There is certainly more benefit to India than to us. Will the Minister say what the real cost will be of the DCC, rather than the overall treaty, which is what the impact assessment is focused on? As has been acknowledged, I have already written to the Minister to request this information.

Finally, the biggest issue with free trade is now less about tariffs and more about non-tariff barriers and local restrictions—often cultural and emotional, sometimes essential, but always prohibitive of freer trade and growing national wealth. India has many of these regulations and, from my experience, it is these barriers that we need to erode more than any others. What plans do the Government have to do this and what timelines can we expect to celebrate?

In summary, I congratulate the IAC on its diligent work on this agreement. The excellent team led by Dom Walsh has written a report that is clear and fair. The Government would do well to bear our comments in mind when developing this arrangement. This is a very good example of why treaty scrutiny should be proper and open. We have genuinely added value to the process, and I hope this adds further weight to our calls around extending the CRaG process to other areas of treaty-making. I express my thanks to the Department for Business and Trade, its Minister and the Minister today for their engagement. As the new chairman of the IAC, I hope we will be deluged with new treaties and free trade agreements. We want more. We want to be kept very busy. We cannot stop here. We must push further and never stop until a tariff-free and barrier-free world is achieved. In my view, this is Britain’s gift to the world.

US Tariffs

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a really important question about our current trading relationship based on the new world order that we find ourselves in. I do not have a specific update on the GCC deal; my noble friend knows that I was out there a couple of weeks ago, and we are incredibly close to an agreement. I should like to reassure the House that, in my travels around the globe, I find that we are still seen as a major place for investment globally. We have competitive advantage in our industrial strategy, in our rule of law and in our talent base. The trade deal that we did with India was significant, and the trade deal with the US remains the first and best trade deal that the US has negotiated. While this weekend has thrown up some bumps in the road, we remain confident. The negotiation with the Gulf states is ongoing but remains very positive, and we hope to have some good news in the coming weeks.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I read somewhere that the Department for International Trade is going to be reducing the number of experts in the field from 1,600 to 1,000. Is now really the time to be reducing our global staff by a third when our businesses need all the support they can get at this time of tariff turmoil?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I thank my noble predecessor for the question. We are trying to balance the pressure from the public world to right-size our Civil Service more broadly to make it more effective—technology and information are tools that can help us with that. We are also trying to balance the public purse to ensure that we have the right quality of people to address the significant challenges that we have as a Government. It is not a zero-sum game. We have very talented people; I addressed the team in the Gulf when I was out there a couple of weeks ago, and I remain impressed by the quality of the people that we have in this sector. But it is undeniable that we must make sure, based on the advantages that we have in technology and information flows these days, that we also have the right number of people in markets at the same time.

Employee Car Ownership Schemes

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

Some three months into a new role, I am as confident as I can be about anything. The current projections are that it should not have a negative impact.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his role. I seem to remember that being Investment Minister is an important part of government. One of our triumphs was that we succeeded in creating the new gigafactory for Tata, in Somerset, which was clearly a landmark event. What are the Government doing to build on that success?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I thank my predecessor, who did an excellent job in the Office for Investment. He will understand that we are looking at many different projects that enhance the investment attractiveness of the UK and at our commitment to our climate goals, in which the gigafactories are large and proportionate players.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

I will not be specific about it because I do not want to generally insult people, but over the years, there has been some dodgy funding of the Conservative Party. Maybe something has been done about it; maybe it has not. The noble Lord will tell us in a moment, I am sure.

I will say something about the amount of money we are talking about, which the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, touched on. In 2016, when I was much more au fait with this debate than I probably am today, the contribution that the union member made to the Labour Party was not much more than the price of a pint of beer. It has gone up a little bit if it is 10 quid now, but it was a modest amount. Comparisons with financial services, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has made, are wrong, because the sums of money we are talking about there are much greater, and refunds, and all the rest of it. The kind of administrative fee that would be required for that amount of donation seems ridiculous.

On this side, we very much see this as an attempt to restore some Labour Party funding streams. I do, anyway—I will not speak for the Front Bench. I think it is important that the Labour Party gets the funding that it requires. I believe that going back to 1945, 1946 and so on is the right way to go, so I support the Government and the Bill.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading, although I have been watching this debate with great interest. As chairman of the Conservative Party, I am delighted that today we announced record donations into the Conservative Party. None of those donations was forced; none of them was given to us because we compelled people to give them to us; and they were not given to us because of an administrative system that prevented people taking their money out or opting out. It was because people voluntarily wanted to support the cause that we stand for.

On the same day that we announced record inflows, thanks in many instances to my noble friend Lord Leigh, the Labour Party also saw significant donations, not substantially to the level of the Conservatives’. I think half of the donations came from unions, but some came from a number of individuals, including in this House from the noble Lord, Lord Alli—who I cannot see in his place—who continues to support the Labour Party and is a good lesson for all Peers to support the parties which fostered them.

The point is that in our democracy, we live in an extraordinary country where voluntary contributions make up how parties are funded. At the essence, if you distort that, you have enormous problems with how the public perceive politics and the responsiveness that political parties need to show to the public who support them in the first place.

I am a great proponent of the union movement. I think it is an essential element of capitalism—it ensures that there is balance between labour and capital—but if you distort that, you distort the economy, nearly always to the negligence of the people who are members of those unions.

The reason I have not spoken before is that it had not actually occurred to me the sort of damage that this Government are trying to do to this country. I could not believe that it was going to be the case that people will be compelled, in effect, to join the Labour Party or to contribute to it—I had to sit in these debates and read back transcripts. We just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who said exactly this: this is absolutely about redressing the balance in terms of party funding and to fund the Labour Party.

By the way, I respect that openness. The unions paid for the Labour victory and now they want to have their message delivered; they want the legislation moulded in their way. That is brutal politics of a kind that, frankly, I am just a bit squeamish about—but I rather admire.

I ask the Minister: is it really true that she is expecting people to be compelled to donate to a political fund, and that there is no mechanism for some form of compensation or redress if they decide to opt out? In a world where we can subscribe instantly to Apple Music, or whatever it is, at the touch of a button, and we are compelled to ensure that people’s subscriptions are reviewed on a constant basis, certainly annually at the absolute minimum, probably quarterly or maybe even monthly—rightly so—is it true that this mechanism will be reviewed every 10 years? It cannot be true that the Government are proposing 10 years beforepeople can see whether they should review their paperwork for a subscription to a political fund. This is remarkable.

I am actually amazed at the audacity, and I slightly admire it, as I said, but if we want a strong democracy and political parties that actually have trust placed in them by the people of this country, this sort of chicanery and gerrymandering is extremely dangerous. The amendments that have been proposed by Cross-Benchers are exceptionally eminent in the sense of making sure that we have a fair system to ensure that unions can indeed represent themselves politically. They can and should build political funds to advance their aims and some of the aims they have advanced over the last century or so are admirable, and I applaud them. But this must not be a mechanism for compelled donation to the Labour Party. It would be a disaster for our democracy, it would not benefit our unions and it would not help our country in any way at all—that is why I support these amendments today.

Whistleblowers

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We are looking at the way we give future government contracts; that is a huge piece of work that is taking place. I will certainly take the noble Baroness’s point on board and see whether that has a role. We want to make sure that the allocation of public funding to organisations is done on a fair and transparent basis.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, this is not just a situation facing the private sector; the public sector also has significant issues of whistleblowing. This year the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care pledged before the election—I am aware that plenty of pledges were made before the election, so the Minister may be confused about this—that NHS managers who silence and scapegoat

“will never work in the NHS again”.

Has that goal been achieved? If not, when do the Government intend to achieve it?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As I say, we are absolutely committed to lead from the top on this issue. That includes in the health service where, as the noble Lord said, there have been some terrible examples of professional staff being discriminated against and losing their jobs. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health is working on this issue, and I hope to be able to come back to the House in due course and update noble Lords on the progress being made.

Post Office Horizon: Redress

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Secretary of State for yesterday’s Statement. It does not need to be repeated today but our team appreciated seeing a copy of it in advance. We share the view of this whole House that compensation must be delivered promptly and with minimum friction. We all, I think, welcome the new appeals process for those who have historically settled their claim under the Horizon short- fall scheme set out in this Statement. Clearly, we also welcome the implementation of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board’s work. However, we have a few questions coming from this Statement; I am sure that some have them have been covered in the intervening period but I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten the House.

The new appeals process will, as we understand it, be open to claimants who have settled their claims but who have new information to present. However, all of us in this House know that these processes are cumbersome and complex. The question is whether the process can be open to all claimants and not just those with so-called new information—and of course the categorisation of new information is in itself complex. To clarify, if people choose the £75,000 top-up, can they still appeal? When will the appeals process be up and running, and can the Minister confirm that those individuals will be entitled to legal representation and general support? I appreciate that we may need to be written to in response to some of those questions.

On compensation payments, can the Minister comment on the fact that, as I understand it, only six claims have been offered through the Horizon convictions redress scheme? As I understand it, no full and final settlements have been reached, which is a bit extraordinary, and we should look very closely at this. I hope that the Minister does not mind the pressure that this House will bring to bear on her to answer that question.

I also understand that only 130 letters of around 700 quashing convictions have been sent. Can the Minister comment on this? Again, that seems an extremely low number, given that we were debating this issue three months ago and the Government then were very committed to sending the letters out as quickly as possible. I am sure that we fully understand that there are some people who may be hard to contact, or there may be specific issues around communication, but this is really the wrong way around. The last Government were working with Sir Gary Hickinbottom to be appointed across all schemes to expedite claims. I am not sure whether that has been confirmed; it may have been, but if the Minister could confirm that, it would be extremely helpful.

Finally, I am afraid that it is understood via my colleagues, and the extraordinarily strong work previously done by Kevin Hollinrake in the other place in communication with the victims of this situation, that the process is being slowed—as has historically been the case but really should not be the case now—by lawyers arguing with lawyers. Are we really moving fast enough, and do we have a proper culture among the public servants of the department, and in the Post Office and the various different organisations helping to expedite this process, to ensure that we are doing the right thing as rapidly as possible?

For all Members of this House, how we deal as a nation with this disgraceful scandal will be the mark to which we will be judged. No one party, Minister or official can carry the specific blame; it really was an entire system at fault—a statist culture of bureaucratic indifference of the worst sort. I hope that the Government will continue to look into the culture that allowed these sorts of situations to arise, and particularly into the role of various government departments, civil servants and the public prosecutor’s office. Who at the top of the tree should bear responsibility for these actions, and what are we going to do, very importantly, to change the culture and the lines of the reporting?

I very much commit this side of the House—the Opposition—to work closely with the Government to make sure that we are as supportive and collaborative as possible, supporting the Minister in making sure that we get redress for the victims of this terrible tragedy.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, about the Government’s Statement being very welcome and the attempt to try to unscramble some of the complexities of the scheme, but from these Benches too we are concerned about the low level of conclusion of cases, despite the process. I echo his questions about how this is being managed. Mindful that there are other inquiry redress processes that have hit problems and have had to repeatedly be redesigned, my first question to the Minister is to ask whether she is absolutely convinced that she has addressed all of them. I shall come on to a couple of specific points.

Chris Head, a former sub-postmaster who lost everything when he was wrongly accused of theft, has spoken up since the publication of the statements with some concerns, saying:

“The remit of the appeal process cannot be restricted to only those that produce new evidence. Many people have been materially disadvantaged by not having access to legal advice and interim payments that were only introduced in November 2022. This appeals mechanism must be available to everyone that has settled claims since the scheme launched in 2020 to ensure they are properly compensated back to a position they would have been in had the scandal not happened”.


Members of your Lordships’ House, including the Minister, I think, have repeatedly raised concerns about the difference between these various schemes for different sub-postmasters and staff. While it is good that the Government want to have an independent appeals process for the HSS, I remind her that the complex redress schemes arising out of other tragic scandals have had to be adapted. It took the work done on the Victims and Prisoners Act to create the infected blood compensation scheme earlier this year—with an enormous amount of energy—to untangle all the different parts of that redress scheme. Does the Minister recognise that Mr Head and others have valid concerns about inconsistencies between the schemes, and that trying to sort all this out now, at pace, as was done with the infected blood scheme, must be a priority?

I want to raise two other issues briefly. First, on the predecessor package to Horizon, known as Capture, I raised the issue of the postmasters and staff who lost their jobs because of Capture, some of whom were also prosecuted but many of whom were sacked. The Independent newspaper and ITN have given voice to these victims. When will the Government’s own investigation into Capture be published and when will they update your Lordships’ House on its findings? Should redress be due, will it be incorporated into the existing postmasters’ scheme, or will there have to be a brand-new one?

Finally, in July, my noble friend Lord Fox raised again the issue of those not included in the overturning of convictions because they had appealed their cases and lost in the Appeal Court. Both he and I had helpful discussions with the previous Minister. The concern was expressed that the judiciary, in particular, had felt it was wrong for this group of victims to have their cases overturned under the legislation in the summer, because there was some merit to other parts of the cases brought against them. Yet, that question was not asked of any other case whatever, only those that went to appeal. Are the Government prepared to reconsider that? What now exists in the redress scheme is a small group of people who have to have an exceptionally high bar of going to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, hoping that it will refer their cases back to the Court of Appeal. This seems unfair and particularly long term, which means these victims will not get resolution for a long time to come.

Construction Sector: Cash Retentions

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about public procurement. There are steps that we can take to progress on this issue; it is a manifesto commitment that we will do so. Obviously, we will consult before we introduce any further legislation, but we are committed to reviewing our policies on this issue, to enable more smaller firms to be able to access public contracts.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, late payments in the construction sector hold developments back significantly, which hinders progress on the delivery of new homes. The previous Government took strong action on this and published a payment and cash flow review in November 2023. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of cash retention on housing delivery, and will the Minister commit to continuing the excellent work of the previous Government to tackle this issue?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As the noble Lord has said, there have already been some changes made to this and we are following that up to introduce further changes. We will be addressing the value of payments and the level of invoices not paid because of disputes, but there is more work to be done on this and enforcement is obviously part of that. DBT has already written to 416 large companies not complying with the payment performance reporting requirements and 45% of firms written to have come into compliance. We have further follow-up action to make sure that those further transgressions are being addressed.

Watchdogs (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I direct Members to my register of interests, although I do not believe that I have any specific conflicts relating to this debate. I should admit that I am going through a planning process at the moment, so I can work from home; I will not raise the word “bats”, which will no doubt send shivers down the spine of anyone who has looked at regulation.

I thank the Industry and Regulators Committee for its work in producing this important report. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, for his introduction to this debate and his chairing of the committee, which has been succeeded exceptionally ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. I very much enjoyed our interactions in the last few months when I was the Minister for Smarter Regulation.

I welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to her replies. I look forward to hearing her clearly stating this Government’s commitment to better regulation. This is my first appearance on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and naturally I am extremely keen to play a strong part in holding this Government to account. I seized a copy of the Government’s response to Who Watches the Watchdogs?, sure in the knowledge that it would be full of holes and give me plenty of opportunities to challenge the Minister, and possibly even cause significant embarrassment to her so early on in her tenure. But as I read it, I was overwhelmed by a steady and growing sense of déjà vu, realising somewhat late in the document it was written by me, when I was Minister for Regulatory Reform.

First, I praise the essence of the response in its balance and breadth, and I confirm that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we supported the majority of all the extremely good points raised. I also take this opportunity to say how much I appreciated the work of the regulatory directive in the DBT, headed by Chris Carr. I am sure that the Minister and her colleagues will have a chance to work with it, because it really did excellent work in trying to introduce reforms to our regulatory environment and better understand it.

It is important to state that I am personally very aware—as is my party, the Conservatives—that regulation is at the core of our high-functioning advanced economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. Consumers need to be protected, and we see how the failure of regulation and regulatory implementation can lead to devastating loss of life, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned earlier. Markets need to operate effectively, and we must have frameworks that generate trust, without which we cannot function. But as the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, said, excessive regulation and the wrong standards—for example, ill-co-ordinated regulations, coming often out of departments, and a lack of effective collaboration between regulators, business, the consumer and the Government—have resulted in regulatory burdens costing the wealth of the nation tens of billions of pounds annually. We cannot ignore that—and I was particularly fascinated by the history lesson given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky.

As I discovered when I was Minister for Regulatory Reform, the long and short of it is that we love regulation. This House and the other place are designed to create regulations; that is what we are—we are legislators, and we are here to make regulations. I found it very difficult—as I am sure my predecessors did and my successor will, which is why I wish him so much success—to get my hands around the regulatory structures and reduce regulatory burdens, to make them more meaningful and effective. However, in light of this, I ask the Government for their view of the growth objective, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned at the beginning of the debate. We have not heard much about it during this debate, but it was introduced and recently confirmed to cover a whole raft of regulators. Frankly, it is central to how we believe that we need to proceed with regulatory actions. My first main question is whether the Minister will continue to commit the Government to the principle that regulation must always be proportionate and effective and that regulators must adhere to the growth objective passed into law earlier this year as a requirement for them to bear in mind when managing their affairs.

It is clear from both the report and several consultations undertaken by the Department for Business and Trade—as well as from many good comments, some of them made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in her excellent speech—that the entire regulatory landscape is confusing, with overlapping duties and a lack of clarity about those duties, layered over generations. Regulators are also often unsure of their relationship with government, so will the Minister confirm that her Government will take action to simplify and measure regulators’ duties? That has come up time and again, particularly in this report. Will the Government work to provide better assessment of the regulators themselves, as called for in this report, and work hard to ensure that strategic steers and better accountability to Ministers—and ultimately to Parliament, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, raised—are now built better into the system. That was covered by a number of Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

In my work, and clearly identified by this report, are issues surrounding the work of regulators. If we are to innovate and grow our economy—the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made a strong series of points about the importance of AI—and if we are effectively to police the market to ensure proper consumer safety, the people who lead and staff these regulators must have proper qualifications in monitoring. With this in mind, will the Government properly assess the competency of the regulators and ensure that they have the resources necessary to carry out their functions? That includes timely appointments of boards, where we would agree that Parliament should also have more effective opportunities for scrutiny and oversight.

Too often, the cry is for more regulation or, on the other hand, deregulation. People used to come up to me and whisper furtively, “I’m so glad you’re Regulation Minister, let’s get rid of all regulation”. Other people would confront me in the passages here and come right up to me and say, “What are you doing? We need more regulation”. It is completely ridiculous—a bonfire of red tape, or whatever it may be, in reality has nothing to do with the quantum of regulation, more or less, and everything to do with the culture of regulation and how regulators themselves undertake their work.

We heard a great deal about the failure of regulation in the water sector from many noble Lords today, but clearly that has nothing to do with a lack of regulation. The process of water companies to establish pricing now runs to more than 20,000 pages. It clearly has to do with the lack of clarity regarding the objectives, often a lack of expertise in the regulator and a belief in checking boxes rather than looking at proper outcomes, with a view that the regulator has only a limited role to play in making the sector function effectively and does not look closely enough at how to make it a success for consumers and the economy more broadly.

To respond to these issues, and indeed many of the points raised in the report, the last Government issued a White Paper entitled Smarter Regulation, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I have a copy here, signed by the team. It followed on from the now well-established smarter regulation framework, which, by the way, I assume that the Government have no plans to deviate from, and the context of which was the introduction of the growth mandate mentioned. In this document, there were 10 key principles designed to make the regulatory environment more effective. To point to a few, they were: clear guidance; transparency and accountability; the need to avoid unnecessary risk aversion; proportionality; and a focus on being highly pro-innovation, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, raised. All were absolutely central. They also included: far better collaboration between regulators; much better engagement with business and citizens, which is important regarding regulation as a service; a real focus on skills and capabilities; and more understanding of how regulations are applied at local levels, which will be particularly relevant in planning reform.

I have a simple question for the Minister, if I may. Is this White Paper still a feature of the Government’s ambitions? How will the Government build on this important work? To some extent, some of the problems highlighted in this debate stem from the original work of departments in issuing directions and drafting new regulations. If we had more or better analysis of the cost of regulations, and assessment as to the impact on regulatory activity in business, we would be in a far better place than we are today.

This brings me to the work of the Regulatory Policy Committee, headed by the very able Stephen Gibson. The work of this body has been too narrowly defined and its resources too thin to enable it really to aid Parliament to monitor the cost of regulations as well as the actions of regulators. There is talk of a super-regulator; this may actually be a very good compromise answer to that conundrum. We thoroughly support a review of this body, to increase its effectiveness, and I hope the Government will continue to ensure that its impact assessment processes continue to be a central feature of their own legislative process.

In summary, will the Minister tell the House how she will comply with the response to the committee’s extra paper? Additionally, will the Government commit to continuing the work started by the White Paper on smarter regulation, especially when it comes to more funding and investigatory powers for the Regulatory Policy Committee, higher expectations on regulators to foster innovation, provide better service to business and collaborate more effectively with each other.

Finally, will this Government, with all their commitment to economic growth, give proper credence to the process of the better regulatory framework and the now established principle of smarter regulation? I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister on these points and those raised in the excellent report under discussion today.

Code of Practice on Fair and Transparent Distribution of Tips

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

Friday 24th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Johnson of Lainston]

That the draft Code of Practice laid before the House on 22 April be approved.

Relevant documents: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)]

My Lords, just so that everyone is clear about these measures, “tips” covers all tips, gratuities and service charges. The code of practice will give legal effect to standards in the allocation and distribution of tips and transparency surrounding the keeping of records and the retention of written tipping policies.

As I am sure all noble Lords are aware, an initial draft of the code was published in December and updated following a public consultation. I say, on behalf of the department, that we are extremely grateful for all those businesses, workers and other stakeholders who provided helpful responses to the consultation. All those responses have been carefully considered. It is important to stress that many thousands—the vast majority, in fact—of hospitality venues, bars and clubs behave extremely well with tips. It is a crucial component of encouraging people to work in the hospitality sector, which is what we absolutely need in this country.

There are, however, some who have not behaved appropriately, and this code will ensure that there is an appropriate framework around which they now must operate. Law-abiding, legitimate processes will also be properly codified. We have also published a response to the consultation, setting out in more detail the feedback that we have received and the changes that have been made.

I have some technical points in conclusion. The updated code was laid before Parliament on Monday 22 April, pursuant to Section 9 of the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023, and approved by the House of Commons on Tuesday 14 May. The code contains summaries of the key intentions of the Act. It details the scope of the measures and provides further information on the need to maintain fairness in the allocation and distribution of tips and the need to uphold transparency in the handling of tips.

It was not the Government’s intention that certain hospitality venues should re-engineer their tips process and describe them as “brand fees” or some other charge that could circumvent the principle that, when consumers believe that they are giving a gratuity to an individual member of staff, it goes to them rather than to the corporation that controls the venue. We have been in touch on some of the most high-profile cases and will continue to keep a close watch on them.

The code subsequently expands on how to resolve conflicts which arise between employers and workers, including impartial advice and assistance in resolving problems through ACAS and eventual escalation to an employment tribunal. Following approval by this House, the code of practice and the other remaining measures in the tipping Act will come into force on Tuesday 1 October, thus, I hope, cementing this Government’s reputation as a true friend to all waiters, waitresses and hospitality workers across this country. I beg to move—and keep the tip.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pity that we have to do this, but it is good that we have done it. I am glad that it has happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, I will raise one matter arising from when I was working as a community lawyer in the Queensway area, in W2, where there are many workers in the hospitality industry. It relates to the impact of tips on tax and benefits. I commend the work of the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group in this often neglected area.

This legislation and the code of practice are entirely welcome, as my noble friend Lord Leong has indicated, but the reality is that, as a result of this, some employers will be paying service charges over to workers for the first time, as opposed to keeping them, and will adopt different practices, such as removing service charges, so that they do not have to handle tips. It is therefore likely that more workers will receive tips and in larger amounts. That is wholly desirable and to be welcomed, but it will have implications for tax and welfare benefits.

We have seen the consequences when sufficient attention is not paid to the impact of additional payments on people’s entitlement to welfare benefits—it can have extremely adverse implications for the individuals concerned. The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group made representations to the department during the welcome consultation that there should be clearer signposting to HMRC and the benefits department to make sure that there will not be adverse unintended consequences for employers and employees.

I can find only one reference to tax implications, which is a sort of signpost, in paragraph 2(a) of the code of practice. I urge the Minister to go back to the department and make sure that, when this is promulgated, there will be clearer signposting on the tax and benefit implications of this welcome code.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their interventions. If I may turn to the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, I completely agree with his comments. I will certainly take them back to the department. As with all things, there are often unintended consequences. As Minister for better regulation, I am very aware that we do not want to drive restaurants and so on to stop giving tips to staff. If Hanson’s Café was allowing people to keep tips, and then decides that the new legislation means it wants to remove the principle, we should be aware of that and monitor it closely.

As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised, it is important that people know that their tips are now going to go to the waiting staff. I regret that we have to bring this type of legislation forward. It is a surprise to many of us that this is necessary, but I think it is necessary. This code of practice will give a great deal of transparency and clarity.

As the noble Lord, Lord Leong, said, it is vital that we have an effective tipping policy. It is not simply a gratuity or a nice to have. We need to have a functioning hospitality industry. Tips play an important part in compensating and incentivising the service industry, so it is really important that the Government and all of us in this House see the importance of legislation such as this to ensure that the system runs properly, people are treated fairly and the economy can function as a result.

I will take all points back to the department. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, that his point is fed in directly. I reassure the House that there are no changes to the tax processes on account of this legislation. Clearly, there are different tax treatments for various types of tip, in terms of cash, whether is it paid through a tronc or directly from the venue under the new principles. It is right to make sure that they are clearly signposted.

In response to the kind comments from the noble Lord, Lord Leong, it has been an enormous pleasure to work with him over the last year or so. I think we have achieved a great deal together for this country and I am very proud of the collaboration that we have managed to achieve in so many different areas. I extend these comments to his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, who has been extremely collaborative and very supportive. I know they are not in their usual place, but the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Purvis, have also been highly collaborative, although they like to ask me as difficult questions as possible. I am not sure how much that will be missed in the future, depending on various different outcomes. I am extremely proud of the work that we have done on our free trade, business and regulatory agenda. We can all feel that this last piece of important legislation is a job well done. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Company Directors: Identification

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce legislation to require company directors to provide identification of who they are and where they live.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)]

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act will require that directors, people with significant control and the majority of those who file information with Companies House verify their identity. As part of that process, individuals will be required to provide their usual residential address. Today, we have laid regulations that establish the procedure for identity verification. The new requirements will be introduced in phases, beginning in spring next year.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

Before spring next year, 700 new Chinese fake companies will be registered every day. There are streets that have been targeted literally hundreds of times—dozens of times per property. People who have never dealt with this kind of thing before are being threatened with fake invoices. Credit referencing by the credit reference agencies has been impaired, as has the ability to sell houses. Can we have a simple, fast-track system so that householders who are being deluged by this horrendous onslaught of fake companies can remedy it with Companies House and cleanse their records immediately—within days—rather than in the six or eight months that it currently takes?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for making those points. As I said, today we have introduced the statutory instrument that will enable us to clean up the register, but since 4 March we have already removed details that we thought were erroneous to the tune of 12,600, which is slightly more than we thought. If you are called, for instance, Jack Hanson and your name is being erroneously used from your address in Worcestershire, that is now being corrected by the registrar of Companies House. I have communicated with Companies House today and it is progressing extremely rapidly in solving this problem.

Since 1904, no such significant reform of Companies House and how people register their companies, their addresses and their verifications has been undertaken. The Government have done more than any other for over 120 years to make sure that we crack down on fraud and corporate crime and ensure that our companies register is indeed verifiable.

[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.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, the previous Parliament passed an amendment to extend to the overseas territories of the United Kingdom the legal obligation to have a company register show beneficial ownership and to make that register open to public inspection. Can the Minister let the House know what progress there has been in making the British Overseas Territories, such as the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, comply with our obligations and open a register of beneficial ownership?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that point. We are making very good progress and we collaborate with all such jurisdictions. There is more work to be done. A consultation on how much identity can be published has concluded recently, and we will report back to the House when we have our own findings that are appropriate for these measures.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Andrew Mitchell said recently that over 40% of laundered money globally passes through London. How satisfied are the Government that the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies are indeed making progress on registers? Surely they are defying the Government.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am afraid that I will push back slightly on the noble Lord’s point. We have had extremely high degrees of collaboration with the overseas territories. We are now very clear on who the beneficial owners are of land in this country, and, as I said, we have just completed a consultation that will allow us to go further in ensuring that everything is extremely transparent. I truly believe that real progress has been made, without impinging on the ability of legitimate businesspeople to open companies, run their businesses, make profits and grow the economy.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that some progress has been made, but a great deal more is required. There are somewhere between 4.5 million and 5 million companies registered with Companies House, and they also need to be cleaned up. Can the Minister tell us how Companies House is getting on with that and when we will know for sure that all those companies are what they say they are?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I appreciate the noble Lord for pointing back to my previous answer about the 12,600 or so companies that have had their identities checked, expunged, changed or verified. That is clearly a significant starting number, which we expect will increase over the next year or so as Companies House deploys the £50-odd million that we gave it to introduce new systems to hire new people. That goes hand in hand with the 475 new economic crime prevention officers we have hired and the £400 million we have dedicated to fight economic crime between 2023 and 2026.

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on his Question. I stand here today as a victim of identity theft. I was listed as a director of a bogus company back in 2021 and became aware of that only recently. I can tell the House that it was not an easy exercise to have my name removed from the Companies House register. Will the Minister outline to the House what assistance the Government provide to the many people who find themselves in a similar position? I declare that unfortunately I have no interest in the goldmines in Ukraine which are listed.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Lord for the discovery that he does not have a significant interest in a goldmine. I am sure it will be something he would not want corrected on the register but I am pleased to say that now Companies House actually has the power to make common-sense changes, effective immediately. I assume that there is a process that requires some additional verification but Louise Smyth, the registrar, is particularly focused on this issue. It was something that was raised continually in the debates. For many people, the situation where they found themselves erroneously registered as directors or their address as a company’s address has been extremely traumatic. I am glad that we have now solved this problem with the 12,600 or so companies that we have taken action on, which is a good start, and we expect more to continue. I appreciate the anecdote.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, registering a UK company costs as little as £50. Companies House, as at today, does not verify the names and addresses supplied by applicants. It was recently reported that nearly 40% of money laundered in the world is going through the UK, and London in particular. Can the Minister tell the House how much of this laundered money goes to shell or ghost companies?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful for that question. It is certainly work that we continue to do. I do not have that information to hand. The figure mentioned by the noble Lord seems like an incredibly high amount and a surprisingly large number. But the reality is that there is clearly economic crime in the system and we have done everything we can to remove that. I stress to the House the incredible cross-party consensus that we built around the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill to ensure exactly this. We have gone further than any Government for the past 120 years and I think we should get some credit for it.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, there are thousands of people in this country now of whom there is no identification by the state. It applies not just in companies but in so many areas. If you know anything about the Chinese community, you will know that there are literally scores and scores of people there who do not exist as far as the UK is concerned. As we are seeking to work together, is it not time that we return to trying to produce a proper digital identity scheme for the whole of the country?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am delighted to say that the introduction of ID cards is not a component of this Question, as far as I am concerned. However, I should say that Companies House now will require electronic verification, so one will have to provide registered, nationally approved identity. One has to have one’s photograph taken. Importantly, to make life easier for businesses, we are going to have an effective digital system. So one has one login ID, however many directorships one has or companies one is involved in, whereby we can track people. For businesses and individuals, the system will be extremely simple.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, one area where open registers and public registers do not exist is for companies in freeports. Have the Government taken another look at this set of issues? Of course, those companies also do not have the normal tax and customs checks over their various activities. Does the Minister intend to link up registers of freeports with Companies House?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I beg to push back against the noble Baroness’s question. All companies in this country have to register and all have to go through similar processes. Freeports are no different and it is important to quash the idea that somehow there is a free-for-all in freeports. There are still checks. There is still our own English national law framework and all the other components that make sure that these are very exciting opportunities for companies which want to set up in this country. They cannot avoid their obligations. What they can do is profit from the opportunity.