Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I will try to finish the point in just a couple of sentences. The point is that somebody who does not like paying the political subscription can simply leave the union. If they object to it, that is what they can do. That freedom is protected by Article 11 of the European convention and is ratified in a whole number of cases. I will not develop the argument further. I would love to take it outside with the noble Baroness. We can have a drink and go into all the cases.

I just wanted to make one further point. The suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that perhaps trade unions should be barred from making political payments at all. It is an interesting argument, which nobody else has advanced. It reminds me of the point my noble friend Lord Barber made about the fact that the requirement to have a political fund, introduced in 1909, is imposed on no other organisation in this country. Companies do not have to have separate political funds, ballot their members or shareholders or answer to anybody in making a political donation. It is only trade unions that are required to hold political funds with all the paraphernalia of opting in or opting out. I am not going into that argument.

I was contemplating—I never did it, but perhaps I should have done—moving an amendment that trade unions should be relieved of having political funds at all. It was a requirement which answered the Law Lords’ decision in Osborne vs the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants in 1909, eight years after the foundation of the Labour Party, to bar trade unions from funding the political party that they had just launched. If we got rid of trade union political funds, we would not be having this argument at all.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lord, I will speak to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and to my own Amendments 152A and 152B. In so doing, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on this amendment. I remember the debate we had at that time. There is no question about it: every side of the debate compromised. I remember Ministers from the other place telling us that we had to compromise and we had to make concessions that we did not feel were right. The deal was done, and the deal still holds.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that we should do things in the round and in one is exactly right, rather than making this piecemeal change that the Bill proposes, if there are to be dramatic changes. I accept that times have moved on and that funding for the Labour Party is largely from individuals rather than from unions. None the less, if we are to make changes, then let us look at them in the round rather than observing the piecemeal change proposed in the Bill.

I have to correct the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Hendy. Companies cannot make donations to any political party without prior shareholder approval in the period of a year—not 10 years, but one year. That approval lasts only one year and has to be refreshed at the annual general meeting. Noble Lords are encouraged to look at the accounts of any company—certainly a public company—to see that that is the case.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

That is true, but it does not require a ballot of individual shareholders. There is a vote once a year, or whenever, so that a donation can be made at the annual general meeting. It is not a ballot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

With great respect, every shareholder gets a mailed piece of paper with a box to tick—every single shareholder every single year. If that is not a ballot, what is?

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

Do shareholders get an opt-out facility from political donations that the company is making on behalf of the owners of the company?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

They can certainly vote against it, and that happens quite regularly. The situation is exactly the reverse of the one put forward by the Benches opposite.

My focus is on Clause 77, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, highlighted. It is a complicated clause. It refers us to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which was itself amended by subsequent Acts, and to the famous aforementioned Section 32ZB, which relates to details of political expenditure in the political fund. The political funds, as I think has been said, were set up to protect the unions because the law did not allow them to make donations directly, so the political fund allows donations to political parties. But this clause requires details of any political expenditure to be disclosed in the annual return to the certification officer, and that is what the Bill wants to get rid of. It was brought in as Section 12 of the Trade Union Act 2016.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Political campaigning, which the noble Lord will know is clearly spelled out already in the legislation, requires some of these issues to be paid for out of the political fund, Indeed, my own union, UNISON, operates two separate political funds, as my noble friend Lord Prentis explained in Committee, one of which relates to the party-political affiliation and the other to the wider campaigning role. Of course, not all political party payments have gone to the Labour Party; they have gone to other parties and candidates as well.

The payments must be established through the democratic structure of the union. Those same structures make unions accountable to their members, who are free to participate in the democratic process to shape how those political funds are utilised. Joining a trade union is an informed decision and members will be made aware of their right to opt out of political fund contributions. Indeed, we have been careful to draft the Bill to ensure that new members will continue to be notified of their right to opt out on the membership form when they join the union. In line with the recommendation in the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the membership form will also have to make it clear that opting out will not affect other aspects of their membership. Those changes should help to address concerns that trade union members were not always aware of their right to opt out of the political fund under the system that existed before 2016. If members wish to exercise that right to opt out, they are free to do so at any time.

We are not altering the arrangement for existing union members. If they decided to join a union with the knowledge that they would be opted out of political fund contributions, they will continue to be opted out once the Bill passes. As I hope I have explained, automatic opt-in will reduce the administrative burden on unions while still allowing members to make an active choice not to contribute to the political fund if they so wish.

I turn to Amendment 148 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and Amendment 149 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow. The existence of the 50% turnout threshold is not in line with the Government’s intention to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation—a framework that delivers productive and constructive engagement, reduces bureaucratic hurdles and respects unions’ democratic mandates.

The 50% threshold is a high bar and is not consistent with other democratic decision-making. Votes in Parliament and votes for MPs and local councillors do not normally include any turnout threshold but are not thereby considered any less legitimate. Indeed, most local elections are contested with a turnout below 50%—I am sure that a number of noble Lords who have previously been councillors have been elected on a less than 50% turnout—and nor, for the most part, do votes at general meetings of companies require any turnout threshold. Those who oppose industrial action are free to vote against it in a ballot, and they will have their voices heard in the normal way.

The Government have been clear about our intention to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, including industrial action ballot thresholds, but the amendments would prevent the Government delivering on that manifesto commitment. I was pleased to hear the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for upholding our manifesto commitments, and I will remind him of that when we come to vote on these amendments.

The date for the repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations at a future date, with the intention that it is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. Together with the delivery of modern and secure workplace balloting, the intention is that this will ensure that industrial action mandates will have broad and demonstrable support.

As I expected, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about the doctors’ strike. The Secretary of State has held constructive meetings with the BMA resident doctors committee to try to avert strike action by discussing how we can work together to improve the working lives of resident doctors. However, the BMA RDC has refused to engage in further discussions and has instead chosen to proceed with its planned strikes. Our view is that strikes have a serious cost to patients, so once again we urge the BMA to call them off and instead work together to improve members’ working conditions and to continue rebuilding the NHS.

On Amendment 149ZA tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the Government have made it clear that we do not intend to make sectoral carve-outs for the limitations and conditions that apply to industrial action. That is demonstrated by our repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act and the repeal of the 40% support threshold for industrial action ballots, both of which remove the further conditions on industrial action that currently exist in some public services.

Ensuring that statutory notice periods for industrial action are consistent across every sector will ensure that the rules are straightforward and clear to all parties involved in industrial action in every circumstance. It is then for employers in each sector to be mindful of these rules and manage their industrial relations and businesses accordingly.

I also want to make it clear that repeal of the 14-day notice period forms part of our manifesto commitment to reverse the Trade Union Act 2016. Following the outcome of our public consultation on creating a modern framework for industrial relations, we decided that a 10-day notice period for strikes was the appropriate balance between giving employers time to prepare and upholding the right to strike. It is also a minimum, not a maximum, period and employers will be able to plan for industrial action long before receipt of a notice.

Our approach is not an outlier. The UK will still provide one of the longer industrial action notice periods in Europe. Many European countries have shorter or no notice requirements on industrial action, while also requiring airlines to comply with the EU version of Regulation 261/2004. We are aware that under Regulation 261/2004 an airline may be liable to pay passengers compensation if it cancels a flight less than two weeks before its scheduled departure. But even under the current 14-day industrial action notice period, in practice airlines may therefore still be liable to pay compensation if they need to cancel flights due to industrial action.

I turn to Amendments 149A and 150, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good-faith negotiations with employers. This is why we are substantially repealing the Trade Union Act 2016 and fixing the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers, employers or unions in the meantime.

Legislation governing picket lines is, of course, essential and, to be clear, we are repealing only those additional measures introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016 in relation to the role of a picket supervisor. Substantially repealing this in the Act is also a manifesto commitment, while other legislation relating to picketing will remain in place. Picketing must take place at a lawful location, it must be peaceful and those on picket lines must not intimidate or harass workers who choose to attend work. The existing Code of Practice on Picketing, once updated to remove the requirement for a picketing supervisor, will continue to support the legislation on picketing. Together these are sufficient to ensure the operation of peaceful picketing.

The Government’s impact assessment on the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016, published in October 2024, set out the expected impacts of the removal of the requirement for a picketing supervisor and is available for all to read. The assessment shows limited evidence of serious problems on picket lines prior to the introduction of the 2016 Act, and there remains limited evidence of problems on picket lines in more recent years. The assessment concluded that it is therefore unlikely that the removal of the additional legal requirement to appoint a picketing supervisor will have a noticeable effect on the impact of picketing during disputes. There is nothing new to add to that assessment; we are simply returning the law on picketing to what it was prior to 2016 when it was working well and understood by all parties.

I turn to Amendments 152A and 152B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. I think on previous occasions the noble Lord has reminded us of his role as treasurer of the Conservative Party, although he did not on this occasion. Clauses 77 and 78 of the Bill, which these amendments would—

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that positions that do not require financial remuneration do not need to be declared. I did, in fact, make that declaration at Second Reading and in Committee and no further declaration is required.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I think that is the point I was making; I was just reminding the noble Lord. He could have reminded us on this occasion, given that a number of his points were very much party-political ones.

Clauses 77 and 78 of the Bill, which these amendments would omit, remove burdensome requirements and regulation on unions imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016. This red tape works against unions’ core role of negotiating and dispute resolution, which is why we made a manifesto commitment to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016. In relation to Clause 77, trade unions will continue to submit an annual return to the certification officer; however, the amount of information required in that return will be less.

--- Later in debate ---

Indeed, we are not changing the requirement on unions to provide an annual statement to members that specifies, among other things, the total income and expenditure of the union’s political fund. In relation to Clause 78, there is no need for the certification officer to retain powers to investigate requirements that will no longer exist when this Bill is passed. The certification officer—

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Can the Minister be quite clear with us in that case? She said that unions will be required to report to the certification officer gross amounts of income and expenses. Can she be crystal clear that there will be no requirement to disclose expenses made within the political fund to any organisation?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My understanding is that the political funds will be required to continue to spell out how they are spending the money, but not for sums under £2,000. The certification officer will continue to be able to enforce remaining annual return requirements—

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I am sure the Minister would not like to have on record something that does not seem to be correct. I think she means that amounts under £2,000 need not be disclosed.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

That is what I said.

We are simply returning to the situation as it was pre-2016. I would add that the unions are already specifically regulated in the requirement to have a separate fund for spending on political purposes that is subject to many rules. There is no such requirement on many other membership organisations.

I turn to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton relating to Clause 62 on equality representatives. Trade unions have long fought for equality. We recognise that equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. New Section 168B(2)(a) therefore provides for the broad purpose for equality representatives to take paid time off for carrying out duties

“for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace”.

In addition, new Section 168B(2)(c) makes provision for

“providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace”,

and new Section 168(2)(d) makes provision for

“consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”.

Finally, equality representatives may also be eligible for time off under Section 168 of the 1992 Act, which includes time off for

“negotiations with the employer related to or connected with matters falling within section 178 … in … which the trade union is recognised by the employer”.

We believe that these measures are broad enough to include a range of activities, which encompass collective bargaining, negotiating with employers and representing members. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to withdraw Amendment 147.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

152A: Leave out Clause 77

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, we have debated this at length. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said, but I cannot see a reason why payments should be hidden from members of a union.

In wishing to test opinion of the House, I also declare that I have never received any financial remuneration from the Conservative Party: neither have I received any union payment or indeed a union pension. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. There are good reasons to exempt small businesses, which make up the backbone of our productive economy, from the measures in Clauses 55 and 56, both for the statement of trade union rights and for trade union access.

We know, as we discussed in Committee, how rapidly trade union membership is falling, and that it has fallen particularly in the private sector. We know that, although it has gone up in the public sector, it still represents a much smaller proportion of trade union members than in 1995, when statistics began. Small and medium-sized businesses account for 99.8% of our productive economy. If we impose additional compliance costs on 1.16 million micro businesses of up to 10 employees and on 4 million sole traders, we are saddling them with the kind of compliance costs to which noble Lords have already referred.

I wholeheartedly support my noble friend’s amendments to exempt the majority of small, tiny and medium-sized enterprises from the compliance costs of furnishing a letter and the costs—indirect, perhaps—of access arrangements for trade unions, when there may be no trade unionists in the workforce of these small, entrepreneurial businesses.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to mark that this is the moment—21 July, at 8.59 pm—when the Labour Government are going to put such unreasonable demands on small businesses that they will all come together and say, “This Government are not our friend. This Government are distracting us from growth, from employing more people and from productivity”. Just as small businesses are getting over Making Tax Digital, Covid and tariffs, this legislation will do irreparable harm. I wanted to make that point because I assure noble Lords that there will be future reference to this very moment.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I too will be brief. I thought it might be helpful to inject a bit of balance into the debate. Noble Lords might recall that in Committee I spoke of how often there are positive voluntary agreements between employers and unions about access, because everybody recognises that in a modern, civilised society, workers should have the right to speak to a trade union. It is their choice whether to join, but it ought to be seen as a basic right to be able to meet a union at the workplace. In my experience, very often you go in and have a cup of tea and you get a chance to meet the workers, who will make up their own minds about whether they want to join.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, both of which I have signed. I also support the amendment in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, which calls for some scientific and statistical significance in polling a representative group of SMEs on the impact of certain provisions in the Bill. This Government’s consultation with SMEs is, to put it politely, curious and opaque, lacking, so far, any meaningful numbers or quantified response, and with barely any names. Consultation carries little weight if it lacks statistical credibility.

The entirely sensible and pragmatic amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seeks to hand the Secretary of State regulatory tools to bring in exemptions to Part 1 for certain groups or sectors, for specified periods of time, should he or she decide that these are appropriate.

Noble Lords may remember that the Government were offered similar powers of exemption by amendment in the NICs Bill earlier this year, voted through enthusiastically by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and the majority of Cross-Benchers, only to receive the custard pie treatment in the other place under the cloak of financial privilege, which was a great pity. The noble Baroness has, very generously in my view, made the same offer again, and I hope it gets a more constructive response this time.

For there is broad consensus across business that Part 1 of the Bill will have a significant impact on the jobs market, especially for SMEs, but let us be frank: the degree or level of impact is highly unpredictable. If we see the sorts of outcomes suggested by membership surveys from such bodies as the ICAEW and the FSB, then the Secretary of State would be well advised to grab the option of these exemption tools with both hands rather than doggedly sticking to a one-size-fits-all mantra.

Turning briefly to Amendment 159, seeking the disapplication of certain provisions for small and micro-businesses with fewer than 50 employees, this gets my wholehearted support. I will spare the House a repeat of my arguments in Committee. But for the Government to argue, as I am sure they will, against this amendment, because they do not want to create a two-tier workforce, simply does not reflect economic reality or indeed the jobs market or the structure of businesses.

SMBs cannot compete with large businesses when it comes to pay scales, training, promotion opportunities, pensions and a whole range of other benefits. That is a reflection of their size, their culture and their stage of development, yet they succeed in delivering strong employee loyalty and identification. This is true of family businesses, start-ups and scale-ups. To apply all the provisions in this Bill, and specifically those listed in this amendment for disapplication, to a micro-business employing five staff as it does to a multinational employing 10,000 is wilfully indiscriminate and, I suggest, economically illiterate. That is why I put my name to the amendment.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and, of course, my noble friend Lady Noakes. I shall speak to my Amendments 106, 153, 155 and 184. The main thrust of the first amendments is to force the Government to listen to real concerns of the SME community who, frankly, even at this late stage, are unaware of the effects of this Bill. They are too busy trying to keep afloat in a difficult economic environment, where the painful costs of NICs and other tax rises are kicking in.

I declare an interest as an adviser to many SME businesses in my career at Cavendish plc and, to the extent that it is relevant in union matters, as a Conservative Party treasurer. We have not yet heard from any Labour Party Back-Benchers today, but I am sure that, if we do, they will declare their interests in respect of union membership.

Turning first to Amendment 106, which relates to Part 1 of the Bill, we are constantly told by the Labour Front Bench that they want to consult with business—indeed, they repeated that today. They want to consult with business, but they fail to disclose who exactly they are consulting with, let alone what they are being told by those businesses and their representative bodies. I suspect that is because they are embarrassed by the backlash against the severity of this Bill from SME and micro employers, who will make it clear to the Government that this Bill will mean they are less likely to employ more people and much more likely to let people go as the burden of employment is ratcheted up. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for reminding us of the Labour Party manifesto’s commitment to consultation.

If the Government are so confident of the benefits of this Bill for all businesses, why not agree to engage with them? This proposal is really very modest: just 500 companies out of some 5.5 million in the UK. It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to be honest with us and tell us what the reaction of the SME community is and what are its concerns, particularly as we know there has been a shocking lack of impact assessments for this Bill. We know that the recent CIPD survey revealed that 79% of organisations expect these legislative changes to increase employment costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord’s flow, but I feel that his comments on political funds go a fair way outside the scope of the amendments we are speaking to today. There will be plenty of time to discuss political funds next week on Report.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

With the greatest respect, I do not know if the noble Lord has read my amendment, but that is exactly the point. The point is that before the Bill is passed there should be consultation on these proposals, but there is no opportunity for consultation because they are implemented at Royal Assent. The Government keep telling us that there will be a consultation, but how can there possibly be consultation if the measures come in at Royal Assent?

Still, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that interruption because it proves the point. It also allows me to explain to him another payment from the Unite political fund, which he may not be aware of, to the Marx Memorial Library. I kid you not—you could not make it up. I am sure the members of Unite are thrilled to know that their hard-earned wages are going to support the Marx Memorial Library, but when the Bill becomes an Act, in a matter of months, they will no longer have the right to see that disbursement.

If that is what Unite wants to do then that is up to Unite, but surely it should not be covered up. All I am asking at this time is that proper consultation on the effects of Parts 4 and 6 should take place before this is ramrodded through on the statute book without any proper consultation and discussion with, as the Government like to call them, “relevant stakeholders”. It is on Amendment 106 that I will probably be seeking to test the opinion of the House today.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support these amendments and declare my interests, as recorded in the register, as the chairman of three businesses that would undoubtedly qualify as small enterprises.

I was provoked into intervening in this debate by an observation made by the Minister when she replied to the last debate. She said to your Lordships that if an employer dismissed an employee for cause, as set out in the Bill, the employer would have nothing to worry about because the tribunal would find in their favour. Very long ago I practised in the field of employment law, and I saw at first hand the consequences—often very damaging, sometimes disastrous—for a small business of having to spend the time, trouble and expense involved in contesting a case at the tribunal, even if ultimately, it was successful. In the real world, faced with that predicament, employers often find themselves obliged to settle these cases, again at considerable expense, even if the application is completely unmeritorious and would stand scant chance of success, were it ever to come before the tribunal. That factor ought to be taken into account.

My question to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, is this. Attention has been drawn today to the impact assessment, particularly by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who pointed to the increase in the number of tribunal cases that would be a consequence of the Bill. To what extent did that impact assessment take into account disputes that were not actually taken to the tribunal and were settled by the employer, who could not afford the consequences of contesting the case at the tribunal, but which would nevertheless involve substantial, damaging and sometimes disastrous consequences for the employer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, if the noble Lord starts throwing statistics around, I can throw statistics at him as well. As I said earlier, the Deloitte survey shows that the UK is the top destination for businesses. In fact, the Chancellor’s speech at Mansion House yesterday was very much welcomed by the City of London. All the financial services say that London will be the destination for fintech investment. Furthermore, KPMG’s recent consumer index says that people are feeling that they have more money in their pocket and are starting to plan holidays for the summer—good for them.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I am sure the Minister will want to be very clear on this. I think the Deloitte survey he refers to was in respect of inward investment only, probably because the UK is regarded as a cheap place, given what has happened to us in the last month, whereas the chartered accountant survey is specifically on business confidence, which has fallen every quarter for the last four quarters. One wonders what happened four quarters ago to prompt that.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

We got into government one year ago, after 14 years. Business confidence was very low then, and at the same time unemployment was on the rise. At the end of the day, we are making progress. The figures will take time to change, but I am confident that confidence will grow. Inward investment is coming in, which means more investment in business and growth. Furthermore, the FTSE index reached the 9,000 mark yesterday. What does that say? People have confidence to invest in British companies, so let us not talk down the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to correct what I think has been a mischaracterisation of the TUC briefing, which makes it very clear that the right to be accompanied includes, yes, trade union reps but also workmates. I also want to correct what is a misunderstanding of the spirit of the right to be accompanied, which was very much about dealing with grievances, disciplinaries and procedures within a workplace. Hence, when a union is recognised by the employer and the worker is a member of the union and chooses their union rep to represent them, that is a good thing. Our experience is that that is about resolving issues at an early stage. Likewise, a worker may choose a workmate to represent them—somebody inside the organisation who can take a practical, common-sense view of dealing with a grievance and disciplinary procedure.

During the debates on the Bill, we have heard a lot about the worries of ending up in employment tribunals, disputes being protracted and lawyers and others who maybe want to make a pretty penny from representing workers in trouble. Noble Lords will find that many employers, like workers, want to keep resolution of those issues within the workplace because that is often the quickest, more effective and cheapest way that everybody concerned can sort out problems when they arise. Surely it is in resolving issues that we should all share an interest.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I rise to say simply that, in my experience, I have found that employees want to bring with them family members, often parents—particularly women want to bring a parent—and I am not sure that this will allow that anymore.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for their amendments and their introductions. I speak strongly in favour of these amendments, which address a crucial gap in the rights currently afforded to workers.

At its core, this is about fairness, autonomy and dignity; it is about giving working people real choice and a real voice when it matters the most. As we have heard, under the current law, a worker facing a disciplinary or grievance hearing has the right to be accompanied, but only by a fellow worker or a trade union representative. What of the workers who are not in the union, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe pointed out, is most of them? What of those who work in small businesses, where asking a colleague to attend is uncomfortable or perhaps even counterproductive? What of those sectors in which peer support simply is not realistic? We must not confine workers to a narrow and outdated list of whom they are allowed to bring into the room at a time of maximum stress and uncertainty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, so powerfully illustrated with her real-world examples, that causes problems.

This amendment would bring common sense, compassion and modern flexibility into law. This is about worker autonomy, trusting people to decide whom they need in the room with them. If we are truly to modernise employment rights, either amendment should be accepted.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

106: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Consultation on Part 1(1) The Secretary of State must initiate a consultation on the effects of the provisions in Part 1 of this Act.(2) As part of the consultation under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must ensure that views are specifically sought from at least 500 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).(3) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament, within 18 weeks of the initiation referred to in subsection (1), a report on the outcome of that consultation, including a summary of responses received from SMEs.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation on the effects of the provisions in Part 1 and to ensure that at least 500 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are consulted as part of that process.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the Labour Party manifesto promised consultation; it has not happened. The Minister, when batting away amendments promises consultation, and it has not happened. The SME community of this country is petrified about provisions in Part 1 of the Bill. They want to be heard, and I think noble Lords do as well. I wish to test the opinion of this House.

Corporate Liquidations

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reasons for the reported rise in corporate liquidations in the year to 31 March 2025.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, in the year to 31 March 2025, total corporate liquidations rose by 8%. This increase was driven by a 36% jump in solvent liquidations, while insolvent liquidations fell by 3%. The current corporation insolvency rate remains less than half what it was during the 2008-09 recession. Businesses go into liquidation for various reasons—tight cash flow, falling sales and loss of market share to online rivals—but no single factor dominates. Compulsory liquidations have increased mainly due to the increase in winding-up petitions from creditors, mainly from HMRC.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

The Minister is right: in fact, more than 2,000 businesses have faced winding-up petitions this year, the highest rate since 2012. Today, we learn that the number of payrolled employees has fallen by 274,000 over the past year, and most worryingly by 109,000 just this month past. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has predicted that eye-watering costs to business, particularly tax costs, will lead to more job losses. Does the Minister agree with me that as every single Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Noble Lords may groan. As every single Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came to office, now is the time to reduce tax, which is at an all-time record high for businesses, particularly SMEs, before the next election.

Anti-Semitism in the UK

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. She will know that I am not brave enough to restrict her freedom of speech in any way. I think this goes back to what I said when I quoted Rabbi Sacks. He pointed out that anti-Semitism may begin with the Jews but it does not end there, so it is for all of us to combat it.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words, and particularly for reminding us of the wise words of the late Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks of Aldgate. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. It is as he says, but it is actually worse.

I was talking to a beauty journalist yesterday and she was telling me of the tweets going around about beauty products, telling people not to buy from certain businesses as they are owned by a Jewish person and not to buy from certain businesses as they are owned by a person who supports Israel. It is biting, and it is not just beauty products but clothing products and any Jewish business. This is truly shocking. This last happened 70 years ago. It is spiralling out of control. Jewish businesses are being targeted because they are owned by Jewish people, and people are responding to it. I do not know what the Government can do about that.

As I mentioned earlier in this Chamber, I am president of Westminster Synagogue. On Saturday, the police told us that they would protect us. They sent 20 police officers and four vans, because the demonstration walked past our synagogue, and they felt that was necessary. That demonstration included people chanting anti-Semitic slogans and the expression “From the river to the sea”, which means genocide of the Jewish people in the State of Israel. Of course, the police did not do anything to stop those chants and protests. They did, however, take one person away. That person was standing behind a railing with a banner saying, “Hamas are terrorists”. He was manhandled by the police, his arms were locked and he was walked away. My noble friend the Minister says that the police are restricted in what they can do; they seem to be selective in deciding what to do.

Of course, I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to have answers to all these specific instances tonight, and I can only add to the praise of CST, of which I am proud to be a supporter. I commend Sir Gerald Ronson’s incredible work in promoting CST to the organisation it has become.

I add that it was extremely disheartening to see the disgraced academic David Miller allowed to tweet out his vile abuse of Jewish charities, and it was very disappointing that the University of Bristol failed in its case. One can only think that it did not try particularly hard. I hope the Government will think through how they can take action to stop people like David Miller from posting such vile abuse to people who are just trying to be philanthropists and to help others in need.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. I heard his comments about the synagogue and the march this afternoon in another Question. On that incident, as I said, it is very difficult to second-guess the police after the fact. I appreciate where my noble friend is coming from. The decision obviously has to be context specific. But the police are accountable for their actions and, speaking from a personal point of view, I read a good article in the Spectator yesterday by our noble friend Lord Godson. He was right to raise the questions that he raised in that article, and we are all right to question the police, after the fact, about why they did what they did, how they did it and all the rest of the operational matters that they have to remain responsible for. On the targeting of businesses, I have seen some of this stuff online, and I am afraid it disgusts me as well. I am not sure what the Government can do, but this is obviously noted, and I will take it back to the Home Office.

National Security Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion B1, an amendment to government Motion B. I am very pleased that the Government have finally proposed an alternative amendment, recognising that only the ISC can undertake effective scrutiny of intelligence and security work undertaken by the Government.

The ISC supports the government Motion on the basis that my Motion is also accepted. It removes the requirement for consideration of whether the ISC’s MoU needs to be updated to commence within six months. We are concerned that such a time restriction may have unintended consequences; it might inadvertently affect the ability of the ISC to oversee security or intelligence activity related to the Bill. For example, if the Government commence new security or intelligence activity as part of the Bill outside the ISC’s remit—beyond the six-month period—the Government could attempt to argue that they will not consider any commensurate update to the ISC’s MoU as considerations are required to start within six months of the Bill coming into force.

Because of the Government’s long-standing refusal to update the ISC’s MoU, and their continued arguments to justify their refusal to accept independent oversight of the committee, the committee is of the view that it will be much safer for us to remove this time limitation to avoid any possible confusion in the future. Although that sounds like a lawyer’s argument, this is a lawyer’s issue; it is something we have to be quite careful about.

While the government Motion will not remedy the significant gap in ISC oversight that already exists in relation to intelligence and security matters, it at least seeks to stop the oversight gap becoming even bigger. I hope that this reflects a turning point and the beginning of a shift in the Government’s position, including their acceptance of the need for robust, independent and democratic oversight of secret intelligence matters.

However, the House should not forget the wider problem, and we should continue to insist on a remedy. With my ISC colleagues in the other place, I have already explained repeatedly why the ISC’s MoU needs to be updated more broadly. I will not repeat those arguments now, other than to say that currently there is insufficient parliamentary oversight of the Government’s intelligence and security activities.

Intelligence and security matters are too important for there not to be comprehensive parliamentary oversight. There can be no activity by the Executive which escapes democratic oversight. The Motion is the first indication from the Government that they have begun to grasp this fundamental principle and the importance attached to it by those in this House. Despite the Motion’s significant limitations, I support it being added to the Bill, with my own Motion, to ensure that there are no unintended consequences which may negatively affect the ability of the ISC to oversee the entirety of this regime. I encourage the Government to use this as a foundation for constructive engagement on the rest of the ISC’s MoU, which, as I have explained, urgently needs updating.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to this closing part of the Bill. I declare my interest as the senior treasurer of the Conservative Party. It is not on the register of interests, because the registrar does not accept it as a declarable interest; I do not know why, but I bring it to your Lordships’ attention now.

I wish to speak because, as this debate concludes, it would be unfortunate if the reader of this debate and previous debates was left with the conclusion that political parties are in any way seeking to obtain donations from foreign parties or do not take considerable steps to ensure that foreign parties or intermediaries do not make donations to political parties. In the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord West, commented that

“it is perfectly possible for companies to make significant donations to political parties despite clearly not making operating profits and therefore with limited explanations of how they can afford such donations and where the money comes from”.—[Official Report, 21/6/23; col. 237.]

However, many companies can of course raise substantial sums of money and not make operating profits— I have personal experience of that. That is not the issue; the issue is that regulated donees have to be UK-registered companies incorporated in the UK which carry on business in the UK. I know from my experience that considerable lengths are taken to ensure that those companies are companies that carry on business, by any definition, in the UK. That is a requirement of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

The companies must also be registered with Companies House. Later this afternoon, we will finalise our debates on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, in which I have had a large involvement. From that, it is clear that Companies House will have substantially greater access to information on companies’ accounts digitally to assess who the persons of significant control are.

Accepting or funnelling unlawful donations is already illegal. Every donation over £7,500 is declared and you can take my word for it that any donation that one might think is, shall we say, unusual leads to lots of inquiries from the press, which is perfectly reasonable, and others such as political opponents. The Electoral Commission has 233 staff. It has resources this year of £25.5 million. It is responsible for looking after political parties, not much more than that.

It is not particularly obvious to me what more political parties could do. They are not banks; they are not HMRC. It would be inappropriate to create a very false impression. Donors do not control parties. They do not influence or determine policy. They typically give modest sums of money because they believe in supporting a party and wish it to succeed. We do not wish to slip into state funding, which would be a very dangerous route. In fact, donors to all political parties should be thanked and recognised for their contribution to civil society.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I slightly despair listening to the noble Lord. Can we just ask for a little humility from treasurers of all political parties? I am afraid there is plenty of evidence that the garden is not as perfect as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, is saying.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I beg to disagree and am happy to offer humility. I note that recently the Labour Party returned a donation from a Mr Ian Rosenblatt which it decided was inappropriate. All credit to it. It happens regularly. This is not a political issue; this a cross-political matter. As I say, every donation is listed, so there is 100% transparency. I welcome my noble friend the Minister’s proposals, which I think are extremely sensible and helpful to this argument.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

We on these Benches very much welcome the concessions that the Government have made. I disagree with the rather overoptimistic interpretation of where we are from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. In the last exchanges, the Minister said that the National Security Bill was about national security and not about donations to political parties, but donations to political parties from foreign powers are a matter of national security.

Indeed, in the last Commons debate on this, a number of rather distinguished Conservatives intervened to say how strongly they supported the amendment as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on the last occasion. I recall Sir Jeremy Wright saying that he found it “very difficult to disagree” with anything in the amendment. He is currently on the ISC and was previously a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when it was writing its report on public finance.

I have just read a paper on political finance that the Institute for Government has just published. That stresses how rapidly the context is moving and how the law needs to adjust to cope with that. It particularly stresses the extension of overseas voting rights to British citizens who have been resident abroad for a very long time, many of them dual nationals. Checking on where the ultimate source is for those things is going to be extremely difficult and probably impossible, but political parties should be on their guard against undue influence and the suggestions the Government are now making perhaps will help political parties to take further moves in that direction

I was also struck by the speech that David Davis made in the Commons last week about a donor to the Conservative Party who had given £750,000—not a modest donor, even by the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh—who had spoken openly about buying influence and “access capitalism” as part of what he expected. This was a dual national whose fortune appears to have come largely from contracts within a number of post-Soviet states.

There is a problem there, and it requires investigation, and I welcome the Government’s acceptance that there is a problem and that it needs further investigation, and we look forward to reading the text of the amendment that the Government will move in the Commons and to the further work that they will do then—we hope in co-operation with other parties—to last beyond the next election. This is an area where we need to have electoral rules that are agreed by all the participants.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Lords Chamber

This is very simple. All businesses should take reasonable steps to stop economic crimes such as fraud and money laundering being committed on their behalf by their employees. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will insist on these amendments, and I will support him if he does.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier wonders why the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, supports his amendment. I have heard wags tell me that he is referred to as a Green Peer, on account of the number of times he recycles his gags. That might be a little unfair—I hear disapproval, but never mind.

I will speak to these amendments, having followed the Bill extremely closely. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, is of course right to pinpoint what we are debating: fraud perpetrated to benefit a relevant body. However, the noble Lord actually said “on the company’s behalf”, and that is not right. I do not think it is necessarily to capture exclusively where a company seeks to benefit itself; it could also, quite rightly, seek to capture an employee who commits fraud to benefit himself or herself because of a bonus arrangement or other matters. So it is not just on a company’s behalf.

In Grand Committee and elsewhere, I have argued that there should be exemptions for small and medium-sized companies, in opposition to Amendment 110. I totally agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier that the numbers proposed by the Government—any two of the following: a turnover of £36 million; a balance sheet of £18 million, which is undefined; and 250 employees, which is easy to define—are not appropriate. As he said, they capture only 0.5% of companies, but of course they capture the most important companies, which is where this legislation is perhaps intended to attack—it covers pretty much every FTSE and AIM company, which would perhaps have someone to put their mind to undertaking a fraud.

Although I have reservations about Amendment 110, curiously enough I support my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s Amendment 117, which is eminently sensible and deals with the issue. He has specified a turnover of more than £10 million, a balance sheet of more than £3 million, and more than 25 employees, which is sensible and fair. However, that applies only to fraud. His Amendment 125D does not have any SME exemption but simply says that the Secretary of State must issue guidance specifically for SMEs and particular micro-enterprises. He recognises that there is a difference for SMEs and micro-enterprises, and I think we should do so. I am nervous about this legislation: we just do not know what that regulation might be and do not understand what the guidance might be, how it might work and what effect it will have on SMEs and micro-enterprises.

I had a micro-enterprise at one point; I started a business. I refer your Lordships to the register of interests, which discloses that the business grew quite substantially, but it was originally micro by any definition. I do not know how many of your Lordships have started and run a micro-business, where everything revolves around survival and one’s entire life revolves around next week’s and next month’s wages, paying suppliers and creditors, and dealing with HMRC. There are so many pressures on micro-businesses, growing through to SME businesses, and we should think very carefully about putting another hurdle in place, however small, that makes an entrepreneur say, “You know what? Maybe I won’t bother. The Government are saying that I’ve got to take care about failure to prevent fraud. Really? Is that something I should worry about at this micro level? Have I not got enough to do to try to survive?”

I urge caution in adopting Amendment 110. If it is passed, I urge the House to adopt Amendment 117. I would be very careful about adopting Amendment 125 without clarification of exactly what will be in Amendment 125B.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the steps that the Government have taken in relation to the failure to prevent fraud offence and the identification doctrine. These are significant steps, and he is right to say that they will obviously be followed up in future Bills.

It is worth remembering the scale of fraud in England and Wales in particular. Some 40% of crime is fraud against individuals, and clearly the scale of the cases against small, medium-sized and large businesses is also devastating. On Friday, we will debate the wider issues relating to fraud looked at by the committee on digital fraud, which I was privileged to chair. I am grateful that, from that committee and the work with my noble friend, the Fraud Strategy was published in early May.

I support my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s Amendment 110 and the associated Amendment 121, and have added my name to them. He and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, set out clearly why these amendments are necessary. There is no SME exemption in the Bribery Act or in relation to tax evasion.

I want to take on one of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Leigh. He talked about the survival of SMEs, and he is of course right to do so. I have not set up a small business but I have set up a small charity, and many of the issues are similar. If that small business or small charity were the victim of fraud, it would be absolutely devastating. One of the arguments here is the burden on small businesses of having to set up fraud-prevention measures, but they have to do it anyway these days because they have to be very cautious about anyone attempting invoice fraud or utility fraud. If they have an employee, they have to make sure that they are making best use and correct use of the corporate credit card, for example.

Noble Lords rightly referred to Clause 192 and the guidance that the Government will publish. We already have an example of it, as the Government have published the outline of how it would look. If this amendment is passed, it would be perfectly within the rights of the Government to set out clearly how that guidance should be interpreted by small and medium-sized enterprises, which are quite used to reading extensive amounts of guidance. If we want to have a broader debate about red tape and regulation, that is perhaps for another day, but they are used to dealing with much guidance. If they are likely to be victims of fraud, they will take that guidance very seriously.

I support these amendments and I support my noble and learned friend’s Amendment 125A on expanding the failure to prevent offence to money laundering. If we are going to introduce the failure to prevent offence, which I thoroughly welcome, we might as well do it properly and expand it to money laundering, which is also a huge a problem and one that the Bill seeks to tackle as well.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly because we have heard some excellent speeches from the noble Lords opposite.

I just want to say, observationally, that we have debated a number of different groups where inequality of arms has been at the centre. When we talked about SLAPPs, we talked about inequality of resources. We have just talked about whistleblowing, where it is the same issue, and here we are again. In a sense, the Government are in different places with different elements of this. We need to have some sort of integrated response on how all people can be equal before the law because they can afford to do it—in other words, they can afford not to win, which is the issue here. We have our law enforcement agencies, we have perfectly innocent people going about their businesses trying to blow a whistle, and we have people who are trying to report issues publicly but are being SLAPPed. All of these important elements are being blocked through the inequality in access to the courts.

To refer back to this group of amendments, it seems to me that, if this amendment is not the answer, there must be some other answer. I look forward to the response from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, because it is quite clear that unexplained wealth orders have failed to deliver on whatever promise they may have had. Perhaps the Minister can explain how many of them there have been and what exactly the barrier has been, as well as what the cost per prosecution would be; that is an interesting point of view.

In the end, this is about inequality of arms. The first point here is that the Government must recognise that this is an issue; they then have to settle down and find ways of working with people who understand the law in order to eliminate that inequality. Otherwise, most of what we are talking about here will not happen.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I am prompted to rise by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey. I think he was referring to Amendment 106C, which we will come on to later this afternoon and which would extend the costs cap beyond UWOs. In the certainty that my noble friend the Minister will seek to ensure that Amendment 106C is agreed to, let me simply say that the amendment we are debating now, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, would be complementary and extremely helpful to Amendment 106C.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for proposing their amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for moving Amendment 93 on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for Amendment 95, which was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Young. Both amendments relate to reports connected with unexplained wealth orders, henceforth known as UWOs.

I turn first to Amendment 93, which would require the Government to lay annual reports on UWOs where the property has been obtained through economic crime and taken from vulnerable adults. Economic crimes not only result in financial gain for criminals but leave a trail of suffering. They inflict financial and personal loss, including on the most vulnerable members of our society, which this amendment importantly recognises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I share the disappointment expressed by other noble Lords. When UWOs first came out, I was very pleased to see them. They are a classic accountancy tool to establish what is going on in respect of an individual who may have accumulated wealth in an unexplained way. It is incredibly disappointing to learn that so few have been issued with, frankly, teeny sums of money, given the nature of the world that we are discussing. Can my noble friend take back our concerns to his colleagues and, in particular, ask whether targets could be set for the coming year on the number of UWOs that might be issued and the amount of funds that they might realise?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am certainly happy to take my noble friend’s concerns back but, as regards targets, that would invite me to stray into operational matters, which I will not do.

--- Later in debate ---

That is why I support these amendments that my noble friend Lord Coaker has tabled and ably explained. I hope that the Government will engage with these and other aspects of the Bill, with the strong, cross-party power that they have in Parliament, to make the Bill work as they want it to and protect our country from the £300 billion a year—I think—that we are losing to economic crime.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to urge the Minister to not allow the concept of a tier 1 investor visa scheme to be rubbished. This country has benefited enormously from foreign direct investment. I have seen a large number of UK small and medium-sized businesses benefiting from individuals coming to and living in the UK and putting money into and running the businesses, and those businesses flourishing thereafter. It is an important part of what we offer overseas investors, if done correctly.

I am a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, seemed to imply—and probably stated it; I may have missed it—that the reason that this information has not been published is that the Home Secretary is worried about disclosure of people who may have made donations to the Conservative Party. I do not think that is in the spirit of the debate; I do not think it is correct. The noble Lord laughs, but it is particularly surprising from the Lib Dems, which took money from Michael Brown, to make allegations like that, and it is a shame because I think there is great consensus in the Committee about the purpose and merits of the Bill.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, who have made some extremely thought-provoking points in this debate. I will do my best to address them all.

Scrutinising the activity of government is obviously a key function of Parliament, and of course the Government are entirely supportive of it. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that this particular part of the government machinery is always grateful for any help that is offered and will receive it in that spirit. However, the amendments in this group are unnecessary, as they are duplicative of existing reporting arrangements and scrutiny structures.

On investor visas, I take my noble friend Lord Leigh’s points. If done in the right way, they are potentially an important engine of economic growth—that should be acknowledged. Of course, we should not forget that they were introduced by a Labour Government and maintained during the coalition years. However, on Amendment 102, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am aware that there are concerns about how the now-closed tier 1 investor route operated—in particular, that it was used by those relying on funds that had been illegitimately acquired and those who may have posed a wider risk to the UK’s national security.

It was because of those concerns that the Government committed in the first place to the review of the visas issued under the route between 2008 and 2015. As has been acknowledged, the Home Secretary made a Written Ministerial Statement on 12 January setting out the findings of that review. This included that the review had identified a minority of individuals connected to the tier 1 investor visa route who were potentially at high risk of having obtained wealth through corruption or other illicit financial activity or being engaged in serious and organised crime. The Statement of 12 January represents the Government’s substantive response to the commitment to undertake a review and publish its findings, including its findings in respect of economic crime.

Obviously, there was a delay; we are aware that considerable time elapsed between the commissioning of the review and the setting out of those findings. However, delay is regrettable but not unreasonable when issues of national security are at stake. Let me expand on that a little, if I may. It would have been preferable had the review been able to include more information about specific individuals but we have had to act sensibly and responsibly with regard to the UK’s national security; this includes striking the right balance between setting out the review’s broad findings and observing the constraints on disclosing sensitive details, which must be withheld, at the request of our operational partners, to protect our border and the vital work of our law enforcement agencies.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised the subject of party-political donations. Without getting into a slanging match on this subject, I think it is worth restating that UK electoral law already sets out a stringent regime of spending and donation controls that prioritise transparency and safeguard the integrity of our elections. All political parties recognise that third-party campaigners and candidates must record their election spending and report it to either the Electoral Commission or their local returning officer. This information is all publicly available. The measures in the Elections Act 2022 also updated the political finance regulatory framework by increasing transparency and fairness and strengthening the controls against ineligible foreign spending on electoral campaigning. That is a fairly comprehensive transparency regime concerning the funding of political parties.

The House has considered similar amendments to other legislation, most recently during the passage of the National Security Bill. As before, the Government’s view is that this amendment is not necessary. The Government have set out the key findings of the review of the operation of this route and have acted to close it. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment would help to protect enforcement bodies from the serious risk of high adverse costs when undertaking recovery action against deep-pocketed suspects who can afford the very best legal representation. This risk creates a huge downward pressure on law enforcement activity. The Government introduced a new costs order in March last year for the use of unexplained wealth orders; we have talked about those a lot. It ensured that costs would not be awarded unless the law enforcement authority had acted unreasonably, dishonestly or improperly.

UWOs are just one tool for recovering assets in the UK’s recovery regime and, as we have discussed this evening, are arguably less important in the eyes of law enforcement than other recovery tools. Extending the costs orders introduced in the ECA 2022 would significantly increase the appetite for undertaking recovery cases and inevitably lead to more asset recovery. Even the Law Commission in a recent report recommended that in confiscation hearings following a criminal trial, if the prosecution is unsuccessful but can argue that their application was reasonable, each side bears its own costs. Given that this is a Law Commission recommendation for criminal confiscation and that limited liability for costs has been introduced for UWOs, we are proposing to extend this limited liability to all cases of civil criminal asset recovery.

Civil society and civil servants at the NCA and the SFO have all reported that adverse costs can play an important role in cutting agencies’ appetite to pursue costs. In fact, no cases seem to have been undertaken against Russians in the UK since the outbreak of the Ukrainian invasion. Evidence I have heard from law enforcement bodies suggests that there is a significant caseload of potentially high-risk cases in the pipeline which bring significant cost risks. This includes more than 60 cases being reviewed by one prosecution authority with close to £1 billion in assets frozen by an enforcement body.

Tackling kleptocrats and politically exposed persons will involve going against the very best and most expensive lawyers, unpicking complex corporate vehicles and reams of evidence. Cost exposure poses a real hurdle to the use of civil recovery. In addition, as we have heard so often during this series of Grand Committees, this is not a party-political issue. Indeed, it has been raised previously by Conservative MP Nigel Mills, who sought an amendment during the passage of the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which we heard about briefly from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, so that the costs could be awarded on an indemnity basis.

In the six years or so that have elapsed since then, we have had the huge move in principle by the Government to allow this capping to take effect for UWOs. Given that that Rubicon has been crossed, I simply do not understand why the Government are reluctant to extend it. We hear so often in the rebuttal of our amendments that it is not the right time, there is no room in the legislative calendar, the cost is too great and the principles are not there, but this is a situation where none of those issues exists. The Government accept that the principle can apply in some forms of recovery. All I ask for in this amendment is that we broaden the scope of the cost capping, which will dramatically improve our ability to go after some of these bad actors. I beg to move.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to this amendment, which I have signed. Once again, I find myself agreeing with every word that my noble friend Lord Agnew has said, so I will be very brief.

The extension of a new cost regime to all of Part 5 of POCA in the case of economic crime would encourage law enforcement bodies to act ambitiously but also reasonably in bringing civil recovery cases, and it has the potential to ensure that significantly more stolen assets and proceeds of fraud and corruption can be recovered and returned to the victims—as we would all want—but also reinvested back into law enforcement agencies themselves, which is the major problem, through the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. That would help them enhance their capacities and give them the confidence to go after cases which they are not doing at the moment.

A number of us had the honour to be briefed by Bill Browder on the Bill. Of the many subjects that we discussed, this was the one amendment that he felt would be helpful and useful for us to pass. What greater man is there than Bill Browder to suggest to us that we adopt a particular route? If the man can create a Magnitsky Act which has been adopted by pretty much every civilised country in the world, perhaps we can just take one clause in this Bill to enhance our fight against economic crime.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th April 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sharpe for the courtesy he has shown to me and other noble Lords in holding meetings, along with his officials, to explain the Government’s case on failure to prevent and the adjustment of the law of corporate liability. It has been very helpful to have some understanding of where they are coming from and where they intend to go. It is fair to say that he was more forthcoming in those meetings than he was in providing an explanation for the SME carve-out this afternoon. I thank not only him but the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for tabling his amendments, which I support, and for his mention of the amendments I have tabled.

The amendments that I have tabled are exactly the same, almost to the semicolon, as amendments that I have tabled not only in this Parliament, since the 2019 general election, to Bills dealing with economic and financial crime, but also to Bills that I spoke to when a Member of the other place. I have taken an interest in how we deal with economic crime since I became the Solicitor-General in 2010. I appreciate that that was a long time ago and that my noble friend the Minister probably did not have a particular interest in the subject all that time ago. None the less, I appreciate that many will find what I have to say unoriginal, not least because I have said it so many times before but also because it aligns with what others on all sides of the House and in both Houses have been advocating for some little while.

I will first deal with the SME carve-out, which is provided for in one of the government amendments. I suppose it is fair to say that half a loaf is better than no loaf and that a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. However, after nearly 15 years, following the banking crash of 2008-09, the subject of economic crime and corporate misfeasance has been if not on the top of everyone’s agenda every day then certainly close to it. For the Government to come up with a carve-out in the way that they have—bear in mind that we are only talking about failure to prevent fraud at the moment—is disappointing.

What we are here required to understand by Amendment 84C, proposed by the Government, is that if a company or business has a turnover of less than £36 million, has a balance sheet total of less than £18 million and has fewer than 250 employees, it should not be caught by the failure to prevent fraud.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Two or more of those.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My noble friend Lord Leigh is entirely right: you have to pick two of this lucky trio and you are away.

One only has to think briefly about start-up businesses and the pressures that they come under when they may have very few employees and a turnover of much less than the Government indicate to realise that the danger of an associated person committing an act of fraud is not predicated on the size of the company. It is also possible to say that there will be people who will so construct their corporate affairs that each bit of their corporate existence is by some happenstance just below or well below the Amendment 84C cut-offs.

In any event—I have bored my noble friend the Minister with my feeble sense of humour on a number of occasions—there is no similar cut-off for failure to prevent bribery under the Bribery Act 2010 and no equivalent cut-off under the Criminal Finances Act 2017. Although my noble friend tells me that, after much consultation and because they do not wish to impose unnecessary burdens on business, the Government have come up with these numbers, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, indicated, I have yet to hear a reason why they have landed on those figures or why as a matter of principle they have chosen to have a carve-out at all.

Here comes my feeble joke, so stand by. A burglar of five foot four should be prosecuted just as vigorously as a burglar of six foot six. There is no carve-out for small people committing crimes and there should be no carve-out for small businesses that fail to prevent crimes. When the prosecuting authorities—I look with respect at the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven—come to consider whether it is in the public interest, assuming that there is evidence, to initiate the prosecution, no doubt one of the factors that they will take into account is whether it is in the public interest to pursue that prosecution, bearing in mind the small size of the company and the mitigating steps that it took to do its best to avoid an associated person committing a criminal offence.

--- Later in debate ---

In short, there are two major flaws: the limitation to large bodies and the scope of those who are to be within the amendment. To refer to associated persons is fine as far as it goes, but it does not extend to all the people you really need to capture.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I find some of these amendments tricky, really. Clearly, we are all keen to prevent fraud but I frequently wear the hat of the SME company. I should make the further declaration that I am the director of a number of SMEs and an investor in many more—not many successful ones but, none the less, I put my money in and hope. I have read the Law Commission’s options paper and the briefing papers from the APPG on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax, and I have had the pleasure of innumerable discussions with the very persuasive Margaret Hodge and her extremely capable team. Congratulations to them; they have got the Government to move to the much-promised amendments from the other place, the debate on which I read carefully. Clearly, we all want to beef up failure to prevent and the amendments go a long way to doing that.

I broadly support the principle of excluding small companies and I shall explain a bit more about why. However, I agree that the terms here are a bit odd. Needless to say, I am a bit worried about a company with 250 employees turning over only £36 million—it is more bust than small. I suspect, however, that these are EU figures, translated from the euro; I do not how they were arrived at but they may need some polish. They are definitely more “M” than “S”, and thought might be given to restricting ourselves to “S” rather than “M”. Needless to say, one looks at one’s business to see whether one is within scope —and, of course, I was reminded that the problem is with the balance sheet qualification. Ordinarily, I never thought that it would apply but, as fellow members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales will recall, the recent brilliant accounting standards brought in require one to capitalise leases in the balance sheet, meaning that companies’ assets are, frankly, grossly inflated. This definition refers only to gross assets, not net assets, so you will capture many more companies than you thought you might if you stick to that definition. I urge another look at the actual definition, if this route is taken.

It is certainly possible for large companies to develop procedures and systems, but smaller ones are, frankly, stretched with other matters, such as, essentially, how to pay the next payroll and survive. It is not reasonable to expect many of them to stop working, sit down and have a cup of tea and dream up preventive procedures. Of course, business owners do not want to see fraud because, at the end of the day, they will be the main losers. However, I can see lawyers advising on the purchase of massive amounts of belts and braces, given the penalties, which could be a massive distraction from the incredibly challenging job of trying to run a business and make a profit, which is difficult enough. I suggest that we see how large companies cope with the Bill, what it means in practice, what “preventive measures” —the guidance is yet to come—actually means, and then give ourselves the power to bring in small companies if we feel it is appropriate at a later stage, once we see what happens in practice.

I also have some concerns about Amendment 101, on the senior manager responsibilities. Of course, I strongly support measures which are likely to reduce economic crime. However, I note that an assessment produced by the Law Commission on individual criminal liability concluded that

“in principle, directors etc, should not be personally criminally liable on the basis of neglect if the offence is one which requires proof of a particular mental state. Liability for directors on the basis of neglect should be restricted to offences of strict liability or negligence”.

We have some way to go to make me feel comfortable that those are right.

There are other outstanding issues concerning senior manager liability, specifically how this would be monitored and enforced. The legal obligations on senior managers at the moment affect the UK’s competitiveness, particularly when trying to recruit talent at senior levels. So I would be reticent to encourage the introduction of significant legislative change without a broad assessment, which I would welcome, of the likely impact. That means consulting with industry and an official impact assessment that considers international comparisons of the effect, particularly on recruiting senior staff. Therefore, I would welcome some more consultation and consideration of the consequences of this reform.

On the proposed changes to the “identification doctrine”, clearly, amending it is essential to tackle the most egregious intentional behaviour; I get that. Here, of course, it is easier to see that in a small company—the Victorian brothers example—the directors could be guilty of this behaviour and, in an overzealous environment of trying to score wins, they could be prosecuted first, quickly and more easily. However, where you have a company consisting of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people, can we be certain that the act of a few rogue managers or even one manager a long way down the reporting structure should rightly lead to the sort of punishments suggested in some of these amendments?

That does not sit easily with me, and again, I still want to be convinced that we are in sync with our major international competitors. Let us not forget that while FDI into the UK has historically been very high, it is not now. The UK stock market is out of fashion, and countries all around the world are seeking to attract our businesses to set up offshore. Any legislation we bring in has to be very mindful of that.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I think it falls to me to start the winding-up speeches, but noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will not try to repeat everything that everybody else has said. I declare my interest as a director of both a large company and small companies; I set up my own first business in 1981, so I have spent most of my life as a business owner.

In this group I support the amendments mainly led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I hate to break with the gentle congratulations that have been given to the Government for at least doing something, but having such a weak amendment could well be counterproductive. The Government could think that they have done something when, as has already been exposed by many colleagues, it does very little. It will exempt most companies and it probably will not touch where action is needed most.

--- Later in debate ---

I finish where I started. In the end, the challenge for the Committee is that all these amendments are virtually universally supported here, but what difference will that make to the Government’s thinking on adapting their own amendments before Report, so that we get the Bill we want, because we all want it to be successful?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he clarify Labour’s position from the Dispatch Box: that it would be happy with one clause that requires prevention procedures to apply to an extremely large, multinational financial services company, for example, and to a local sweet shop which was incorporated? The noble Lord says that everyone agrees. According to the soundings I have taken from small business organisations, they would not be happy with that.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I said everyone on the Committee —with the possible exception of the noble Lord. I was talking about how people feel about the Bill as drafted, with the carve-out for small and medium-sized enterprises. The noble Lord was referring to something that might include not the small but the medium, and that is a matter for debate, but the general view of the Committee was that the Government’s current carve-out is not acceptable. Where you put the threshold—whether you apply to a little sweet shop at the end of the road with a turnover of a few thousand pounds the same regulation you apply to a multinational company—could be sorted out in regulations, and if we saw them, we could suggest that they take into account the small sweet shop to which the noble Lord referred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I appreciate the point that the noble Lord was making and apologise for not addressing it more directly. I will refrain from answering that now and will write. I think I know how it is done, but I am not an accountant and I do not want to say something that he will pick apart. If he will indulge me, I will write on that subject with greater clarity to make sure that I am not making a mistake.

I thank all noble Lords for their participation in this debate and for their patience as I have taken them through a fairly long speech on the Government’s positions on these issues. We agree that reform is needed and, as we have made clear, the Government’s amendments represent a major step in delivering it. I hope that further explanation has reassured noble Lords on why we have presented the amendments with the scope and reach that they contain, and that the Government are committed to reform of the identification doctrine. I therefore very much hope that noble Lords will support the government amendments and not seek to move their own.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I appreciate that my noble friend is at the Home Office, but none the less can he give us a commitment that the Government will look again at the definitions used in the Government’s clause for SMEs? I appreciate that they come from the Companies Act 2006, which themselves were cut and pasted from EU regs, but now that we are out of the EU we are free to choose definitions that suit our circumstances and our institutes’ accounting standards.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Yes, I am happy to give that reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 85 from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to which I have added my name, and to support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said, the question for the Government concerns giving teeth to the sanctions regime in respect to designated individuals. If it is not dealt with like this, what do the Government propose to do? There is clearly a gap, sanctioned individuals are finding ways around the law and we are not able to confiscate or seize the assets we want to seize. Criminalising a failure to disclose as a form of sanctions evasion, so that those assets can be seized, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is a very important step forward. Although this is just one amendment, Amendment 85 is really important.

As I said, if the Government do not believe that this amendment is appropriate, what are we going to do about the situations and individuals the noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke about, and the huge sums of money, which are beyond the scope of the British state to collect from individuals? We all think we should be able to do something about that.

Just so the noble Lord does not feel on his own in being sanctioned, I am sanctioned as well, so we are in good company, as is the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. We could have a sanctions party here.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I join the sanctions party. I rise to say that, as this amendment has the support of Cross-Bench, Lib Dem and Labour Peers, I add my support, even if I missed out on adding my name to those proposing it.

National Security Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Lords Chamber

No doubt the Minister will say shortly that the Government do not routinely comment on the issues, and I understand that case: no Government have in the past, and I suspect that no Government will in future, for good reason. But one question on the IRGC that the Minister can answer is whether, as it is constituted, the IRGC would meet the statutory test of the 2000 legislation. Another question that the Minister can answer today is whether the Wagner Group would meet the statutory test for an organisation to be considered. If so, we would have a bit more clarity. I hope that the Minister can give us positive news today.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill before, and I appreciate that we are very near the end of it, but I am moved to stand by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which, as it is written, I support.

I have only voted against the Government once and, in retrospect, I think that was a mistake, in that I got confused about what the legislation said. But in this particular instance there is an opportunity for us to stand up and say that the IRGC is an organisation that should be proscribed. It is clear that large parts of government and MPs, including the Tory MPs referenced, believe that, and it is clear that a group of people in the Foreign Office take a different view. That is not a new position. I appreciate that my noble friend is a Home Office Minister and does not have a Foreign Office Minister with him but, none the less, an inflection moment is in front of us. I hope that my noble friend the Minister might find a way of supporting this amendment or explaining how he will satisfy the questions raised tonight.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Leigh led the way, and I shall follow. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I am one of the two Members of this House who have been proscribed by the Iranian regime and the IRGC, and I have consistently called for it to be proscribed by the Government.

I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said and, if there is an issue with the organisation being part of the Government, how were we able, when Sajid Javid was Home Secretary, to proscribe Hezbollah, which had Members of Parliament in Lebanon? This was always the argument against it, but it was done because it was the right thing to do. I remind noble Lords that Hezbollah and Hamas, which we all proscribed, are in fact the unruly children of the parent body—the IRGC, which needs to be proscribed.