Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Grand Committee

Finally, do the Government have any further plans for reforms to the network access charges? Do they plan to publish the technical guidance, or has it been published already? If not, can I get a timetable for that? Has a full monitoring and evaluation scheme been agreed, and how will its findings be published?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out these instruments so clearly and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his contribution. These four instruments implement key aspects of the British industry supercharger, as mentioned by the Minister, a package announced in February 2023 to make energy-intensive industries—EIIs—in Great Britain competitive. These industries face challenges in the coming decade. The primary issue is the relatively high cost of energy in the UK, which makes it difficult for them to remain internationally competitive. Furthermore, there is a need for them to implement transitions toward greener technology, with lower carbon leakage, as we strive to move towards a net-zero economy. We recognise these challenges and broadly support these instruments, in so far as they seek to address them for these industries, which are vital for our national security and the literal fabric of our national growth.

The first instrument exempts eligible EIIs from the costs associated with funding the capacity market and seeks to ensure that there is sufficient supply despite fluctuations in demand, especially at peak times of day or in colder periods, and in supply, for example when wind generation is low. While we support this instrument, have the Government considered whether this will lead to any shortfall in the capacity market? If so, what measures are in place to mitigate this?

The second instrument concerns additional costs due to green levies which the UK imposes and some of our international competitors do not. We do not want this differential cost to drive our energy-intensive industries abroad, so this instrument adjusts an already existing scheme and exempts EIIs from 100% of the costs of funding various environmental schemes. Industrial electricity costs in comparable neighbouring countries are evidently not static, so will the Government keep them under review? If there is movement, do they have plans to make further adjustments if necessary?

For both these instruments, the Government’s calculations accept expected increased electricity bills for non-eligible users, including small businesses, charities and households. For this instrument, that is cited at 20p to 30p per megawatt hour. With the current spot price at just under £60 per megawatt hour and the reduction since the start of this year already being closer to £30, that certainly does not seem a massive amount. However, will the Minister outline how much these regulations, in conjunction, will add to the average household electricity bill per annum? The third instrument follows by necessity to enable the Secretary of State to revise the renewables obligation level from 2024-25.

The fourth and final instrument makes minor amendments to the Energy Act 2023, sets out funding for the payments via a levy on suppliers and appoints an administrator. Such support payments are to be made to the EIIs quarterly. Will there be an automated process for eligible recipients to receive these payments with the minimum administrative fuss? Have the Government made forecasts as to whether the costs of this scheme will outstrip the contributions from the electricity suppliers, which will effectively be funding the EII support levy? Are there any provisions in place for this possibility, so that the scheme does not collapse if it is successful?

This instrument allows corrections to be made to support payment entitlements. It will also make provisions for the administrator to hold a reserve fund so that EIIs will always be able to receive payment. Do the Government expect this will need to be used? If so, how big will it be and is there a maximum time limit over which the administrator will be expected to cover the shortfall?

We will be very happy to support these four instruments if the Minister can provide some assurances on the concerns I have mentioned. I look forward to his response.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for their comments. These measures are extremely important if we are to have a sustainable heavy industry in this country. If I may take my own experience as Investment Minister, I have unquestionably been able to land a significant amount of investment—some of the biggest investments that we have announced to date, particularly in the car and advanced manufacturing industries—because we have these mechanisms in place. It is not even ambiguous. It is a clear point of fact in these discussions and is very important.

The noble Earl rightly raised that we do not want to be subsidising carbon-intensive businesses out of some desire to keep historic organisations going, contrary to our net-zero ambitions and our overall industrial policy. It is right to challenge the principle of carbon leakage, which is exactly what would happen if we did not operate this process. It is designed to help these businesses to decarbonise. For example, for Port Talbot, which will obviously be a receiver of these support packages, the intention is clearly that it will decarbonise. If you look at the car industry, it is going to an EV industry, and rightly so.

The noble Earl asked when the next review will be, how we will review it and how we add companies. This is an issue with novel technologies coming forward and with industries that need this support, which may not already be under a current and easy-to-define classification. Quite rightly, we will review this. The next review point is 2026. This measure will come into force next month so it seems logical that there is an 18-month or two-year period for review. I am absolutely sure that, at that point, there will be some quite significant changes. It gives us an opportunity to take companies and sectors out and put new companies and sectors in. I am positive about that.

I am also positive about the ability to spread the cost. The noble Lord, Lord Leong, rightly asked how much this will add to the electricity bills of an average household. These are the dreaded averages but we are looking at £4 to £5. I am very aware that there is a cost of living crisis and that there are other pressures on people’s households but, when you look at the ability to target this type of support for that type of diffuse outcome, it makes a lot of sense. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the power-generating and petrochemical industries, which do not qualify for this. I am sure that there are others that do not qualify; we would be happy to provide a specific list. It is a 1% increase overall.

Noble Lords will know that I have spent many years in investment and looking at financial markets. The energy markets present a high degree of volatility. The gas prices now are lower than they have been for a considerable period. We are very dependent on gas, which is why our own power structure is so complex to manage. Looking at the network costs, the capacity market charges that are made and other exemptions, these mechanisms are really about removing the obligations to invest in the net-zero ambitions of the UK while expecting businesses to do it for themselves. There is a sensible trade-off there. It is well balanced.

The noble Lord, Lord Leong, asked whether there would be a shortfall in the capacity market point because of the effective compensation being paid. As I understand it, that charge has never been utilised. We are confident that there is no effect on the capacity market in terms of the charges that are being made; I would be happy to investigate that further. On technical guidance and the transparency around these processes, let me say that, as Minister for regulatory reform, better regulation or smarter regulation—whatever the current title is—impact assessments are important to me. I hope that all noble Lords have read the impact assessment reports for these statutory instruments; anyone listening to this debate is also welcome to do so. It is a transfer rather than a new cost so it does not show up on the impact assessment process as clearly as it would do if it were a new principal regulation.

It is important that there is as much transparency as possible because these are, in effect, transfer charges. This is a transparent system; to some extent, it requires the complicit consent of industry in general and the public. It is important that this is happening in a private sector capacity with government direction. We feel that this is absolutely the right thing to do. It is highly diffuse in its impact and very targeted. We believe that it will allow the UK to be incredibly competitive when it comes to developing its advanced manufacturing ambitions.

I hope that I have answered all the questions from noble Lords today. If I have not, I will certainly scrutinise Hansard and welcome any follow-up, but this is a relatively uncontentious series of statutory instruments.

In summary, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned that he was not going to address each statutory instrument individually; he was quite right not to, not just in the interests of time but because this is one package—they are naturally separated for reasons of legislative complexity but this is the British industry supercharger. It presents a powerful package to industry and sends a strong message to the country and internationally that we want to support businesses as they develop and decarbonise. Support for our economy gives us great growth for the future. With that, I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill [HL]

Lord Leong Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed today, and especially acknowledge the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, on the Conservative Benches.

I declare my interests as the director of several businesses and companies, as set out in the register. I have been in business for the past four decades and employed several thousands of people. One of the most important things I have learned from my time in business is that good employee relationships are absolutely vital for business success. My employees have worked hard to enable the business to succeed and grow, and several of them have become very close family friends. I believe that most businesses are good, responsible employers that do the best for their employees. This Bill is not targeted at businesses like those. No, the Bill will affect only a few bad apples in business, those who disrespect their employees and seek to exploit them. As already mentioned by my noble friends Lord Woodley, Lord Hendy, Lord Browne and Lord Davies, the Bill will not prevent any employer changing the terms of its employee contracts or arrangements because of an impending financial cliff edge.

I pay tribute to the dogged determination of my noble friend Lord Woodley, no stranger to long, drawn-out bargaining over employment rights, in bringing the Bill to the House. He has spent decades fighting for workers’ rights as a union official and a union general secretary, and now in this place he brings his Private Member’s Bill, the third attempt in recent years by Labour parliamentarians to seek to make this Government act and recognise that current employment law fails to address the injustice of fire and rehire. This omission, as others have argued, enables companies to threaten their workers with losing their jobs if the management decides it wants to weaken agreed terms of employment. Every year, such shameful bullying has a devastating impact on the security, lives and livelihoods of millions of workers in this country, and despite recent high-profile scandals, fire and rehire continues to be used. Naming and shaming does not work. Expecting bosses to do the right thing has not worked. It is long past time to change the law to make it work for workers.

When the most recent scandals appeared in the media, warm words from the Prime Minister were cold comfort to those who have suffered from the sharp practice of fire and rehire. It is not just the high-profile cases of well-known, iconic British companies that my noble friend Lord Woodley famously described as trading under this country’s name but not in this country’s interests. What is especially galling is that it appears that some of the companies that treat their workers so poorly in fact received financial support from the Government during the pandemic. The Government could have required that companies receiving assistance would not engage in such practices. They chose not to do so. Most shockingly of all, government departments, including local authorities and statutory bodies that really should know better, have offered procurement contracts to companies known to have threatened workers with fire and rehire tactics. Even with my low expectation of the Government, even knowing their heartless attitude towards hard-working people in the public sector, this came as a surprise to me.

There has also been an attempt to give the impression that fire and rehire has mainly been a last resort in the exceptional circumstances of the Covid pandemic. The thorough response from the TUC to the Government’s proposed code of practice demonstrates that this practice was being used before Covid, was used during Covid and has in fact gained prominence in negotiations during the years since the lockdowns ended. The TUC has estimated that one in 10 workers, almost 3 million people, have been subjected to fire and rehire tactics since the first lockdown. Young workers, women, black, Asian and minority-ethnic workers, as referred to by my noble friend Lady O’Grady, and those on low pay have been disproportionately impacted, which only exaggerates the inequalities that many of them already face. This alone is reason enough to consign fire and rehire to the history books by getting this Bill on to the statute book. Roads paved with good intentions, whether labelled promises, pledges or non-binding, just-published codes of practice, lead only in one direction. It is the workers, threatened with either losing their job or continuing to do it in worse conditions, who will always feel the heat. That is why so many of us support my noble friend’s Bill.

Labour’s new deal for working people recognises that outlawing fire and rehire means that workers can be safe in the knowledge that terms and conditions negotiated in good faith cannot be ripped up on threat of dismissal. They will be more secure and more able to plan and save for the future with legislation that gives them security in their pay and terms.

The Bill enshrines in law necessary improvements in consultation procedures where employers want to change employees’ contracts. It will make it illegal to dismiss workers for failing to agree to a contract that leaves them worse off. The Bill ensures that the highly restrictive trade union legislation introduced by this Government does not inhibit action to protect existing terms and conditions for employees. Recent experience shows that fiddling with a code of practice will not be enough. I agree with Unite the Union’s response:

“The idea that a ‘code of conduct’ is going to stop employers like P&O from doing this is just a bad joke”.


The TUC and lifelong veterans of the union movement, such as my noble friend Lord Woodley, know from bitter experience that in the real world, without legislation to prevent fire and rehire, workers will continue to be exploited.

The Bill offers the Government a chance, an opportunity to do the right thing to get ahead of the curve and outlaw this cruel and unjust practice, and to do it now. It will be a terrible irony if the issues addressed by the Bill are dismissed by the Government in favour of a non-binding code that offers weaker legal protections. The time is long overdue to put an end to fire and rehire with robust and binding legislation. My noble friend Lord Woodley’s Bill does just that.

Does the Minister agree that good industrial relations result in higher productivity? Also, will the Government bring forward the long-awaited employment Bill? I look forward to his response to my and other noble Lords’ questions.

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

I am, as always, extremely grateful to noble Lords for this debate. Before we begin, I direct Members of the House to my register of interests, although I do not believe there is any conflict relating to the Bill today. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for bringing this Private Member’s Bill to this House. It affords us an extremely helpful debate, and I will go through some of the points shared by so many Members of this House who are rightly concerned that the primary function of a strong economy is a fair workplace regulatory framework.

I absolutely agree with the noble and wise comments of the noble Lord, Lord Leong, at the end of his address, that we should have strong relationships between the people who work in our industry and the people who employ them—with the shareholders, investors and consumers, and in fact with our entire habitat and environment. That is exactly the sort of harmony that this Government are trying to deploy.

I will talk about some of the technical elements around the Bill and dispel some misconceptions. The first misconception to dispel, if noble Lords will allow me, is that the P&O situation was a dismissal and re-engagement process. It was not. If I may, I will correct noble Lords who have conflated that situation—which in my view was absolutely abhorrent behaviour by an organisation with such lineage as P&O towards its staff, who had such loyalty to the company. It was strongly condemned at the time by the Government and is continually condemned by the Government today, and by me personally. I am aware that there is an inquiry by the Insolvency Service into P&O, on which it would be inappropriate for me to comment, but at no point should noble Lords conflate what P&O did with the concept of dismissal and re-engagement.

I will also touch on the principles around the proclivity of companies to use this practice to control their workforce. There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence, but there is not a great deal of specific evidence to suggest that this is as widespread as noble Lords may recommend. In fact, some of the high-profile cases—they tend to be so because they are relatively unique; this is important—often resulted in better outcomes for the employees post the relationship renewal with the unions. It is important to understand how big a situation we are dealing with here; it is not as significant as people suggest. The statistics vary significantly—from one in 10 to 3%, whatever that may be—which causes me concern. I am delighted to make a commitment to continue to do more work on how significant a so-called problem this is.

I will make two very important points about the principle of dismissal and re-engagement. First, for me, it is an extremely useful and powerful mechanism to allow employers to engage effectively with their workforce to create and establish new terms and conditions that may be appropriate for the modern age or for the needs of the company at the time. It is very important that we retain those flexibilities. The concept of dismissal and re-engagement is also very valuable in resetting and clarifying employment terms; I am sure that I am surrounded by people with far greater legal expertise on that than me. As I said, it is not simply a question of using this as a mechanism to bully staff; it is a very important legal process for the contractual relationship between the employer and the workforce.

My next point is something I think we are all agreed on. While I have great respect for the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and indeed for the noble Lord himself, we must have the flexibility to enable companies to manage their workforce in times of crisis. I am sure that, when we are faced with these situations ourselves, either as employers or workers, and we need to come together to respond to an economic crisis such as Covid, it is absolutely right that we have mechanisms to enable us to protect the workforce. This is about fairness, protecting workers and allowing us to have a flexible workforce. It will allow me and my friends, associates and children, and the rest of our citizens, to have the opportunity to work in a flexible environment that has not become too rigid or ossified to respond to economic volatility.

However, very importantly, this should never be used to bully the workforce. The code is very strong on this; it is extremely clear that it is not to be used inappropriately to try to force unacceptable terms on a workforce. Instead, what the code does is clarify the obligations of the employer to ensure that they have to consult with their workforce. For the first time, they have to—this is very important, when you look at the other reasons for dismissal and re-engagement—look at alternatives, not just to the overall plan but to how the individual workers themselves are treated.

There is the 25% uplift, and I take noble Lords’ comments, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on the tribunal service; I am very sensitive to that. I will come back to the noble Lord on his comments on the workability of that process, because it must be an easy-to-use process that is accessible; that is absolutely at the core of protecting workers’ rights. But we do have the 25% automatic uplift that can be fed into the process. There is an obligation—I believe the code advises it in every case—to consult ACAS when it comes to using dismissal and re-engagement. These are actually quite significant.

Clarity is very important. As we know from statutory codes—again, I defer to noble Lords who have greater legal experience than me—they are central in ensuring that we have a strong framework for navigating employment law and giving protections to workers, and, very importantly, also giving obligations to employers. Having been on both sides, and certainly as an employer, the more clarity I can have about how I can work with my workforce, the better. It is very clear from the tone of the document and this Government that it is the expectation that this is a last resort, that there is a significant degree of consultation and that every other option is exhausted before it is appropriate to use dismissal and re-engagement.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that the Bill offers employers the flexibility to consult their workers before the terms of the employment are changed? It does not ban the practice; it is just a last resort that offers a consultation period with the employees.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am very grateful for that challenge. I will now turn to the Bill. As I said, many elements of its sentiment are wholly welcome, but its practical application would result in less fairness, wealth and job security than the noble Lord might wish. There are several reasons for that. First, the increased consultation becomes extremely onerous on companies. Often you have a very limited period of time to react to a significant economic circumstance. As I said, this is dismissal and re-engagement, rather than simply some type of long-term planning for a business. We must be extremely careful about the onerous conditions that we are placing on companies. I have looked through the Bill, and they are substantial and, I am afraid, heavily tilted towards union practices—maybe because every Member of the House who has spoken so far, apart from the Front-Bench spokesman opposite, is a member of a union. In many instances, not all companies have union bodies represented within them and not all workers are members of unions, so it is possible to conflate those two consultation processes, which is inappropriate.

It is also very difficult. While I have a great deal of sympathy with the principle of a so-called bankruptcy clause, it is not a position that those running a business want to be in that they can do something only if they are about to go bankrupt. The reality, as I think Hemingway said, is that you go bankrupt:

“Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly”.


You have limited time to act and have to be precipitous. You must try to prevent the point at which you go bankrupt, because otherwise all your staff will lose their jobs.

The principle of what we are discussing is how to protect as many workers as possible, in a difficult situation. The code does, but I am afraid that the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has put forward would put at risk the security of more workers than it would protect. Importantly, it removes the breadth and range of principles around which dismissal and re-engagement can be used. That is difficult, because businesses require flexibility and it should not be up to politicians to decide this on a case-by-case basis. That would cause enormous problems, reduce flexibility, make it far harder for businesses to operate appropriately, and reduce employment in this country and security for workers.

However—and I personally will be pleased to engage in this—before the code comes into force in the summer, there will be a full debate in both Houses. I have been very clear with my officials in the department and to my colleagues that we will keep this under review. It is right that we understand exactly how many companies are using this practice and to assess that more appropriately. As I said, I will look into the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, around tribunals.

As the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, knows, I continue to be extremely desirous of continuing to engage with him on this important subject. Nothing is more relevant to this Government than strong relationships between investors, companies, the people who work in those companies, consumers, the broader citizenry and the environment to create the sort of harmony that gives us growth and security for the future.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Supplementary and Incidental Provisions) Regulations 2024

Lord Leong Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Those are laudable aim, Minister. Those of us who laboured long and hard into the night on the then Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill welcome the arrival of this statutory instrument. When we considered the other ones last week, I asked when the commencement statutory instrument was due. I think that this is what I was asking for, so that is good news.

I have nothing to add. As I say, we debated long and hard on the Bill, now the Act. The proof of the pudding will be in Companies House and how it gets motoring on its new mission. I know that the Minister and the department know this; anything that we can do together to help it get there is to the benefit of all of us. We wish this statutory instrument godspeed and we wait hopefully for the other 50-something that will come hard on its heels.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, as stated earlier, I declare my interest as a director of several companies, as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for clearly setting out this set of regulations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox: we on these Benches are content to support this set of technical regulations and have nothing further to add.

Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Leong Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we, too, welcome this statutory instrument in as far as it goes. When I saw that my friend the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was speaking, I knew that my speech would get shorter, because he has already covered much of the ground that I wanted to talk about. Late payment is just about the number one issue facing SMEs. If you listen to the organisations that represent them, it is the issue they always come back to. It will not be solved merely by transparency; we know that is the case. We have some transparency, but we are not getting solutions.

There is a culture in certain sectors. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, just set out, some sectors are worse than others. SMEs rely on a small number of large customers. The Minister said that publishing information would help SMEs to make informed decisions about whom they would work with. However, in many cases SMEs do not have the luxury of a decision about whether to sell their product or service to one company or another. That is the market and those are the businesses that operate; if there is a culture of late payment or retention in that business and, if those SMEs want to continue to trade, they have no choice about with whom they will trade. There is very little jeopardy for those companies that continue to practise late payment. That is the point the noble Lord made about enforcement.

I will make one other point about the building sector. Although it is a somewhat dated example, we can go back to 2018 and the Sandwell hospital project, which was managed and run by a company called Carillion. When that company went bust, it was very clear that its entire cash flow was managed through the late payment and retention of its contractors and subcontractors. The transparency situation has not appreciably changed since then.

A big issue that has to change is the Government’s view to their management of public procurement. The issue of late payment came up a number of times when we considered the public procurement Bill. Can the Minister ask his department what it can do, using the new Procurement Act, to help bolster enforcement on these issues? From our point of view, we would make it compulsory to sign up to a prompt payment code then seek ways to enforce it. Without that, the small improvement of this statutory instrument will continue to leave many of our small and medium-sized businesses in a position where their cash flow is used for the benefit of their customers’ cash flow.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I declare my interests, as set out in the register, as a director of several businesses and companies. I thank the Minister for setting out the regulations and welcome the Government’s campaign, declaring 2024 as the year of the SME.

I have advocated for provisions such as those provided by this instrument since long before I became a Member of your Lordships’ House. As a businessperson, I welcomed the original instrument’s introduction in 2017, and support the extended sunset clause and the expanded reporting requirements contained in this legislation.

As noble Lords have said, for too long and far too often, SMEs that have supplied goods and services to larger companies and public sector organisations have not been properly respected regarding payment terms. A relatively small amount of money for a large organisation can be, for many SMEs, a question of whether wages or rents are paid on time. It is stressful enough running a business, and late payments from large customers, whether through inefficient systems or the deliberate withholding of payments, are an all too common factor. Late payments can lead to additional borrowing costs for SMEs. Further, some SMEs may be reluctant to chase late payments for fear of jeopardising the business relationship. When payments have to be chased, good will, time and energy are unnecessarily wasted on both sides.

In tough economic times, as costs rise and margins are squeezed, SMEs are particularly vulnerable to cash-flow problems. Yet, in 2022, SMEs were owed an average of £22,000 in late payments. This has massive negative impacts on reinvestment, liquidity and market operation.

We know that we have a serious productivity problem in our economy. We can also agree that SMEs are the lifeblood of a healthy economy. So I am unsurprised that a consultation on these regulations last year strongly supported their extension and expansion. The expansion requires companies to publish additional information on both the proportion of disputed invoices resulting in payments exceeding the agreed times and the value of invoices paid late, in addition to the number of such invoices—an important improvement, in my view. It also requires companies to report on the percentage of invoices paid before 30 days, within between 31 and 60 days, and after 61 days or longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I greatly thank noble Lords for their passionate inputs into this debate. This is a serious issue. I should say that, although I do not believe I have any personal conflict, I would recommend that all noble Lords inspect my register of interests because, clearly, I have interests in businesses. Indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Leong and Lord Fox, and I have all had experience of working in small businesses, and late payment is a significant issue. We have these dry statistics, but the reality is that it has an effect on people’s lives, induces stress and wastes time, with an impact on the economy. It is something that we have to take very seriously. We are all in agreement that extending these rules until 2031 makes absolute sense. I am grateful to my colleagues for supporting us in this cross-party and cross-Committee view.

Some relevant questions were asked, and I will try to cover them briefly, but I would be absolutely delighted to have a further conversation. I know that my colleague, Kevin Hollinrake, is certainly available to hear further input from noble Lords, if that would be useful.

The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, made a point about the Small Business Commissioner. Let me say something; it may help to cover some of the other points made by noble Lords. The Payment and Cash Flow Review Report issued by Minister Hollinrake at the end of last year—I thought that it was a clear and excellent report—covers nearly all of the questions asked by noble Lords today, in particular the point about the Small Business Commissioner. The intention, to which we are absolutely committed, is to introduce broader responsibilities, which will allow said commissioner to undertake better investigations and publish reports; this will help significantly, I think.

The noble Lord, Lord Leong, asked who currently enforces the payments process. It is the Department for Business and Trade. We publish that data—it is on the Government’s website—and we also have a team tasked specifically with ensuring that we monitor late payment. That information is published.

I am sensitive to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the competitive case. As someone running a small business, one is—I was, and we were—obliged to take whatever business one can get. That is not irrelevant when it comes to the publishing of businesses’ competitive positions among each other; it is important. Similarly, the work that we have done on Companies House, with input from many noble Lords opposite, allows us to have better data around companies’ behaviour, which will have a significant impact. As I understand it, at least anecdotally, there is a concept in the consultation of competition between companies in terms of wanting to be a better payer is something that is not to be taken lightly.

I refer noble Lords to the report, looking at concepts such as late payments to be embedded in environmental, social and corporate governance standards, and so on. This will all have ultimately important impacts.

I have two other points, before I conclude, about the construction sector. Again, we have been very clear that we are looking to severely control the principles around retention payments, how they can be levied and how that operates in the information that we publish on that. We have been working very closely with an organisation called Build UK, which now publishes league tables on payment performance within the construction industry. This is a very clear flagged issue and something we are certainly working on. I am happy to write to noble Lords with further information if that is useful.

Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised a very important point about government procurement: how can we ensure that the Procurement Act is used more effectively to ensure that, through the supply chain, government procurement, which accounted for however significant a percentage of all procurement in the UK, is used to drive payment terms from its suppliers? That is a core element of this and it is worth saying that, since legislation was brought in in 2017, average payment times have reduced from 81 days to 36 days, which is a significant reduction. That is a single statistic, and I am very aware that it does not represent the value of the deals or go into a huge amount of detail, but that is the information that I have been given and I think it is very encouraging. Clearly, there are outliers and industries where there are still issues over payments. The Government take this point extremely seriously. It is a cornerstone part of our policy agenda to help small businesses, and indeed help the economy, to function properly. I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their input.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the drop in procurement payment from 81 days to 36 days. That is obviously very encouraging, but do the Government have figures for how long it takes the main contractor to pay its subcontractors?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for that point. We will have this data. I am looking, and average payment times between businesses peaked in December 2020 at 30 days and is now down to 35.6. I do not have the data in front of me for what it was before these regulations came in, but there is a very clear downward trend that can be seen in a chart in the report. I am happy to show noble Lords and to write with more specific information. The whole point about this exercise is to have the information to demonstrate what the trends are and who is not following the right courses of action.

National Minimum Wage

Lord Leong Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that. The cost to business is a consideration that we must consider. The cost of this particular increase will be £3 billion over six years and I emphasise that it will fall largely on the SME community. Some 99% of our companies are SMEs, with 2.5 million VAT-registered companies. Setting aside the 10,000 companies that employ 30% of the workforce, 60% of the workforce are employed in SMEs and they are bearing the brunt of exactly these wage increases. We survey employers and they want to pay higher wages. We want a good, well-paid workforce but we must do so in a way that balances the needs of business and workers.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his tireless campaigning to tackle homelessness and poverty. Even at my advanced age, I enjoy celebrating birthdays, but I have never believed that my hourly work increases by 50% simply by ageing a year—yet that is implied by the national minimum wage banding between 17 and 18 year-olds. These days it is a real struggle to survive on the full national minimum wage. Does the Minister agree that lower rates represent unfair age-based discrimination and send the wrong message to young people at the start of their working life?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I think I have already addressed that question. We have to set the national minimum wage as high as possible for young people without damaging their prospects. We have to encourage them into the workplace. We have to avoid the longer-term scarring effects from long spells of unemployment that I have talked about. That is what this metric achieves.

Registered Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024

Lord Leong Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as someone who has spent a lot of his professional life working on annual reports, I have often had questions about GAAP, but the Minister will be pleased to know that I will not ask them today.

The four SIs before us are to be welcomed. They are steps on the way from our discussions on both the last economic crime Bill and the one before that. We are moving forward, in a sense. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, introduced what I call the Knighton collection of companies that were registered to a terraced house in the Welsh borders, not far from where I live—as I believe does the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I would like some reassurance that the statutory instrument on registered office addresses would deal with that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, eloquently set out, there are a lot of steps to go through to eliminate falsely registered companies. It comes back to the question of whether Companies House is capable of really handling this, ceasing to be a filing cabinet and starting to be an investigative organisation. To echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, it would be very helpful to have an update on how the huge cultural change that Companies House needs is going. Many of us were impressed by the team that we saw, but also a little frightened by the huge task that it has in front of it to make these SIs and the next 51—or however many there are—come to life.

I have some trepidation on the second of these SIs, on limited liability partnerships, because the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seated opposite, is our Scottish legal expert. I wondered where Scottish partnerships come in, because the territorial extent of that statutory instrument is the whole UK. Where do Scottish partnerships sit within that?

The service address and principal office address regulations are useful and important too, but expose the central weakness that is still within our system. After all the work we did on the Bill, those with control still have the ability to hide that control. We welcome the Service Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations and the Principal Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations, but can the Minister set out, either now or in writing, how we are going to eliminate the cancer within this system of people obscuring the real ownership of assets to the authorities and wider society? With that, we welcome these four statutory instruments.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out these regulations and everyone who has spoken in this short debate. I will take these instruments one at a time.

Under the current system, criminals can—often by using data unwittingly shared or stolen and for sale on the dark web—fraudulently register an individual residential address as a registered office with Companies House, without the knowledge of the actual residents. Since 2011 it has been possible for companies to be incorporated within 24 hours for as little as £12, with Companies House making no checks on the veracity of the address. Once this has been done, the perpetrators can apply for credit, business loans and other financial arrangements. This fraud often does not come to light until the individual wants to apply for credit and finds that they are unable to do so, often resulting in considerable problems.

This instrument relates to where individuals have had their residential address hijacked. It allows the registrar to change the address to a default address and to strike the company from the register of companies if a genuine new address is not provided. It establishes criminal offences for companies and officers where they do not comply. We welcome the streamlining of this process and expansion of the registrar’s powers that this instrument provides, including that, as well as acting on the basis of applications, the registrar can when necessary act unilaterally based on any information in their possession to move swiftly to change a company’s registered office address without giving notice in advance.

However, I would like to know how the Government seek to protect and support victims of these fraudulent practices, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Fox. Can the Minister say how they will be informed of developments? Will victims be supported if issues continue for them beyond the changing of the registered address—for example, if they have negative notes or ratings on their credit file? If so, how will this be addressed?

Given that this is clearly a widespread practice, does the Minister have any information about provisions to actively check business addresses? There could be existing situations in which fraudulent addresses are in use but currently unchanged or undetected; they may not come to light until the innocent victims have their lives blighted by the discovery of a fraudulent registration of which they were unaware, as in the case in Wales that was mentioned. Does the Minister have accurate figures for how many addresses are registered? Surely it must be in the millions. If, as I suspect, it is on that scale, what analysis has been done on whether this instrument will create an influx of work for the registrar? Has resource been allocated for this?

I move on to LLP. This instrument will ensure that the reforms to company law made by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 also apply to the law governing limited liability partnerships. It will ensure that company law applies without arbitrary differences between companies and LLPs. It pertains to straightforward administrative amendments relating to a company’s name, registered office and email addresses, its directors, annual confirmation of accuracy on the register, information about persons with significant control and so forth. We support this legislation, which seems both reasonable and straightforward, and so on this occasion I do not have any further questions for the Minister.

I move on to the Service Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024. As many noble Lords will know from personal experience, directors and secretaries of companies and persons with significant control over companies are required to notify the companies registrar of their service address—that is, a location where documents may be deemed effectively served on that person.

This instrument empowers the registrar to change the registered service address to a default address nominated by the registrar where the registrar is satisfied that the registered service address does not meet the necessary legal requirements. The registrar may change the address by their own motion or on application and may also, at their discretion, change the address without notice or after a period for objections, the length of which may also be at the registrar’s discretion. Clearly, the situation in which company directors, secretaries and persons of significant interest could attempt to delay or evade being held to their legal responsibilities by providing non-compliant addresses would be unsatisfactory.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th February 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

196: After Clause 288, insert the following new Clause—
“Consultation: CMA powers to address issues relating to ticket sales(1) Within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement summarising— (a) work already undertaken by the CMA in relation to the sale and resale of event tickets, and,(b) proposals for the granting of new powers or duties for—(i) the CMA,(ii) trading standards officers, or(iii) other relevant regulators or actors in this area.(2) Within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must consult on the detail of the proposals mentioned in subsection (1)(b).(3) In preparing and consulting on the proposals, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) ticket sellers and resellers,(b) artists and performers, or their representatives,(c) consumers and representative organisations, and(d) any other persons the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe what steps (if any) the Government is taking to tackle long-standing issues in the event ticket sales and resales markets. The CMA reported on its work in this field in August 2021, making a number of recommendations to Government.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 196, which was tabled by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his support.

About 10 years ago, I promised my then seven year- old daughter a birthday treat—to take her and her friends to a live gig by a well-known American pop icon. By the time I got around to buying the show tickets, they were all sold out, and I would have had to pay several hundred pounds over the odds to secure any tickets from the secondary markets. Sadly, I had to tell my daughter and her friends that they could not go. I saw the disappointment in their faces. I could not explain or expect them to understand that they had been bitterly let down because ticket touts were exploiting a market in which regulation is broken. It felt very wrong indeed.

My noble friend Lady Jones’s Amendment 196 requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the operation of both the primary or original point of sale and the secondary or resale ticketing markets. The UK’s secondary ticketing market was estimated to be worth £1 billion in 2019. The very premise of this industry centres on bulk-buying tickets to live sporting and cultural events and selling them on to consumers at inflated prices. Price-gouging cruelly excludes those who cannot afford these inflated prices. Many are genuine fans and some, like my daughter, are very young. Moreover, it exploits those who can pay these prices, as some are unable to use the tickets because secondary ticketing often breaches the original purchase terms.

In August 2021, the Competition and Markets Authority set out recommendations for additional legislative safeguards and enforcement powers to stop the bulk-buying of tickets and to end the fraudulent practice of speculative selling, which is where touts list seats that they do not have, bank the proceeds upfront and then hope to secure tickets later to fulfil their orders. It will be extremely obvious to all noble Lords how open to abuse such a practice is. Genuine fans risk losing their money completely and being unable to attend, even when they believe they have a ticket. They could find themselves out of pocket or open to further exploitation if they have made plans to attend an event and the ticket purchased by them in good faith is either not valid or not available.

It took the Government almost two years to respond to the CMA’s consultation. Their much-delayed answer, in May 2023, in essence dismisses this reasonable request saying:

“it is too soon to conclude that the only way forward is further legislation focused on this market”.

The Government are leaving it to the industry to self-regulate. This clearly does not work. Their response is inadequate to both the scale of the problem and the requirements of the industry, an industry in which UK talent leads the world, with accompanying contributions to the public purse.

Several high-profile artists, acting through their management companies, have attempted to introduce additional safeguards to ensure that their legitimate fans purchase tickets in the first place and to identify tickets that are sold on for profit so that they can be cancelled. They have sought legal redress to try to force rogue ticket resellers out of business. Despite these efforts by some in the industry, there is clear evidence that market and regulatory failure is leading to significant and persistent consumer harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My noble friend Lord Moynihan, who was intimately involved in them, will know about the specific case arising there. In general, the feeling in the department is that we wish to protect consumers by keeping this activity within a regulated environment. If we ban it outright, we fear that we will drive the secondary market underground. We see evidence of that in everyday activity, including concerts and football matches. We worry about what happens as sales move out of reach of the local regulators and on to the black market.

I appreciate the points made by my noble friend, who speaks passionately about this topic; I know that he cares deeply about it. On his points about football, for example, I point out that ticket resale is banned in the football market in England and Wales for public order reasons. That does not mean that we should extend it to other markets, for the reasons I have set out. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Clement-Jones, so much for their very kind words. This is really personal; I took a lot of time to look into this. I thank noble Lords and my friend Sharon Hodgson for their relentless and tireless work here and in the other place. I hope that, with this Bill, we can help to move this issue forward.

The days of ticket touts in dirty macs standing outside venues is gone—well, not quite: they have been replaced by bots. We have to address this. There are still examples of bad behaviour, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned. If we do not do anything about it, the bad behaviour will continue. With the deepest respect, I humbly disagree with the Minister: this is not consumer choice; this is consumer exploitation against consumer protection. How many more consumers need to be fleeced before we do something about this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with all his experience as a fund manager, and particularly to hear what he forecast for the future: the ability of AI to deliver information in a new format that is of much greater interest and use to a consumer. I must admit, I had not really thought about that.

It is also a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Sheehan, and in particular to support the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on her amendment. We are obviously saving the best for last in contributing to our final group in Committee. As a former company secretary, I well remember the noble Baroness as a financial journalist and an absolute champion of corporate governance. This appears to be an absolutely crucial part of it. In a sense, it is the other side of the coin from what you expect of the corporate; it is what you expect of those who invest in the corporate, in terms of exercising their voting rights. The noble Baroness illustrated the sorry history of the voluntary approach put forward by the FCA. I could loosely describe her amendment as trying to put some lead in the FCA’s pencil, which seems wholly needed.

The noble Baroness asked a number of further questions. A really interesting and important question is: how on earth can the US, with its relatively unregulated systems compared to ours and its culture of not regulating on a federal basis, do it on a compulsory basis when we have not? Particularly from what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, it sounds as though it will be eminently possible to do this, as the technology improves, without overly imposing costs on investment managers. Indeed, it is already being done for those operating in the states. There seems absolutely no reason why the Government should not move forward in the way that the noble Baroness suggests.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for tabling Amendment 212, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will be brief.

In 2019, the European Union introduced the second shareholder rights directive, which sets out stipulations regarding the utilisation of specific shareholder privileges linked to voting shares during general meetings of companies that are headquartered in a member state and have their shares traded on a regulated market located or functioning within a member state. It was brought into UK law by secondary legislation, amending the occupational pension schemes regulations of 2005, and it has now been assimilated into UK law. As per the Explanatory Notes to the regulations, they encourage investors to be transparent about how they invest and approach their engagement as shareholders. It was a negative statutory instrument, so no debates were tabled.

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, carries greater weight than the shareholder rights directive. It would mandate the FCA to establish regulations necessitating investment managers and life insurers to furnish standardised reports concerning company voting activities upon request. Furthermore, it would instruct the FCA to offer guidance to firms on the specific format for such reporting.

We agree in principle with the amendment that it is right for shareholders to be more transparent. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, mentioned being transparent about where investments are made, which we need to know if we are to achieve net zero. This was fully supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Fund managers need to be more transparent about informing where their funds are invested.

I ask the Minister: what impact has there been on investor transparency in the four and a half years that the SRD has been in UK law? I look forward to his response.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for Amendment 212, which would require the Financial Conduct Authority to make rules requiring regulated persons to give consumers certain information regarding voting rights attached to assets in which the consumer has an interest. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Leong, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for their contributions.

I appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue. I suggest that we speak to the Treasury and write to the noble Baroness on a number of her questions, in particular to draw on the comparisons with the US, with which we are so close on so many things, to understand what its experience is and where we are in comparison.

The Government recognise that transparency is crucial to effective stewardship and corporate governance by pension and other investment funds. We also acknowledge the argument that the existing voting disclosure framework is not working as well as it could. That is why, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the FCA set up the independently chaired vote reporting group in November 2022, following recommendations made by the task force on pension scheme voting implementation to develop a standardised and decision-useful framework for voting disclosure.

It is important to take a proportionate approach in implementing changes to vote reporting. Mandatory voting disclosure would be a significant departure from the FCA’s existing rules on voting disclosure. It is important that we have a globally competitive asset management sector. This means designing and implementing regulatory change in a way that considers regulatory costs as well as benefits. That is why the Government support the FCA’s approach to work closely with industry stakeholders and build consensus.

The group has made significant progress and recently consulted on its proposals for a comprehensive and standardised vote reporting framework. The Government believe that it continues to be more appropriate to wait for the group’s final output before requiring the FCA to produce further rules and regulation. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that, when reviewing the group’s final proposal, the Government will carefully consider whether its recommendations go far enough to address the existing issues around transparency for consumers that the noble Baroness so eloquently described, as well as what further action may be appropriate. We therefore hope that she will feel comfortable withdrawing her amendment.

Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, so much of life on these Benches feels a little like pushing water up a hill. If you will excuse me for mixing the medium, this was like pushing an open door; it really has been a delight. I feel very lucky because, as both the previous speakers pointed out, they have been operating in this field for decades whereas I, in a sense, picked this Bill up by luck. My friend, Wendy Chamberlain, in the Commons, won the ballot and chose this Bill to bring forward. As I am representing that particular department, I got the good fortune of sponsoring the Bill. I am very pleased, but also humbled, as I came late to this piece.

This is also, I think, the third Minister we have had during the course of the Bill. This, of course, allows me to repeat all the speeches I made to the previous Ministers as a novelty. The Minister’s explanation of the effects of the Bill were excellent. We all, in our different ways, understand the impact it will have on people’s lives and on employees’ lives.

The point I emphasise, though, is that it creates a conversation that carers can safely have with their employer for the first time on this subject. It means that carers who have been in the workplace can come out as carers in the workplace—because they have previously had to worry about whether it would affect their relationship with their employer. The Bill allows them to have a conversation where they can be safe to have that conversation in the place they are.

The points made about the benefits to the economy and the employer are huge. During the run up to this Bill, we talked to a number of large, medium and small employers that were already doing it voluntarily. They found that the benefits far outweighed the very small expense they had to stump up. Simply having to recruit someone is an extremely expensive exercise. We know there is a shortage of skills anyway, but to lose an employee because they have to stay at home and care for someone is a very expensive loss to a business, if the employee is a long-standing and well-established person.

The point about communication is vital. It is not just about communicating to the carers, who need to know this is available to them; it is also about communicating to the employers that it is now on the statute. I am sure the department has a plan, but it would be interesting to hear something about it, either today or in writing. For example, Make UK, which used to be the EEF, has a strong HR support division. It is one of their businesses and what they do. Part of the service that businesses get from being affiliated to Make UK is HR support, and legal and regulatory support. That organisation should be hit really hard with the information on the Bill—if it has not been already—so that it understands the role of employers in not just allowing it but promoting it across their workforce.

There is still a lot of work to be done in terms of getting the information out there. It should not just be employees demanding it—employers should be fully aware of what is now available. So who is going to be accountable for the communication process? In the end, that is going to be the success, of otherwise, of this measure. If people have to find it out through the ether, there is going to be a very slow take up. I am sure that Carers UK will put it out there, but there is a lot of extra work to do.

Once again, I thank the Government for supporting it. It has been a pleasure to help the Government to meet one of the things in their manifesto, although I doubt I will be making a habit of it. For this one, however, thanks to the Government and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Most of all, I thank the campaigners who got us this far. The reason we were able to do this is because it was unpaid; it cut out all of the small print that would have been in the legislation, but it establishes a point. I take the point made by the noble Baroness and I hope, in future, that we will be able to take that and move it forward to a bigger and better thing—but we should not diminish the significance of this particular provision.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for setting out these regulations and the correction. Correct me if I am wrong, but is it now two weeks instead of one week?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

One.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

It is one week—okay.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, whom I thank for her 30 years of campaigning—I do not think I will last 30 years in this House, but I thank her for her dogged perseverance and congratulate her on getting this on the statute book. We support this instrument to establish a statutory entitlement to carer’s leave from 6 April this year and ensure leave is available for employees caring for a dependant with long-term needs in England, Scotland and Wales.

With the introduction of this additional legislation, we will be providing a little more support, albeit limited and unpaid, to around half of the 4.2 million people across the UK who are trying to square the circle of holding down a job while providing unpaid care for elderly or disabled loved ones. The majority of these carers are women over 50. As my noble friend Lady Blake said at Second Reading, some more enlightened employers already have provisions to support workers who are carers, removing the silent shame that sometimes exists for those who provide care while working.

This instrument ensures that all workers become legally entitled to take unpaid leave for caring responsibilities from day one of their employment for up to one week in any 12-month period. This may be taken in increments of half or full days, so long as eligibility for carer’s leave is met. Employees will not be required to provide evidence in relation to their request, and they will be able to use carer’s leave specifically for foreseen and long-term care needs, rather than solely for emergency caring situations. This should enable better planning for employers and employees alike, with the minimum of bureaucracy. In addition, carer’s leave will be available for a wider range of caring situations, excluding general childcare, which better suits those caring for dependants over 18, who fall outside the scope of parental leave legislation.

I am struck by a sense of déjà vu. Last week, I spoke in this Room in support of another statutory instrument, on which noble Lords were broadly agreed, which supported workers who were pregnant or on maternity or parental leave when their employer was considering redundancies. As in this case, the legislation had come through a Private Member’s Bill from this side of the House. As in this case, we were adding legislation that improved the situation for workers, predominantly women, to protect those affected by particular family responsibilities. Once again, I feel compelled to ask the Minister why the Government seem to place such a low priority on such important legislation, as evidenced by the complete absence of an employment Bill despite more than 20 pledges to introduce one.

The Government seem to recognise the importance to our economy of encouraging the cohort of around 5 million people who could work but are not working back into employment, yet they seem to be relying on Private Members’ Bills to identify the problems and bring forward legislation that recognises the realities of the workforce: that many people have family responsibilities which some employers see as barriers to employment. I am afraid it is simply not good enough for them to point to the fact that we have 33 million people in work when, with a growing and ageing population, we are underutilising the skills and talents of millions. These are people who would be contributing to the economy and to the Exchequer if they were better supported to enter or re-enter the workforce.

To turn back to the instrument before us, is the Minister aware that half of all young carers in the UK are carers for their brothers and sisters? However, the definition of dependant does not include siblings by default, unless they live in the same household or come under some vague definition. Although a broader definition is welcome, the room for interpretation of “reasonably rely on” will inevitably leave gaps or create conflict with employers. What consideration have the Government given to this? Furthermore, has any consideration been given to the unlikely but not impossible case where somebody has more than one dependant? Can the Minister clarify whether the one week of carer’s leave entitlement over 12 months is calculated per employee or per dependant?

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, once again, with the indulgence of the Committee, I will speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bakewell to Amendments 125, 126 and 127.

Before doing so, I say that I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which strike me as extremely practical. It must be extremely frustrating when faced with some of the restrictions. This point about vehicles seems to me a particular irritant for trading standards officers—a vehicle being defined as premises. What era are we living in?

We need to bring the powers of trading standards officers up to the 21st century, which is very much the spirit in which Amendments 125, 126 and 127 have been tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, my noble friend Lady Bakewell and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. Amendment 125 would delete paragraph 17 of Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act, which at present requires trading standards officers to exercise physical powers of entry to premises—this is in the digital age—before accessing information and the seizing of documents that may be needed in criminal proceedings. Accepting this amendment would be an opportunity to finally update the powers of trading standards in this respect. It would have the effect of changing their information-gathering powers to enable documents requested in writing without the need for physical entry to be used in criminal proceedings. This means also relieving the undue burdens placed on businesses and trading standards officers.

For legitimate businesses there is presently the burden of having to interrupt their normal business to provide the requested documents there and then, whereas, under what is proposed in this amendment, if the request is made in writing rather than physically, they will have more time to source the required documents and even seek legal advice should they wish to. For the small band of trading standards officers, the requirement to exercise physical powers of entry across the country to seize documents they may need to use in criminal proceedings is not cost-effective for their cash-strapped local authorities. If a local authority in, say, my noble friend’s Somerset had to deal with a case in Cumbria, it would simply not be viable for this to happen. The criminal activity could go unpunished and the public and consumer would still be at risk from rogue-trader activity.

In the impact assessment for the Bill, it is accepted that:

“Consumer rights must keep pace with market innovations, so that consumers remain confident engaging with businesses offering new products and services”.


That is a good statement, but for this sort of consumer confidence to become more robust, the enforcement powers of trading standards need to be seriously updated and not inhibited by the present inflexibility.

Amendments 126 and 127 propose to substitute the words “England or Wales” and “Scotland” for the words “United Kingdom” in paragraph 44(3) and 44(2) of Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act. The effect of these amendments would be to add a new paragraph to Schedule 16 to the Bill, which would give new powers to trading standards officers to operate across UK national borders where necessary. Cross-border activities should be included in the Bill; current legislation does not make it clear that trading standards officers in England and Wales can exercise their powers across the border with Scotland, or vice versa, even though consumer protection is a reserved power. In fact, the current legislation implies that this cross-border enforcement activity is not permitted, and we are told that, currently, trading standards officers err on the side of caution. Who can blame them in the circumstances? For the success of these new powers and the Bill to take root, trading standards officers should be able to pursue and enforce across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and my noble friend Lady Crawley for bringing forward this group of amendments relating to Schedule 16, which is introduced by Chapter 6, Clause 207. They seek to amend Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Amendments 124A and 124B appear to add clarity without altering the intention of the Bill as written. Having said that, we would be interested to hear from the Minister whether there is any reason these changes should not be enacted.

Amendment 124C would make a more substantial change to financial penalties. The current level 3 is no deterrent or obstruction. A mere £1,000 is just petty cash for most businesses, whereas level 5, which is an unlimited fine, would serve as a deterrent and perhaps support some co-operation in investigation. We would like to hear from the Minister whether there has been any assessment of the suitability of obstruction being a level 3 fine since the Consumer Rights Act came into law in 2015. We also seek clarification on whether this is the right place to make such a change, given that its impact would be much wider.

Amendments 125, 126 and 127, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, with the support of my noble friend Lady Crawley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, make a lot of sense in pursuing investigations in all parts of the United Kingdom, not just England and Wales. That was succinctly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, so I shall not repeat the point. This would obviously be a matter for the Scottish Government. If the Government agree on the merits, is this something they have discussed with their Scottish counterparts?

The amendments in this group are sensible and designed to be helpful. They should be supported. We look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments and their considered contributions regarding Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which details the investigatory powers available to consumer law enforcers. As many noble Lords have noted, building a case against rogue traders and rectifying bad business practices not only starts with but depends on enforcers having the right powers to investigate suspected breaches. This is important for all enforcers, but especially so for local authority trading standards departments that typically exercise the full range of Schedule 5 powers. The Government are committed to ensuring that trading standards and other consumer enforcers have the requisite powers to carry out their important work, so we value the perspectives shared by noble Lords today.

Amendment 124A, moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas, would allow “articles” that fall outside the definition of “goods” to be seized and detained by enforcers when exercising their seizure power under paragraph 28 of Schedule 5. I thank my noble friend for this amendment and hasten to reassure him that its intent is, in our view, comprehensively achieved by the statute as it stands. The definition of “goods” under Schedule 5 already encompasses any tangible moveable items. It is not restricted to the goods sold by the trader to consumers. Further, other provisions in Schedule 5, such as the power under paragraph 29 to seize documents where an enforcer reasonably suspects they may be required as evidence in proceedings, can be relied on should there be any doubt as to whether such items are seizable. For these reasons, I hope my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.

On Amendment 124B, on breaking open a vehicle, I again thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for tabling it. This relates to the power under paragraph 31 that allows enforcers either to require a person to break open a container or to open a container themselves in order to seize and detain goods, among other things. It is indeed important that investigators are not frustrated by arguments about what constitutes a “container” and therefore the current definition is broad and means anything in which goods may be stored. Therefore, the definition is capable of including a vehicle that is storing, or may be being used to store, goods which may disclose a breach of legislation.

However, enforcers must consider what exercise of investigatory powers is appropriate in the circumstances. For example, an enforcer may inspect products under paragraph 25 of Schedule 5 for the purposes of checking the compliance of those products with relevant legislation. If the product in question is a vehicle, an enforcer cannot break open the vehicle as that is allowed only for certain purposes, which do not include product inspection. Therefore, I hope my noble friend is reassured that the statute is already sufficiently permissive in the appropriate circumstances and will not press his amendment.

UK-EU Trade: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Lord Leong Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for sharing his great expertise in this area. As we discussed yesterday, Europe’s share of global trade is declining: it has halved from one-third to 16%, and it is heading towards 10%. That is why we are striking trade deals around the world, such as the CPTPP and with India, which we could not do when in the EU. SMEs are enthusiastically taking full advantage of that. I met a company recently that sells high-end tennis wear to US consumers; when it was built during Covid, it could not sell to Australia because it was too expensive and difficult. Now that we have signed a free trade agreement with Australia, the margins have gone up, the time limit has come down and it is trading successfully there.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, small businesses have reported that access to export markets has been hindered lately by import licences and EU regulations and they have either retreated or considered retreating to domestic markets. In addition to the Minister’s meetings with exporters, have the Government made any assessment of the impact of such decisions, and what consideration have they given to possible ways of maintaining access to European markets for these businesses?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. As I said yesterday, Europe remains a massive part of our trade—41% with the EU 27 and 48% with the euro 34—and that will continue to be the case. However, the growth areas for our markets will be the US and the rest of the world. SMEs recognise that and are pivoting to the Indo-Pacific region. DBT is putting a lot of effort into helping them get there fast and profitably.