Employment: Zero-hour Contracts
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Razzall(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Certainly, the bottom line for zero-hour contracts—this is one thing that the consultation will look at—is how employers and employees enter into them. Although there is nothing wrong per se with the contracts, you get opaqueness where there are differences of opinion or a lack of transparency in the contracts between the employer and the employee.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may follow up on the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I am sure that the Government recognise that zero-hours contracts are absolutely essential in the pub and restaurant business, and often suit young people who want to work only certain hours. Does the Minister accept that this makes it even more important that the Government get the balance right between the use of these contracts and the abuse of the system?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I certainly accept that. The consultation is designed to be wide-ranging. We do not have a closure date for it because it is important that we go into all the issues surrounding zero-hours contracts, including who is involved in them and the numbers of people. There is definitely opaqueness there; my noble friend makes a good point.
Supermarkets: Pricing
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Razzall
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord raises an important point. He may be aware that there is legislation in place, in the form of the Price Marking Order 2004, which requires the selling price and, where appropriate, the unit price—65p per 100 grams, for example—to be clearly displayed on products being offered by traders to consumers. We take this seriously and we are working hard to improve communication about and the display of these items.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I assume that the Minister would wish to be congratulated on the forthcoming introduction of a consumer affairs Bill sponsored by his ministerial colleague, Jo Swinson. Can the Minister confirm that the Bill will deal with the sort of practices to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has referred?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Indeed, although I have not yet seen the details of that particular Bill. Much is being done with the OFT, which is working with the supermarkets to develop a set of principles to address the concerns over special offers and promotions for food and drink. For example, the principles state that pre-printed value claims on packs, such as “Bigger pack, better value”, must be true.
Royal Mail
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Razzall
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord may not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with his assessment. It is true, however, that since 2006, the fall in letter volumes has been as much as 25%. The market is changing and we need to keep ahead of it. I would remind the House again that Germany and Belgium are ahead of the game. The injection of private capital into Royal Mail will help with the change, but there is a double benefit in that, through legislation, the universal offering remains strong. It is set in stone, which is a very important point to make.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, as the noble Viscount will be aware, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are very much in support of this. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat element in the coalition, starting with Ed Davey who was the responsible Minister in the early days of the coalition, are absolutely delighted to see this culmination now. As the noble Viscount rightly said, it is very nice to see the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, in his place because it was he who started this process many years ago despite considerable opposition from his own side, which appears to continue.
Perhaps I may put three questions to the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised a perfectly valid point when he asked whether the Government are satisfied—have they had advice from whoever is running the IPO for them, who presumably will have been taking soundings from the institutional shareholders who they are expecting to invest—that those shareholders will be prepared to put up the necessary capital to invest in Royal Mail, which was the whole purpose of the privatisation exercise in the first place? Are the Government satisfied that this structure will provide the necessary capital to continue the modernisation process in Royal Mail that we all know lies behind the whole privatisation drive?
Secondly—this is an important point—the Government have chosen to take the IPO route, which I must say was slightly surprising to some of us. We had assumed that the more likely result would be either some form of trade sale or a private sale. Can the Minister confirm that if the IPO was to fail for whatever reason—particularly listening to the noises that are coming from the trade union movement at the moment—the Government will continue the process of selling off shares in Royal Mail? If that happens, it is probable that the buyers would be a private equity group, who are less likely to be sympathetic to the interests of the trade union movement than would be the case under an IPO.
Thirdly, perhaps I may reflect for a moment on the 10% of shares that are going to the employees. As the noble Viscount will know, the Liberal Democrat element of the coalition has pressed for this strongly right from the start. Can he confirm the numbers that have appeared in the newspapers recently of the value of this to the employees of Royal Mail? The numbers that I have seen show that the average Royal Mail employee is being paid approximately £19,500 per annum, and on the likely price of an IPO, every employee will receive shares worth about £1,900 to £2,000. If those numbers are correct, that is clearly a significant sum to be put into the hands of the well deserving employees of Royal Mail.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
In answer to my noble friend’s first question about the appetite of shareholders, the indications are that there is clear interest in purchasing shares in Royal Mail. I would not want to go further, because it is not my role to speak on behalf of investors, but my noble friend makes a very good point. The most important thing for Royal Mail is to have flexible access to capital to allow it to innovate and capture market opportunities, such as the strong growth in the parcel market driven by online shopping, as I mentioned earlier. That is what an IPO will deliver for Royal Mail. It should not have to come cap in hand to Government and compete with schools and hospitals when it needs to innovate or commit to future investment.
The second question concerns the IPO route as opposed to other methods. It is true to say that, having got to this point over a good number of years, the IPO route was clearly the preferred route. I am certain that other options were looked at. My noble friend’s question was, if the IPO route were to fail, would other methods be used? I do not wish to be drawn on that or to speculate, only to say that it is our firm belief that the IPO route is the right route and that is the route that we will be following.
The final question concerned employees. I am delighted to hear that my noble friend is very much in favour of giving 10% of shares free to employees. I will not be drawn on the actual valuation, because a prospectus will be produced in due course, which will set out the terms of the IPO. The valuation will, of course, depend on investor demand and market conditions at the time. What my noble friend has read in the papers, as he will probably know, is pure speculation.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Razzall
Lord Razzall
My Lords, if there is one lesson that your Lordships and the Government might draw from this debate, it is that it is a mistake to introduce a major change in the law so late in the process of a Bill going through the House of Commons. The noble Viscount’s department had a very good record of not changing the law without extensive consultation. It is quite clear from the debate today that even one or two noble and learned Lords did not quite understand what it is being proposed in the way that I understand it. That all would come out if there was appropriate consultation on the clause.
The Government’s intention is to try to find a balance between what the noble Earl said about protecting employers from unfair strict liability claims and protecting the rights of the sort of claimants that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is referring to. The Löfstedt report made various recommendations and, had we had proper consultation, that would have come out. The Government say that they are implementing what Löfstedt recommended but some would say “Up to a point, Lord Copper”. He did of course say that the strict liability issue needed to be looked at, but with a lot of reservations as well as to how strict liability could be amended. That would have come out in proper consultation. However, we are where we are. As I understand it, the Government wish to remove strict liability to protect the sort of company referred to by the noble Earl. They say that the complainant or the injured workman can rely on the law of negligence to protect them. There is of course criminal liability, and in extreme cases somebody’s offending will be prosecuted, but they are relying on the law of negligence.
I ask noble Lords to imagine the sort of scenario where these two principles would come up each against other. There could be a contractor who has employed a subcontractor to put up scaffolding and the subcontractor does so in a rather dodgy way. Somebody falls off the scaffolding and is seriously injured. Under the current law, the contractor will probably be strictly liable for that accident. The subcontractor, who is a man of straw, has disappeared, and therefore if the contractor is not liable then who is liable, and what compensation is there for the individual? That seems to me in essence to sum up the dilemma produced by this clause.
I do not think that our job here on these Benches—certainly not when we are in coalition—is to defeat the Government; it is to win the argument. I hope that when the noble Viscount sums up he will try to find a way to meet what I think are genuine concerns from all sides of the House about whether this provision can be modified to deal with the problem I have referred to.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, this has been an extensive and interesting debate. I think it would be helpful to set out the reasons the Government seek to make this change. The recent report by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, Common Sense, Common Safety, and Professor Löfstedt’s independent review, Reclaiming Health and Safety for All, confirm that the perception of a compensation culture generates a fear of being sued. This, together with the confusion created by myths about health and safety, drives businesses to overimplement the law in an effort to protect themselves.
My noble friend Lord Phillips and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, asked about consultation—or rather the lack of consultation. In preparing his report, my noble friend Lord Young consulted 132 wide-ranging organisations representing relevant professionals, including personal injury lawyers, businesses and associated organisations. He also spoke to more than 100 individuals, including health and safety professionals, Members of Parliament, councillors and leading academics in the field of law.
The problem lies not with the legislation but with the way it is interpreted and applied. Illustrating this, in response to Professor Löfstedt’s review, the Engineering Employers’ Federation said:
“The current compensation system is serving the needs of neither employees nor employers and is the source of many of the media stories and public concern about excessive health and safety. It is slow, expensive and places far too much emphasis on record keeping rather than practical action to control risk.”
I am very grateful for the anecdotal evidence raised today by the noble Earl, Lord Errol, in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, raised the issue of record-keeping. I believe he stated that record-keeping will not change, and still does what the law requires, so I think that he was asking what the problem is. I reiterate that there is clear evidence that business overimplements, going well beyond what the law actually requires.
Overimplementation does not lead, therefore, to better protection of employees. It means that employers are spending significant time and effort on activities which are not necessary or far in excess of legal requirements, resulting in significant additional unnecessary costs. Concern about the consequences of “getting it wrong” and confusion about what the law actually requires discourage businesses from exploring new opportunities to expand and diversify and consequently from taking on new employees, a point that I made in Grand Committee.
The Federation of Small Businesses stated in its response to Professor Löfstedt:
“A wider problem for small businesses is that many do not feel confident that they are compliant owing to confusion about what is absolutely necessary, and so feel the need to gold-plate the law to protect them”.
Examples of such gold-plating, according to a recent Better Regulation Executive survey, include a hairdresser unnecessarily paying £1,000 a year for portable electrical appliance testing, a micro-business paying £3,800 for a specialist health and safety consultant to do its basic risk assessment, and an electrical contractor paying £1,000 a month to a health and safety adviser. The impact therefore falls disproportionately on smaller businesses, often run by owner-managers who have less time and resources. This impact is significant for growth because such micro-businesses with fewer than 10 employees account for 96% of UK businesses and around 7 million jobs.
Some noble Lords have suggested that we should not introduce legislation merely to tackle a perception—a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne—but, as I have explained, the perception causes real problems which we believe require positive action. Clause 62 is one of a range of government reforms to tackle this perception of a compensation culture and to restore a common-sense approach to health and safety.
Amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act so that it will be possible to bring claims only for negligence is designed to ensure that responsible employers who have taken all reasonable steps to protect their employees will not be held liable to pay compensation for an accident that they could not reasonably have done anything about. Claims are a burden on employers not just because of the financial costs but due to the time and resources required to deal with them and, importantly, their negative impact on the wider reputation of a business.
This measure will not lower standards. Let me be clear: every death and serious injury at work is a tragedy for the individual, their family and friends. Happily, our record in the UK is a good one. In the 10 years from 2000 to 2010, the rate of fatal injuries fell by 38% and major injuries by an estimated 22%, and our overall performance is better than that of many other European countries. However, there is no room for complacency and we are committed to continuing to improve health and safety standards.
The Government do not accept the argument that this measure sends the wrong signal about the importance of complying with health and safety legislation; in fact, quite the opposite. This is about giving employers the reassurance to focus their attention on the things that have a real practical effect on controlling risks. In Grand Committee and again today, concerns have been expressed that this change represents a backward step by placing the burden of proof on employees and will make cases more difficult and costly to prove—the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, emphasised her views on this.
To be clear, the fact that someone has been injured at work does not and should not mean they are automatically entitled to compensation. Many health and safety duties require the injured employee to show fault on the part of their employer. Currently, claimants do not recover compensation in about 30% of claims. The cases that will be most significantly affected by this change are those which would have previously relied on an absolute or strict statutory duty, a point raised by some noble Lords today. In claims for negligence, the claimant will have to show that the employer failed to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable risks to their health and safety, which led to the injury.
However, unlike in the days before the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, there is now a codified framework for health and safety at work and a great deal of evidence and guidance in the public domain about hazards in the workplace. Employers are expected to take account of this in carrying out their risk assessments, and this body of information will form an important part of the evidence in this aspect of a claim. This means that injured employees are in a very different and much better position to obtain information about their employer’s actions than they were when the right to sue for breach of statutory duty was first established in the 19th century. I hope that this answers the question raised by my noble friend Lord Phillips in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, both raised the important point of whether the provision covers fatal and serious injury. The Health and Safety Executive will continue to investigate fatal and serious injuries. The existing statutory requirements will still be relevant as evidence in claims for negligence to help determine whether the employer’s approach was reasonable. The Health and Safety Executive will also continue to take a range of enforcement action in accordance with its enforcement policy statement, including serving notices of contravention and prosecution against employers who seriously breach the requirements of the criminal law.
EU: UK Membership
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Razzall(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It may not surprise the noble Lord that I do not agree with his approach. It is estimated that around 3.5 million jobs in the UK are dependent on trade with the EU. The UK exports a wide range of goods and services to other European member states, everything from cars, worth more than £13 billion in 2011, through music, which represents £1 billion and even more once related services, royalties and licences are included, to a wide variety of food and drink products, worth close to £10.5 billion. There is much to be lost if we leave the EU.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, if we take the follow-up question by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and indeed, the Minister’s answer to the last question, does he not fear, realistically, that the uncertainty created by the Prime Minister’s commitment to a referendum in 2017 will risk reduced investment and employment in British manufacturing industry, particularly in the motor car industry, to which he referred?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I do not agree with my noble friend, but I stress again that it is right to end the uncertainty of the questions that are persistently asked. My noble friend mentioned UK car manufacturers. They effectively saved £0.9 billion in 2009 by not having to pay the common external tariff to export to the EU. This equates to a saving of £1,100 per vehicle exported in 2009 to the EU. I stress that there are large figures involved in needing to settle the uncertainty.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Razzall(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, these amendments would introduce a statutory requirement for institutional investors to act in the best interests of their clients and beneficiaries. They seek to clarify that these investors are not legally obliged to maximise short-term financial returns, but may take into account longer-term considerations, including the social and environmental impact of the companies in which they invest.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Razzall, supported in name by my noble friend Lady Brinton, for giving us the opportunity to debate the vital issue of fiduciary standards in the investment industry. As noble Lords may be aware, the duties of investment intermediaries were considered by Professor John Kay in his 2012 independent review of equity markets and long-term decision-making. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned this in her speech. The Government have broadly accepted the recommendations of the Kay report in this area. Specifically, they have made clear their support for the view expressed by Professor Kay, and echoed in Amendment 58F, that institutional investors should not automatically assume that maximising short-term returns is sufficient to serve the interests of their clients or beneficiaries. Instead they should take into account long-term factors relevant to their clients’ interests over the time horizon of the investment. However, the Kay report also found that there was no clear agreement on what the law currently requires of those investing on others’ behalf, and recommended that the matter be referred to the Law Commission.
The Government have therefore asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of the legal obligations arising from fiduciary duties that dictate what considerations are appropriate for trustees and other intermediaries acting in the best interests of their clients and beneficiaries. The Government also support Professor Kay’s view that there should be a common minimum standard of behaviour required of all investment intermediaries. While I therefore have great sympathy with the spirit of my noble friends’ intentions, I do not believe that the approach taken in these amendments would achieve this. The amendments attempt to enshrine aspects of the common-law concept of fiduciary duties in statute, and to apply these to certain institutional investors in all circumstances. This includes applying them to certain FSA-authorised firms without due regard to the FSA’s existing regulatory requirements. This approach would add to confusion and uncertainty about the meaning of the word “fiduciary”, the circumstances in which a fiduciary relationship already arises and the standards already expected of investors in regulation.
The government response to the Kay report is very clear in setting out the principle that all investment intermediaries should act in the best interests of their clients or beneficiaries in line with generally prevailing standards of decent behaviour. In order to embed this principle effectively, the Government have asked the FSA, and its successor organisation, the FCA, to consider to what extent current regulatory rules in this area align with this principle and to determine what action might be desirable. This includes, if necessary, changes to regulatory requirements at EU level.
With these reassurances, I hope that my noble friends will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I must say I am slightly disappointed by the Government’s response to this. This amendment is not about looking at the issues that the noble Viscount has suggested need to be looked at. It has nothing to do with the FSA or European regulations. Its entire purpose is to clarify the existing law. For example, it seeks to clarify that institutional shareholders which had a shareholding in Cadbury’s were entitled to take the view that they did not have to accept a very successful financial bid if they were concerned about other characteristics. That is not an FSA point or a European regulation point; it is a simple matter of clarifying the law. That is all we are asking for.
I have serious reservations and concerns about the matter being referred to the Law Commission because I predict that we will be debating this in five or 10 years’ time—those of us who are still alive then—when the Law Commission eventually comes back with a recommendation that will cover much wider areas than are dealt with by the amendment, as the Minister has indicated. To my mind, that is typical of the way in which Governments respond to things, in that you propose a relatively small amendment and they say, quite fairly, that the whole area, which is huge, is being looked at, of which the amendment is just a small part, and therefore they cannot do anything about the small amendment until that huge area has been looked at. That is the problem, and that is what I worry about. However, in the mean time, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I would like to clarify this matter or go some way to clarifying it. I re-emphasise that the Government are currently discussing the precise terms of reference for the review with the Law Commission and, as mentioned earlier, will make an announcement in the coming weeks. The objective of the review is to provide clarity for institutional investors on their legal obligations. It would not be appropriate to prejudge the Law Commission’s review on whether there is a need for legislation to achieve that end. I hope that goes a little way to clarify our position, but an announcement will be made in the coming weeks.
Lord Razzall
If I may say so, that very short response was more helpful than the Minister’s previous comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.