Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. Once again, I am impressed by his ability to translate his lived experience into persuasive rhetoric in your Lordships’ House. It is a distinct privilege that we regularly have the opportunity to hear from him on areas in which, sad to say, there are fewer people than there ought to be in your Lordships’ House who can speak with that lived experience.

It is also a particular pleasure to speak in support of this Bill, and I commend and congratulate my noble friend Lady Taylor on proposing it and introducing it with her characteristically informed and persuasive eloquence. While I am at it, we should recognise her Bolton colleague, my honourable friend Yasmin Qureshi, for her hard work proposing and sponsoring the Bill through the other place. From my reading of the debate at the various stages of the Bill in the other place, she was 100% persuasive. The Bill attracted support from all parts of that House and has been delivered to us in good condition.

As others have said, and as was said repeatedly in the Bill’s various stages in the other place, the Bill is not an attempt to change workplace culture but to give legislative force to changes that have occurred organically. In 2016, less than 10% of jobs were considered flexible. Since then, we have seen a 566% increase, with 58% of UK businesses now offering flexible working in some form. The Bill embeds this cultural shift into law. As we await the long-promised but yet to be seen government employment legislation in Bill form, perhaps we should thank Labour Bolton for giving us this opportunity to modernise at least this part of the labour law in the meantime.

Clause 1 is extremely welcome. It transfers greater agency to the employee and ensures that flexible working is seen as a right, rather than a favour that can be airily granted or refused at the whim of the employer. Despite the efforts of some to caricature flexible working as a charter for middle-class idleness, with stories of senior managers working from their Pelotons, it is something which is most important for those who are seeking to balance employment with very real challenges and responsibilities in their personal lives. It is particularly important for those who are neurodivergent, for those who have responsibilities as carers or as parents of young children and, as we have heard, for those who are disabled.

Before plunging into an analysis of any piece of legislation, I believe it is worth asking the most fundamental questions: is it necessary, does it engage a real as opposed to an imagined problem, and will its provisions do so effectively? I believe the answer to all three is yes. As your Lordships’ House will know, since 2014, all employees have had the legal right to request flexible working, but only 30% of those requests were accepted in the last year for which figures are available, while flexitime was still unavailable for almost 60% of UK employees. Given the need to tempt those who have opted in significant numbers for early retirement back into the workforce, embedding the right to flexible working will be critical.

In thinking about where the inequities in the current system lie, as well as strengthening the right to request flexible working for parents, carers and those suffering with a disability, there is also a need to address the problem of low pay. In the 2023 Flex for Life report, the researchers outline the current state of flexible working in Scotland. They found that while 51% of Scottish workers who earn less than £20,000 work flexibly, that figure is 80% for those who earn more than £50,000. One can adduce apparently obvious reasons for this—that lower-paid workers are more likely to work in sectors where flexibility is more difficult, such as hospitality and manufacturing—but the research shows this imbalance to be more deeply entrenched. This disparity is, in fact, true across all sectors. To quote the report directly:

“Frontline or not, the higher earners always have significantly more flexibility than lower earners”.


That is something we should think about in further debates on this subject and as we monitor the effect of this Bill once it receives Royal Assent, which I am sure it will.

I shall be supporting the Bill as it progresses through your Lordships’ House. It recognises and gives legislative shape to a cultural shift that has taken place over the last few years, and it seeks to empower employees and give them greater agency. For these creditable and credible reasons, I look forward to it reaching the statute book.

Whistleblowing Framework

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

No, I do not think so.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his letter yesterday to those of us who spoke in the debate on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on this very issue on day 6 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill Grand Committee. It deals particularly with data reporting. That is very helpful, although it shows that the regulators implement this patchily, inconsistently and, arguably, uselessly. So is it too late for the terms of reference of the review to be revised specifically to include an office of the whistleblower but, more particularly, to look at whether we could financially reward whistleblowers for information? That has generated a dramatically better climate for whistleblowing in the United States of America. Could we also look at our experience from the pandemic? Given the poor recovery rate for the public funds misspent on PPE, surely this is worth trying.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

The noble Lord has asked a lot of questions. The regulators and the level of consistency in reporting are absolutely part of the brief. The review is not currently structured to look at the question of a department of the whistleblower but, as I said in my Answer, I believe that that may well be a recommendation that comes out of it. I am afraid I cannot remember what the other question was.

Post Office Executives: Bonuses

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness’s sentiment. Certainly, in my experience, every member of the board is fully aware of exactly what the remuneration package is for each individual director and everyone within the organisation, whether it is fixed or bonus-related. Having said that, at this moment it is important that the two reviews under way take place. A decision can then be made at the appropriate time.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the worst miscarriage of justice in the history of this country: 555 convictions have been declared unsafe. These people have been campaigning for 20 years, and some of them have died. The best that I can work out is that fewer than 100 of those convictions have been overturned. The scandal will be worsened by the fact that so many people are likely to die before their convictions are overturned. Can we not do something to speed this process up? One Bill with two clauses in this House could pardon them all.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

There can be absolutely no doubt about the seriousness of the Horizon disaster. I am sure that the noble Lord is absolutely right that things should be done quicker. I am not clear about what we can actually do about it, but I will certainly find out and get back to him.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, in the light of what we have just heard, I want to touch on the micro-company side of things. Micro-companies may be small but they are not unimportant. They are probably the single biggest sort of company used for VAT fraud, for example. There has been a lot of publicity recently about some poor chap in Cardiff. Several hundred companies were registered at his address, then he started receiving large bills from HMRC. It is precisely this sort of company that is used for that; we should not be too generous to these companies in relation to reporting requirements.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, together with the notice given by the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, that he intends to oppose the Question that Clause 54 stand part of the Bill; I suspect that in his absence this will not be part of the process but I will cover the issues that are raised.

I will confine myself to a few observations. First, no one wishes to stifle micro-enterprises with too onerous a set of reporting duties but, in a Bill that has the word “transparency” in its very name, it is surely important that micro-entities are not exempted from such a reporting duty. That small businesses are not merely the flywheel but the very motor of the UK economy is well known and constantly rehearsed. I have no need to go through all that but flourishing surely cannot come at the price of opacity when that opacity will be exploited in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, suggests it has been in the past and we know is a problem.

The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, do not merely serve as a symbolic recognition of this fact but serve a useful practical purpose, which I will turn to. It is the stated aim of the Government for Companies House to be a fully digital organisation by 2025. The amendments under discussion ensure that electronic documents submitted to the registrar not only conform with its standard electronic format but ensure that they meet standards of accuracy, completeness and consistency. Surely, each of these measures is desirable and, taken together, they are more desirable still.

If the Government are not minded to accept the noble Lord’s amendments, it would be useful to know which of these requirements they regard as superfluous. It would also be helpful to know how the Government feel that these amendments fail to assist Companies House in meeting its own target of becoming fully digital in the next two years, which seems a very challenging target.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I just want to come in on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on micro-accounts. It was actually 11,000 companies that were registered to this poor man’s residential address in Wales. It all relates to a new loophole, which has been discovered by foreign traders selling on the internet. Up until Brexit, they were essentially avoiding VAT because there was no real mechanism for HMRC to recover it all around the world but, when we left the European Union, we brought in our own regulations. There is a loophole that if, as in this case, you are a Chinese trader and you register a company in the UK, you do not have to pay VAT through the platform on which you are selling the goods.

HRMC is completely floored by this. In its letter to Meg Hillier, it said simply that it had not recognised any fraud so far. Let us get real. Part of the problem is that it is not getting the data. If it could scrape all the data off those 11,000 company accounts, it would very quickly see the pattern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this group of amendments, but I rise just to say that I agree with everything that noble Lords have said thus far. My enthusiasm peaked when the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, spoke. What we have done in this debate is create the environment in which we are making these really important changes.

I have just one complicated question, with subcategories, for the Minister. I approach this question on the basis that if an ACSP is unwilling to have its name associated with its professional work and assessment, it seems to me that that should be a disqualification from it being appointed an ACSP. I ask the Minister: were ACSPs consulted at the consultation stage, before this legislation was drafted? Did the ACSP cohort ask for this level of anonymity which the Government are gifting it? I just cannot believe that, if they think they are doing a good job, they will not want their name associated with it—all the more for those abroad. If the City of London, our Companies Act and our registration are to be all the things that the Government wish for, it will be a sterling mark for those abroad that they are able to facilitate access to that environment because they are accredited by the Government of the United Kingdom, and the Secretary of State specifically, to do this work.

Why are we in this situation, where this really important part of the gateway into the system of limited liability is in the hands of individuals and businesses which the Government seem to think want nobody to know they are doing the work? It is incredible. I repeat: if an ACSP or somebody who wishes it, says, “I will do this only if you do not associate my name with the work publicly”, you should say to them, “Well, goodbye. You’re not doing it at all”.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord has anticipated the point that I wanted to make, but I will make it very briefly. I am puzzled why we are so keen to protect anonymity. What is the respectable argument in favour of anonymity? Can the Minister help us with that? A solicitor, for example, will append their name to a document, identifying litigation or other contexts, and many other professionals have similar obligations. Why are we affording these particular people some special allowance? It simply does not make sense.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, for some time, those of us involved in the register of overseas entities were anxious that there should be improved verification. I gather that there has been some movement in that direction. I ask the Minister to consider having regard to the weight of opinion that there should be a similar movement in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I would like to clarify my point, which is that this is a very relevant point raised by a number of noble Lords in the Committee. I have been doing a great deal of investigation into this point over the past few weeks and have great sympathy with the sentiments expressed about making sure that the bodies that verify identity can be tracked in some way, in public as much as in private, because I feel that to be very important.

However, there may be technical points that I have overlooked, so I am reluctant to commit today to accepting an amendment, as noble Lords can imagine. It would be inappropriate for me to do so, but I hope noble Lords can hear from my clear words the commitment that we make to see whether the principle around this amendment could be made possible as we look into how the Bill will develop over the forthcoming period, so I greatly thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his amendment, and I look forward to having discussions over the next few weeks to see how we can find a way to try to implement the philosophy of the principles.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

I rise to press the Minister to answer my question about the consultation and what ACSPs asked for in relation to this. I am confident that the Minister will have that discussion and include everyone in it. It is very clear what his inclination is, but I will add one testing question, which I think is important. If an ACSP wished to have its identity associated with its professional, accurate and helpful work and to have that association with the business that is being registered known publicly, would the Companies Act, as amended, facilitate that? Would it be allowed to do that? Would it be allowed to publicise who it is or are we forcing anonymity on everyone who does this work and not allowing their name to be associated with sterling, world-class work?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. I am intrigued about whether or not that is true. That is why I think it is important that we look into this in detail to ensure that it can be done properly and that we are making legislation that improves accountability and transparency. Without repeating myself, I hope noble Lords feel comfortable that we have made a significant and serious commitment to see what we can do about this point, and I will take a personal interest in this.

I will move on to the point about standard industrial classification, which has just been raised, and Amendment 50A, put forward so well by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I greatly thank him for his amendment and, again, agree with the intention to increase transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that my noble friend the Minister can look favourably on the merits of using the Bill to do this now. The only small change in the wording of Amendment 106E compared with Amendment 65 is that I am specifying a minimum fee of £100 and asking the Government to consider raising it in line with inflation—not necessarily mandating that that should be done but considering it annually. I am not wedded to any of the wording but I feel that putting this into the Bill now has significant merits. I hope that my noble friend will agree to consider it carefully.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, a packet of 20 Lambert & Butler or Marlboro cigarettes costs £12.65. That is how out of proportion the fee for setting up a limited company has become. It may well be that government taxation and inflation have influenced the price of cigarettes and that it does not reflect their real value, but that is the reality of the world that we live in. If you have £13 in your pocket, you can buy a pack of cigarettes or you can float a limited company.

This has got totally out of proportion. Businesses that have this limited liability have become a driver of our economy but a significant proportion of them have become a serious problem for our country. Not only has our international reputation been trashed by the people who abuse this, with us being trusted less as a centre of probity and good practice, but, if we accept the Government’s apparently accepted assessment of what this costs us annually, they are taking £350 billion out the economy on a regular basis. They are doing that in a series of economic activities in which they take the money but we count it as GDP. That is utterly ridiculous. Then, after the money goes out of the country—quite often as cryptocurrency—it comes back in and we count it as inward investment. They have distorted the reality of the economy of our country in a significant way and they have stolen significant amounts of money that could have been put to other purposes.

I support these amendments because these two issues need to be addressed. First, the process of setting up a limited company needs to force people to think more about what they are doing. It needs a quality about it and part of that has to be in the fee. The people whom we charge now with not only collecting this data but being the gatekeeper and inhibitor of crime—that is what we are asking Companies House to do—have to be resourced. That resource should come substantially from those people who wish to exercise the privilege of having limited liability in their companies because it is in their interests to have the ability to do that and not be characterised with the rest of these cheats and robbers. The way in which they conduct their business is being protected, and money is not being taken from them by fraud and the other activities that are manifestly going on. It is in their interest for this system to work properly; they should pay the appropriate fee so that that work can be done.

More importantly—this is the real issue that this amendment addresses—the measure of the ambition that we have, that Parliament has and that the Government say they have to interdict all this behaviour has an enormous prize at the end of it: £350 billion. This was described to me as relatively low-hanging fruit in my recent correspondence with one of your Lordships. We know how to interdict this behaviour, keep this money in our country and stop it from being stolen from our common resources in this way.

The measure of the Government’s priority for this is that it should have figured in Rishi Sunak’s five priorities. This is such an extraordinary series of things to be happening in our community, with such a dreadful effect. Economic crime—fraud is part of it, as 41% of crime against a person in our country now is fraud—is having an effect on almost every family in our country. If we do not know people in our families who have been defrauded, or if we have not been defrauded ourselves, we will live in constant fear of it. Every text we open or every email we get that we do not recognise immediately causes our heart to beat a bit faster, as it may have infected our electronic communications. We are all affected by this. There is a great delivery to be had for the people of this country, the way in which we trust each other and the way we live, but there is also a lot of money at the end of this.

A significant proportion of the money going out comes from the Government’s own coffers and we are not protecting ourselves against its loss. If they have an alternative way to convince us that this can be done differently than is proposed in these amendments, now is the time to tell the House of Lords. Like the House of Commons, the House of Lords is going to coalesce around these sorts of amendments—the difference being that support for them here will mean your Lordships’ House winning the day when it comes to counting the votes. We all collectively want the Government to bring these types of amendments and solutions to the House for approval, in their own words.

Can the Minister explain to us how we are going to move out of being a country that basically sells to people, for the price of a pack of cigarettes, this ability to do something that a lot of people are using for crime? Where is the money going to come from to ensure that the work that is needed is done in regulation, enforcement and prosecution but mostly by inhibiting this from happening in the first place? I am much less interested in prosecuting people who have done this than I am in stopping them doing it. We can stop them and give ourselves a resilience but we are going to have to invest a significant amount of money; the Government should see that money as a priority because the prize at the end of it is so significant. If there is no alternative, then this is the best way to do it and I would support and vote for it, but the Government have it in their gift to tell us how they will do it otherwise, if they can convince us that we can trust them to put their money where their mouth is.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name in support of Amendments 69 to 71. I agree with what my noble friend Lady Altmann said in support of her own amendment and very largely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said from the Opposition Front Bench—supported, it is fair to say, by his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Browne.

These amendments are important not for what they say intrinsically but for what they say about us—as a Parliament and as people who make policy then implement it. The cigarette packet analogy is very telling: it is ridiculous that it costs the same to buy a packet of cigarettes as it does to register a company. That clearly has to change and I do not think that the Government believe that £12.50, or whatever the cost is, is the right price to register a company. There may well have to be a sliding scale, reflecting small and larger companies, but suffice to say that the current level of fees is ridiculous and the current level of fines could well be ridiculous.

Having signed these amendments, however, I do not want to be seen as a false friend. I take the point that putting on the face of primary legislation the fee, or the fine, makes lifting it higher annually—or whatever the relevant time is—much more difficult because the primary legislation will have to be amended. You might get a Bill like this—okay, we have had two in a year; we are all smiling but these two years are very unusual—but the next time we get to amend the level of the fine in primary legislation could be a long way off. I suggest that we use these amendments to prompt the Government to set realistic fees and fines, and to place those in a form of legislation that can be amended readily and quickly. That would presumably be under regulations, which is not an unusual state of affairs. The purpose behind these amendments, as I say, is to provoke or promote the Government into thinking about the levels of these fines and fees.

In relation to the question of hypothecation or whether the fines should go into the Consolidated Fund, again, I am going to demonstrate that I am a false friend to some extent because hypothecating fines or fees can sometimes create another form of sclerosis. It also creates an inability to be flexible in how one spends public money.

Our arguments in support of these amendments demonstrate what this Committee thinks—here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Browne: if this proposal was put to a vote on Report, it would win. I do not think that the Government need have any false hope about that; I suspect it would win. Of course, it would be overturned back in the other place but we would be saying to the Government, “We want real and meaningful action”. This Committee leaves it to the Government to come up with a scheme that avoids having a vote and meets the real nature of the problem that we face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

Has any thought been given to the possibility—I know that the Government like this sort of structure—of having an independent fee review body that looks at all this and makes recommendations? The Government could still set the fee but there would be an independent group of experts looking at the objectives that we have set ourselves. Is it too late to put some provision like that into this piece of legislation? I know that the Government like reviews.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for suggesting the creation of another authority but, in this instance, I would be reluctant to do that. As I said, I have noted his comments very carefully, and I will be happy to have further discussions with noble Lords around this issue. I am sure it will be a matter of debate, but the important point is that I do not believe that we should be setting minimum costs by legislation. It would be completely impractical and would remove the flexibility and purpose.

I now come to the economic crime fund and economic crime enforcement agencies Amendments 69 and 71 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and the economic crime fund Amendment 106E tabled by my noble friend Lady Altmann, which are very relevant. As we have discussed—and I take this view personally—we can have as many rules and regulations as we want, but if they are not enforced properly, they will have no value. That is why when noble Lords come to me with new ideas—there is an ever-bubbling font of new ideas—for new regulations, strictures and penalties that could be imposed upon businesses to reduce economic crime, I sometimes push back. I say that it is not necessarily about introducing new regulations and rules but about making sure we have the resources, focus and capabilities successfully to prosecute existing crimes.

That is at the core of my next comment: the Government are committed to ensuring that law enforcement agencies have the funding they need. The combination of the 2021 spending review settlement and private sector contributions through the new economic crime levy will provide funding of £400 million over the spending review period. The levy applies to the AML-regulated sector and will fund new or uplifted activity to tackle money laundering, starting from 2023-24. I believe that the levy is expected, or targeted, to raise £100 million. I am not sure whether that figure is confirmed; I will come back to noble Lords if it is wildly inaccurate.

In addition to this, a proportion of assets recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are already reinvested in economic crime capability. Under the asset recovery incentivisation scheme mentioned already by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and some other noble Lords, receipts that are paid into the Home Office are split 50:50 between central government and operational partners, based on their relative contribution to delivering receipts.

Proceeds from fines issued by Companies House are placed into the Consolidated Fund, which is used for financing the expenditure of government departments on important public services. The proposed amendments would see the incorporation fees, all fees paid under regulations made under Section 1063 of the Companies Act and all penalties paid under regulations made under Section 1132A of that Act being surrendered into an economic crime fund. This would be contrary to the fundamental principle that the fees are paid for the benefit of incorporated status and would fall foul of long-established Treasury rules preventing fees being used to fund activities that may be completely unconnected. I am happy to be corrected, but I do not believe that this is pushing back against the concept of hypothecation. The point is simply that these are fees to be paid for a service, and it would not be appropriate for them to be directed to another function.

This would also encompass almost the entirety of Companies House’s income, leaving it with no resources, and it would require funding from elsewhere, primarily from the taxpayer, so going completely against what many noble Lords, this Government and I want, which is to use the fees to pay for the functioning of Companies House. The fees would then go into a fund, so we would have to pay for Companies House on top of that. I am sure that is quite clear. The Government do not believe it is appropriate to place the burden of funding Companies House on the taxpayer, and this would be contrary to the fundamental principle that the fees are paid for the benefit of incorporated status.

I would like to attend now to some comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister and his colleagues for their approach to the Bill and for his remarks at the beginning, which were very welcome. We all have an interest in trying to ensure that the Bill works, so I thank the Minister for his comments about that—and I can reciprocate with regard to how the Government have approached this in trying to enhance and improve the Bill. I appreciate what the Minister said about the amendments in this group, and all the various amendments that have been introduced, as we have heard, in a positive way, in seeking to improve the Bill.

I do not intend to speak at great length about the various amendments. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, for his support of my Amendment 4 and by saying that I very much agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, said on his Amendment 63. Essentially, what we are saying here is that the Bill has a lot within it that we appreciate, accept and think are important steps forward—but alongside that, most of us want to see the Bill having some teeth and the Government explaining to us how the various details are laid out, how the measures will be enforced and how we will see the change of culture that we have just heard about.

I will speak specifically to my Amendment 4. Noble Lords will see that, in essence, we are probing what the Government’s intentions are. Clause 1 has four objectives for the registrar. The amendment in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Ponsonby and Lady Blake seeks to understand whether anything could be gained by inserting a new objective 5. No doubt the Minister will say that objective 4 means the same, which may be why the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is not needed. We are suggesting that there needs to be a more proactive statement in the Bill about what the Government are seeking in terms of the information that the registrar collects and how it is then assessed to see whether it should be shared more widely, particularly with the various enforcement bodies.

The objective I am proposing—I will not read it all out—includes in paragraph (b)

“sharing information about any issues of concern regarding companies with relevant public bodies and law enforcement agencies.”

Why would the Government not put that in the Bill? I suspect they will say that objective 4 deals with that, but I think there is a difference between acting proactively and what the Government have in objective 4, which is

“to minimise the extent to which companies and others … carry out unlawful activities”.

I suggest that is not quite strong enough. It is not about minimising the extent; it is about wherever information comes to light with the registrar that something untoward is happening. Surely there should be an obligation on the registrar to share that with the relevant law enforcement bodies. Minimising the extent is not sufficient; we do not do that with any other law—we do not minimise the extent to which violence takes place, for example. That may be the aim, but overall the intention of the law is to stop it. So I suggest that objective 4 could be strengthened.

On Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, the noble Lord can and did speak for himself, but in his proposed new subsection (1B)(b) he is getting at that very point in stating that the registrar must

“share any evidence of unlawful activity it identifies with the relevant law enforcement agency”.

That is exactly the same point I am trying to address in my amendment. It is not about minimising the extent to which it takes place; it is saying that the information should always be shared. Can the Minister outline the Government’s thinking? Is their objective with the registrar that all information that may be of concern should be shared with the relevant law enforcement agencies?

Without wishing to be pedantic about this, can I ask: what is the relevant law enforcement agency with which the registrar should share the information? There is the Serious Fraud Office; there is the City of London Police; there are local police forces; there is HMRC and all sorts of other enforcement bodies. The Government will have given thought to this, but can the Minister explain to the Committee where that information should go and who is responsible for enforcing it? Is there any report back to the registrar? Once the information has been shared, is it then just a matter for the law enforcement body, or does the registrar have an obligation to see where that has got to and what has happened to it? We all know that an issue that frustrates people is not knowing what happens when things are reported and where they have got to. Alongside that, given the significant numbers that the Minister quoted of those that have to register, what are the resource implications for those other bodies in taking that up?

My final point may seem a bit obscure. I am not a great expert on this, but I know from one limited case that I had some experience of that one of the problems was a lack of forensic accountants and the ability to understand what was going on within various company accounts. I was told it was a skill area that is never really talked about. I wonder whether the Government, given their intentions, have given any thought to how they ensure that the necessary skill base is there within police forces and the Serious Fraud Office for crimes that are referred to them to be properly understood and investigated. I am sure that some people are experts in company law and all this, but the problem is that when people say “Follow the money”, sometimes it is pretty difficult to do that. I wonder whether the Minister might say something about how he sees that.

In general, we welcome the Bill and the government amendments before us. I think the amendments that the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Agnew, have tabled make some very important points. I hope that my Amendment 4 also helps the Government explain to the Committee what their intentions are. If the Bill is to mean anything, it has to be properly enforced.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

I had not intended to speak on this group, but my noble friend Lord Coaker has drawn my attention to the active verbs in the subsections of Clause 1. I am at a loss to understand why they are used. Why is objective 3

“to minimise the risk of records kept by the registrar creating a false or misleading impression to members of the public”

and not “to prevent companies and others carrying out unlawful activities or facilitating the carrying out of unlawful activities”? It seems odd that the objective is not the complete protection of people who may be duped or defrauded or have their money stolen from them by the devices created here. I appreciate that one cannot guarantee perfection, but it seems to me that by legislating in this fashion we recognise that there will be an element of that, since the objective we set the registrar is only to minimise, not to prevent it altogether.

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. I declare my interest as chairman of C Hoare and Co. I apologise for not being here at Second Reading. I had a good excuse: a very bad dose of flu.

I have two brief points. First, legislation on its own does not change an institution—I worked in the Treasury for 30 years and saw many institutions come and go—but it can be really helpful in supporting the leadership of that institution to change its character and the way in which it works. I believe the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, would support the leadership in bringing that about.

My second point draws on my experience of seeing through a lot of reform to financial services regulation. I think it is fair to say that the lesson of the 2000s was that tick-box regulation really does not take you very far; a proportionate, risk-based approach is the answer. I believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, very much goes with the flow of better regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I appreciate my noble friend’s comments. I do not believe that I suggested at any point that this was not baked into the cake of what Companies House is expected to deliver. I would be delighted to have further dialogue with Members around this but, in my humble opinion, the entire Bill is designed to ensure that the registrar takes a risk-based approach to ensuring the integrity of the information at Companies House. I am very comfortable on that, and the Government are very clear on it. We are wary of having duplicative statements in the Bill because that causes more complications when we are trying to create the enforcement regime and the integrity regime that we want to bring to bear.

On the key clauses and the language therein, I am certainly happy to consult my dictionary as noble Lords suggest. I am sorry that I was unable to bring one with me. It would be unusual for us to be quite so prescriptive in part 3 of the four objectives. I am delighted to have further conversations if noble Lords feel that that would be more helpful in setting the right cultural change at Companies House, but I am wary of being too prescriptive. I hope this is not misunderstood by Members of this Committee, but we want to avoid a box-ticking exercise because that is exactly what criminals like, as they can then navigate the system. We want to allow the registrar and her officers to use their judgment because that will lead to far better outcomes when it comes to achieving the mission that all of us are embarking on together.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

On a plain reading of this clause, the registrar is being required to promote these objectives, but in objective 4 she is being required not to prevent but

“to minimise the extent to which”

crimes can be committed. What is the problem about setting an objective that she is to prevent, and Parliament is telling her that is the objective we want her to have but recognising of course that perfection is very seldom found in these situations? Why do we set an objective that is less than what we really want? There is no question that Parliament wants these crimes prevented, not minimised.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s comment. We have discussed this at some length. I am personally very comfortable defining further the usage of “minimise”, but the intention is very clear. This is not about “minimising” criminal activity to a so-called acceptable percentage; it is ultimately to eradicate it entirely. I am sure there are good reasons why this language has been used, in order to enable an element of flexibility and facilitation for this Bill to operate effectively. I am sure noble Lords will sympathise with me when it comes to legal drafting of text, but the assurances around this Bill are that it should do exactly what we want it to do. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments and I commend Amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, all this is well above my legal pay grade, but the Minister has no doubt heard all the voices; clearly, there are flaws in this new clause. I suggest that he listen to those voices, take advice and not move this amendment and that we should come back to this at a later stage. As the Minister can see, there is considerable appetite around the Room for a proactive approach to the new Companies Act powers and duties, the registrar and so on. However, there are genuine concerns that have been expressed, so I suggest that the Minister takes this away and considers it pretty carefully, given the opinions that have been vouchsafed this afternoon.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am fully in favour of this matter being taken away and simplified, if it can be. I just take advantage of this opportunity to do something I probably do not do very often, which is to support the existence of the words “reasonable excuse” as a defence in this strict liability clause. It is a long time since I practised law, but I am certain that there are lots of regulatory and other offences out there that have this defence of reasonable excuse. I am absolutely certain that the statutory provision that makes it a strict liability offence to carry an offensive weapon allows, in its drafting, a defence if you are doing it with reasonable excuse. I do not think that these two things are inconsistent, but this is not clear.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

This has been an interesting debate—and a very lawyer-heavy debate —on the juxtaposition of “strict liability” with “reasonable excuse”. I can claim some knowledge here as a sitting magistrate in that I deal with those sorts of things quite regularly, frequently with respect to knife crime and traffic matters. It is a conundrum; it is worth examining further and I hope the Minister will take it further.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones described this as above his legal pay grade. Talking as a magistrate, I am an unpaid legal practitioner. Nevertheless, the Minister should take up the invitation of members of the Committee to look at this further. I can see that it is open to confusion, and I also take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about putting other officers in default. I hope that the Minister will take these comments in the spirit in which they were made and that there may be further opportunity for discussion on the points raised.

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and to anticipate its provisions finally reaching the statute book. In opening Second Reading, he outlined the Bill’s functions with thoroughness and lucidity. I beg to say that the longer I spend in this building the more I realise that we are all on a political journey. I hope that his enthusiasm for and championing of a Bill that makes a real and positive difference to some of the lowest-paid workers in our country is an indication that he has come a long way from where he was in 1997-98, as evidenced by his voting record on the then National Minimum Wage Bill.

I began by saying that it is a pleasure to support the Bill. It is an equal pleasure—a number of noble Lords may repeat this remark—to do so without caveat or reservation. It engages a simple question of equity: money given in tips to serving staff should be theirs without fear of depredation from their employers. This question is particularly acute when the hospitality industry is attempting to regain its feet after the pandemic and is being further buffeted by rising energy prices, the cost of living crisis and, more importantly, labour shortages. This should encourage people to work in the industry, knowing the prevalence of the problem that it addresses.

The Bill is comprehensive in scope, extending the legal right to a fair allocation of tips not merely to directly employed workers but to agency staff and those allocated tips through a third-party tronc scheme. I must admit that I did not know what a tronc scheme was until I read the Bill. Crucially, under Clause 4, it ensures that workers receive tips no later than the end of the month following the month in which they were paid by customers. I also welcome the measures in the Bill giving adequate scope for enforcement, and commend those involved in the Bill’s drafting and ensuring its passage through the other place. I look forward to these legal protections being extended to hospitality workers as soon as possible.

That last point leads me to ask why this has taken so long. The first call for evidence for this legislation was put out by the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in August 2015. Since then, we have had five different Prime Ministers, eight Secretaries of State and innumerable reshuffles among junior Ministers. Indeed, not only does the government department that published that call for evidence no longer exist, even its successor department has gone the way of Nineveh and Tyre. This measure has been included in two general election manifestos and four Queen’s Speeches, and has been the subject of two consultations. It is fair to say that, were the staff who are the subject of the Bill to adopt such a laggardly approach to their own work, the allocation of tips would be a purely academic exercise.

This should cause us seriously to reflect on the efficiency of government over the last eight years. The Bill is limited in scope, rights an obvious wrong and has cross-party support. If a measure of such comparative simplicity can take eight years to pass, something has gone profoundly wrong with our lawmaking in this country. I will resist the temptation to reach outside the scope of today’s proceedings to consider the silting effect that the necessity of dealing with Brexit and its consequences has had on our legislative efficiency, but will merely leave it hanging in juxtaposition to my points earlier.

I welcome the Bill and once again commend the work that the unions, other workers’ campaigning groups and parliamentarians on all sides have done in ensuring that it is now likely to reach the statute book. It will have my full support as it passes through your Lordships’ House.

Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, for the second time today, it is a pleasure to support a Bill. I am only sorry that my noble friend Lady Chapman is not here to hear me make the second most enthusiastic speech that I have ever made in your Lordships’ House. It is a particular pleasure to do so as we approach International Women’s Day next week. Noble Lords will be aware of an analysis published by the World Economic Forum which found that the pandemic has slowed the global trend towards gender equality by more than three decades. In that context, this Bill will make a real contribution towards a more equitable working environment for women in this country.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, not only on sponsoring the Bill but on making, if I may say so, a profoundly convincing case for it. It was a speech that only a working mother could make, all the more powerful in being made by a Member of your Lordships’ House who has been at the very centre of government in this country. She reminded us that the genesis of the Bill can, in part, be traced back to 2015, and research commissioned by the Cameron Government. She shared some of the findings of that and other research. That research found that, disturbingly, 77% of mothers surveyed had faced some form of discrimination or disadvantage during pregnancy or maternity leave, or when returning to work from maternity leave. More worrying still was the attitude of the employers surveyed. Despite years of equality legislation and attempts to change people’s attitudes, some 70% said they felt a woman should reveal if she were pregnant during the recruitment process and, more egregiously, 25% felt that they were entitled to ask a woman about her plans to have children in future. As we have heard, more recent work undertaken to assess the impact of the pandemic on expectant mothers at work suggests that a quarter had experienced unfair treatment, with this being significantly more probable at the lowest end of the income scale.

In the Second Reading of the Bill in the other place, the Bill’s sponsor invoked the redundancy protection model in Germany—and indeed this same model was commended by the Women and Equalities Select Committee in 2016 when reporting on this same issue. Although a straightforward transposition of the German model into UK legislation is impossible, the Bill as it stands comes as close to extending those same protections into UK law as is possible, while taking into account the divergences between the two countries. I am bound to say that those divergences are significantly to our disadvantage.

As it happens, I have friends in Munich with young children, and, in the margins of the Munich Security Conference, which I attended a couple of weeks ago, I visited them. It is astonishing the degree to which they, their employers and the whole environment benefits extraordinarily from the German attitude to the support of families with children. It is not the only aspect of German employment policy that we could learn from, but we should learn more from it because it is consistent not only with a positive attitude to children, and their growth and development, but with a successful industrial economy in the modern global world.

This legislation will strengthen the Equality Act 2010, which already prohibits discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and prevents employers laying off new mothers by extending redundancy protections to six months. I shall not labour this point, because it is directly analogous to something that I addressed at greater length in my remarks in the debate immediately preceding this one. However, it is frustrating that repeated commitments from the Government to introduce an employment Bill, of which these provisions were to be part, have failed to materialise. Each year there are somewhere in the region of half a million pregnant women in the workplace. This is not, therefore, a peripheral issue or something artificially amplified by sections of our community but something which will, in some form, affect all of us. Given that we have been promised action on this since 2016, with an employment Bill eventually being included in the 2019 Queen’s Speech before Covid derailed the legislative programme, why has it taken seven years, pricked by the spur of a Private Member’s Bill, for the Government to consent to act on this issue?

My hope and expectation is that the Bill will have universal support as it passes through your Lordships’ House. I do not wish to take up time that could otherwise be filled by the expression of full-throated support by other noble Lords, but I would like to mention the issue of employment tribunals. The Bill today, and the consequent regulations to be made by the Minister, will not apply a comprehensive blanket ban on making a pregnant woman or those on parental leave redundant, but it will markedly strengthen their chances of making a successful claim of unfair dismissal through the employment tribunal system. However, that system is, if not broken, at least hugely dysfunctional.

Figures released by the Ministry of Justice a few weeks ago show that it takes an average of 49 weeks for a case to be heard by a tribunal. It is a grim irony that, as it stands, the average wait for a new mother to receive justice would be longer than her pregnancy. It is worth emphasising that this is simply the time until the first hearing, which in many cases is only the start of an elongated process that is further bedevilled by delay. If the Government wish this Bill to be effective and to really protect pregnant women and new mothers, as I am sure they do, their first priority must be to bring down the tribunal backlog, currently at close to half a million cases. Simply citing the pressures of Covid is not good enough. Waiting times have been lengthening since tribunal fees were declared unlawful in 2017. When the Minister responds, I would be very grateful if this question could be addressed.

I close by commending once again the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for the thoroughness and care that she has displayed in bringing this Bill before your Lordships’ House today. She offers us a good opportunity to show your Lordships’ support for it to progress, I hope swiftly, into law.