CPTPP: Conclusion of Negotiations
Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for being approachable and proactive in communicating. I also thank his office for its openness and willingness to engage. I am sure that will continue, so if he could indicate what the timeframe will be with regard to the legal text being ready, and when we expect the treaty ratification process to commence, that would be enormously helpful.
These Benches believe passionately in free, fair, open and sustainable trade, so we welcome any reductions in tariffs for our exporters and moves towards reducing non-tariff barriers in new markets. As the International Agreements Committee and others have remarked, this will be the first agreement the UK enters into in which we will knowingly increase net emissions. What is the update from the Government with regard to the climate component of this accession? The Government do not provide much clear information with regard to emissions.
As the noble Baroness said, the UK already has trade agreements in place with most CPTPP members. This agreement absorbs the new ones that the UK has signed with Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Are there carve- outs in this agreement that we will be able to understand clearly when we receive the text?
With regard to the omissions in the Australia and New Zealand agreements on protecting geographical indicated foods, for those agreements, UK GI foods—some of the most cherished brands and produce in this country—will be protected only if Australia and New Zealand sign an EU trade agreement so we can protect them through the TCA. What is the protection for UK geographical indicated produce?
The Trade Secretary was getting into a bit of a tangle over the issue of modelling and the figures on Monday, so it is worth reminding the House that the Government’s scoping paper stated that the net benefit to the UK over 15 years of accession would be a mere £120 million per year to the UK economy. The trade writer for the FT said that, in decibel terms, this was
“a cat sneezing three rooms away”.
The Trade Secretary then asked us not to use the Government’s own paper regarding the 0.08% potential benefit. So I suspect we will have to await a full impact assessment. When can we expect to see that?
The Trade Secretary said that the CPTPP accession was “the future of … trade”. She correctly highlighted that this was the “fastest-growing” trade area but did not say that it was because of those countries’ trade with China. She also did not say that the pace of EU trade with those countries is now forecast to outpace what the Government’s modelling has said that the UK will benefit from in accession. The Trade Secretary said that this was the future of trade and that the people had voted for this, not the past—in some way indicating that there was a choice to be made; we trade either with Asia or with Europe. That is obviously nonsense.
The Government’s approach paper was pretty clear. It said that if we had maintained EU membership and the existing trajectory, UK trade with CPTPP members was already set to increase by 65% by 2030, or £37 billion. This accession is only adding 0.08%. I would be grateful if the Minister could say why it is opening up so little in additional markets.
The accession was also spun as a tilt away from China. However, we know that most of the countries within that agreement are also part of an agreement with China in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which represents 30% of global GDP. Negotiations are in the final stages between China, Japan and South Korea for an FTA. What is the Government’s position on whether they believe that China should accede to CPTPP?
Finally, there is an omission from all the Government’s data. In the scoping paper and the Statement, there is no mention of trade diversion. There has been no consultation with developing countries on what the likely impact of market access will be. There is one line on page 52 of the Government’s scoping paper that says:
“While the impact of the UK’s accession to CPTPP on GDP in developing countries is likely to be negligible, developing countries with a high share of trade with the UK and CPTPP member countries are most likely to be impacted”.
We already know that some exporters from Africa are complaining that they were not consulted and that their produce is going to be harmed by this accession, so perhaps the Government could provide information on trade diversion.
As with the India agreement, I have a considerable fear that some, if not most, of the benefits that we are likely to see will be trade diversion from developing countries with which we are seeking to encourage trade. I hope that the Minister can provide detailed information with regard to those questions.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for their questions and comments. I am only sad that I have to inject an element of enthusiasm into this Chamber for what is one of the greatest trade deals this country has struck in many decades, probably in my short lifetime. We have joined a £9 trillion group and there is no common army, there is no flag, there is no currency; there is only a common group of nations, liberal-minded in their economic outlook, which want to work together for mutual recognition, not for harmonisation. I will quote, if I may, William Seward—Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, if noble Lords are not sure who he was—who said that
“the Pacific Ocean, its shores, its islands, and the vast regions beyond, will become the chief theatre of events in the World’s great Hereafter”.
I am extremely proud of the work that the Secretary of State and our department have done. I thank her, our chief negotiator Crawford Falconer and Graham Zebedee for the incredible number of hours they put in, and the previous Secretaries of State, who embarked upon this post-Brexit vision of Britain, to turn what could be called “Ocean’s 11” into “Ocean’s 12” with our accession, I hope, over the coming year.
I also thank the businesses that have participated, which will see the benefits of being able to export their goods more easily to these key countries, where the rules of origin benefits will be significant in terms of managing supply chains; where business mobility will be written into law; and where there will be protections for our industries and the agricultural community in this country, which will allow them access to markets that previously they were unable to access. These now include our free trade opportunities with Malaysia, where we did not have a comprehensive trade deal. We have the opportunity over the coming year or so as accession takes place to have a full trade deal with this nation that has a GDP of just under $400 billion. Vietnam, one of the countries of the CPTPP, is forecast to grow faster than any other major country on earth, I read today, between now and 2050. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his statistical analysis.
However, this is not just a trade deal of statistics; it is about our focus on the growing economies of the Indo-Pacific region. It is right that this nation, in trying to ensure that we have close and good relationships with the European Union in our tariff-free and quota-free access to that valuable and essential continent of our neighbours, is also exposed to the future growth economies, the populations and the services that we can sell to them over the coming decades. So I congratulate the businesses that participated in this process to drive this forward, and our department that achieved it.
Finally, I thank the countries which supported us. When my Secretary of State gave her Statement to the other place a few days ago, she was watched and admired by the ambassadors, I believe, of Vietnam and Japan—just two of the countries which were so important in propelling us into this important trade group, which will stand as a beacon for liberalisation, free trade and economic growth for decades to come. I am surprised that everyone I have spoken to has congratulated me—not that I did anything, by the way, to accede us to CPTPP apart from providing moral enthusiasm and my work generally as an atom of the department—on Britain being able to join the accession process for CPTPP.
I went round Asia last week—I went to Japan, Australia and Singapore—and we were cheered and had standing ovations solely for the fact that we had recently acceded to the process of joining CPTPP. So I am amazed and saddened that we do not have more delight at this one act. Yes, there are important areas for inquiry and I hope that noble Lords have seen in my work over the Australia and New Zealand trade Bill the seriousness with which I have engaged personally with Members on all sides of the House in making sure that we do scrutinise these agreements. If we do not all get behind them, they will not have the effect of galvanising our exporters to action and making the most of the opportunities presented by these treaties.
I am extremely keen to engage where I can, at every opportunity and with all Members of this House, as we progress towards signature and accession to CPTPP. But I would like a little more enthusiasm and celebration, if possible, for something that, frankly, all Peers have been calling for and we are now starting to deliver—it will genuinely change lives.
I am happy to go through some of the core points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I am sure they will understand that I will have to come back to them on some of their questions—I think they would want me to be specific and accurate—but they certainly set the tone with some of their points. The important point is that, in this free trade agreement—rather than the customs union that was the old European Union—we do not abrogate any of our standards for imports: standards on pesticides and food remain exactly the same. We control our standards, and it is important for everyone in this House and the country to hear that clearly. Nothing has changed in what we allow to be sold in our shops; that is the whole point of a trade deal, rather than a customs union.
On many occasions I have been asked about countries acceding to the CPTPP in the future, but I will not be drawn on that for the simple reason that we have not even joined yet, so it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on that. I echo the Secretary of State’s statement on that point earlier this week. But this is a liberal, free markets trading group, and we hope it will act as a beacon for all countries around the world to reform their markets and economies to become liberal, free and open to world trade. I hope that all nations will look at it as a beacon of hope.
Questions about our treaty possibilities with the United States were raised. Again, this came up a few days ago in the other place. We are keen to do a trade deal with the United States—and with most countries in the world—because it is a huge part of the global economy, although it is not in a position to negotiate with us at the moment. So what have we done? That is a rhetorical question—we have signed specific memorandums of understanding with states, and this will enable us to have better links and closer co-operation, particularly for the all-important and growing services, and professional qualification recognition aspects of those services. I believe that my honourable friend, Minister Huddleston, was in Oklahoma this week, signing such an agreement—forgive me if I have got the state wrong, but he is certainly in the US at the moment, signing further MoUs.
It is important to turn to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. He likened the economic benefit of this deal to a sneezing cat three rooms away—
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am glad that the noble Lord was quoting the FT. I am happy to discuss this further, but it is important that we have an impact assessment of all our FTAs and that we have a proper discussion in this House about the review of trade agreements. So I am comfortable with continuing my personal commitment—or whatever the expression should be—to what we term the “Grimstone principles”, which noble Lords will be aware of. These give adequate time for committees and so on in this House to make sure that they have proper scrutiny. I am comfortable with confirming that, and I hope it is welcomed by the House. I very much look forward to having a full and frank debate on the points to ensure that we have indeed signed up to a deal that this House, this Government and this country support. It will bring benefits to us and the other nations of the CPTPP.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is obviously younger than I thought, because he does not remember the great agreement we signed when we joined the European Union in 1973. But I am delighted that he reinforced that the Grimstone principles will be adhered to and that we will have months, rather than days, to scrutinise this agreement. On behalf of the International Agreements Committee, I thank him for that.
I want to raise the question he mentioned of standards, particularly food standards, which are of enormous importance to consumers. Not only are they important in themselves, but any divergence of them from the rules that we keep for importing or exporting food to and from the European Union would be really difficult for manufacturers and importers. Can the Minister reassure us that nothing in any change to standards will impact either on our consumers or, indeed, on our ability to trade with our near neighbours in the European Union?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments and for her continued support, through the process of scrutiny, of this very important treaty. I look forward to working with her and her committee’s members closely over the coming months. On food standards, it is very important for me to repeat my point that nothing in the CPTPP lowers our food standards. All food and drink products imported into the UK will have to meet the same standards on the day before the CPTPP comes into force as they will the day after. The whole point about this is that we control our borders and the standards of goods and services sold to our consumers.
I too can quote from people who have been observing the situation. In a statement published on the National Farmers’ Union website, its president, Minette Batters, was pleased that the Government
“continues to maintain its commitment to our food safety standards”.
Questions were raised as to whether the CPTPP will lead to exports of food at lower standards, such as hormone-fed beef and chlorinated chicken. No: again, nothing in this treaty lowers our food standards. As I say, the standards we have the day before this treaty comes into force and the day after are exactly the same.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister asked for a bit more enthusiasm for the CPTPP. As one who has spoken in debates in this House and in Grand Committee in favour of the agreement that has now been concluded, I do not think I qualify as lacking enthusiasm, but does the Minister not recognise that you get more enthusiasm by quoting figures that are valid, reliable and solid? For example, he quoted trade with Vietnam. That is very valuable indeed, but we have a free trade area agreement with Vietnam already, so can he say what CPTPP membership will add to what we already have? When he talked about trillions of trade in that area, that is of course true, but those are not all benefits to the United Kingdom. Enthusiasm will come if there is solid reason for it.
On China, will he answer two questions? At what point in time does our view on an agreement between the CPTPP and China—and indeed Taiwan; both have applied —become valid? At what point do we have an equal say? Presumably not now, because we are not yet a CPTPP member. Presumably not just when we ratify it—will all members have to ratify it before we have a say in China’s relationship? It would be really helpful to have this; I asked the question in earlier debates and I am sorry to say that his predecessor never wished to reply to it.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising these points. He asks what the benefits are. As I have stated, the free trade agreement with Malaysia is in itself a worthy goal. We in this Chamber would be delighted—and I as a Minister, and the Department for Business and Trade, would be very comfortable—if all we had was a free trade agreement with Malaysia, where there are tariffs of up to 80% on some of the spirits we export. It is one of the largest consumers of Scotch whisky in Asia.
Secondarily, and more importantly, he mentioned Vietnam. The tariffs we have under our current agreements with Vietnam, on exports of pork, chocolate, engines and medicines, for example, are going to end far more quickly, so there is a speeding up of the process: if we already have a parallel agreement there is, in many instances, a speeding up of our access to those markets. It also highlights the importance of other areas, such as professional qualification recognition, which is so important; how services function; and the very important rules of origin. For all of us who believe in a renewed UK automotive sector, it is exactly these broad rules of origin that will allow us to make a success of this trading region.
The final point, which is often missed because we rightly look at the detail and the statistics, is that there are powerful personal, emotional and philosophical elements to joining this relationship. It gives us great sway over the future of global trade. It makes us relevant in a core area, in terms of our long-term national defence. It brings us closer together with other nations and it acts as a beacon to our exporters in this country—frankly, we could do with more of the companies in this great nation of ours exporting. I look forward to the opportunity this debate brings to give us a truly world view, rather than one that focuses simply on our locality, and put fire in the heart of our nation’s exporters to take our products and services to the rest of the world.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
I congratulate and thank my noble friend the Minister for enlivening this Eeyore-ish mood with some Tigger-ish enthusiasm. The benefits of CPTPP seem to be obvious to the lengthy list of countries which have formally applied for or are mulling membership—a list which includes Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Colombia and Uruguay. Of course, I understand that my noble friend is bound by diplomatic protocol, but will he take this opportunity to express some optimism about the prospect of the United States joining that list? CPTPP was to a large degree negotiated not just by senior members of this Administration but by President Biden himself. American accession to that pact would allow an improvement in the terms of trade between our countries, bound together as we already are by language, law, custom, kinship, habit and history.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am always grateful to my noble friend for his eloquence. He is a very difficult act to follow, even though his question is so true to my heart. I am afraid I will not be drawn into suggesting who should potentially be admitted into the CPTPP because we are not yet members, but as I said, I am delighted that this entire organisation acts as beacon of free trade around the world. We want more countries to see the world through the lens of us and our aligned partners. I very much support, conceptually, many of my noble friend’s comments and I thank him for his support in this House and for continually making sure that the torch of free trade is held high in this place.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister complained earlier of having been insufficiently appreciated for this Statement, but I am more than happy to congratulate him for including in his answer the comments of one of Abraham Lincoln’s most distinguished Cabinet members.
I want to ask a brief question about Vietnam which has, in part, been asked already by the noble Lord opposite. The Statement refers to Vietnam particularly with regard to legal and other services. Can the Minister explain in more detail what else the Government are expecting to get out of enhanced arrangements and trade with Vietnam, in addition to the arrangement we already have?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I was not asking for praise for myself or enthusiasm for my own actions, but enthusiasm for the actions of the Secretary of State, the department and this Government in pursuing this noble free-trade policy, which will ultimately enrich us all and make us safer.
The noble Viscount asks very sensible questions about the specificity of our relationship with Vietnam regarding the CPTPP. As I have said, the CPTPP contains a large number of chapters that will allow us more effectively to achieve market access for our goods, and with greater haste. In my view, that is in itself a very positive point. I have touched on some of the other aspects that apply broadly to the CPTPP, and I am happy to repeat the statistic I was sent this morning, although I cannot guarantee its legitimacy. Maybe I should declare an interest, to some extent: I have personal financial shareholdings in companies that invest in these countries, although I am not involved in them directly, as noble Lords can imagine. Vietnam is forecast to grow faster than any major country on earth between now and 2050. I would have thought any arrangement that allows us access to a market of that dynamic nature must be a positive for this country.
If we consider our long-term security and the importance of diversifying our supply chain and looking at how our supplying countries interact with us, I cannot think of any more powerful ally than Vietnam in this instance. I look forward to visiting that nation and seeing if we can encourage investment from there into the UK.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have an interest to declare, in that my noble friend the Minister is actually my son-in-law. I have been advised that, on that basis, I can call him my noble kinsman. I am not sure that he actually is my noble kinsman but on the other hand, it is rather useful shorthand for declaring my interest when getting up to ask him a question. First, I congratulate my noble kinsman on the role he has played in achieving our signing of this treaty, which is going to make a massive difference. May I ask about the rather minimal increase to trade of 0.08%? I just wonder what assumptions were made when this forecast was produced. Does my noble friend recognise that many recent economic forecasts have applied on the basis of “garbage in, garbage out”?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble kinsman for his intervention; this is the first time we have spoken in this way. I asked the House of Lords Library whether there were any other pairings of son-in-law and father-in-law, and I have not received a response; maybe the Library was too alarmed by our own prospects. But my noble kinsman raises a good point about the statistical analysis of the value of this trade deal to the UK. I wish to avoid getting drawn into complex statistical discussions in this important but short opening debate, but I am happy to do so in the future, and there will be further impact assessments.
It is difficult to forecast the ramifications of a trade arrangement. In fact, what has been produced is not a forecast; it is a static model. It is not for me to lecture Peers in this House on how that functions but as the name implies, it is a static model rather than a positive forecast of how trade can be increased on account of this deal. All I will say is that New Zealand signed a free trade deal with China, and its model projected $3 billion a year of additional trade activity; I think within five years, it was over $30 billion a year. So it is not simply a question of looking at one static model; we must look at a more effective impact assessment in the future and make our own forecasts. As I say, it is not simply about trade data; it is also about the influence we will have in this region and the philosophical endeavour we embark on to encourage free trade around the world.
Lord Walney (CB)
The Minister has been clear that he is not going to express a view on particular countries joining, but will he at least be clear that the Government will view Taiwan’s application as a valid one not subject to any veto from China?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his point, and I thank all noble Lords who have raised similar questions about countries potentially joining the CPTPP. As he will understand, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on that, since we have not even joined. I say again that I encourage all countries that fulfil the liberal free trade obligations and criteria to look to the CPTPP as a beacon of free trade and economic prosperity. However, I would not like to comment at this stage.
Lord Fox (LD)
The Minister has reeled off some really impressive growth figures, and I am sure he would acknowledge that one of the main drivers of that growth is the proximity of many of those countries to China. I would like him to comment on the observation that with or without China’s accession to this treaty, our accession to it subtly changes, whether implicitly or explicitly, our relationship with China. Also, what advice is his department giving to businesses when they are sourcing large proportions of their supply chain in China?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his interventions. There may be some confusion; there is not a preclusion of doing business with China now that we are acceding to join the CPTPP. This is an enhanced trade agreement that will allow us, as my namesake Prime Minister said, to have our cake and eat it in the relationships that we can have with all Asian countries. As for the advice we are giving to businesses, the Department for Business and Trade employs many hundreds of people around the world and in this country, as well as many hundreds of export champions, to encourage businesses to export to these countries. There is no length to which we should not go in order to assist our businesses and to signpost them. The very fact that we are having this debate on this important free trade accession will, I hope, raise the salience of exporting, as I have mentioned in earlier comments. I do not necessarily see enough businesses in this country taking the risk, challenge or opportunity of exporting. I hope that, if we raise the salience of exporting, that in itself will help, as people see the opportunities that are presented to them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my understanding is that this agreement will lead to the removal of all tariffs on Malaysian palm oil. Can the Minister confirm that and explain how that is compatible with the UK’s COP 26, and indeed COP 15, obligations to reverse forest loss and degradation? Why have the Government not gone towards an approach, as happened with EFTA and Indonesia, where improved market access is tied to sustainability and improved environmental conditions?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point. It is clearly important to raise palm oil, and I am sure it will come up in later debates. However, I believe—I am happy to write to the noble Baroness to confirm—from memory that sustainable palm oil imports into this country have risen from about 16% in 2010 to nearly 80% now. The reforestation of Malaysia and its pledges to ensure that it runs sustainable palm oil production have been very much wrought into the discussions we have had with it. All members of the CPTPP are parties to the Paris climate accord, and there is an environmental chapter.
In other areas which were covered earlier in this debate by noble Lords, such as animal welfare, we would like to think that we have actually informed the debate, particularly with countries such as New Zealand and Australia. In both those countries, we have now seen whole new swathes of legislation around animal rights that may even bring their standards to a level higher than our own. That is the sort of concept around the engagement of these treaty negotiations that yields common benefit for all.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I share the enthusiasm of the Minister for trying to replace some of the exports lost through Brexit, and I listened to what he said about static targets. However, the Minister for Trade, Kemi Badenoch, said she could not stand the estimate of 0.08% because it was based on “stale” figures from 2014. If that is true, could the Minister explain why his department is using figures that are 10 years old?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this point. Clearly, there will be a lot of discussion around how to measure, if we can, the benefits of a free trade agreement. As I believe I mentioned—I apologise for not being clear enough—these figures are static modelling figures rather than forecasts, so they rely on significant quantities of historic data. It is often a difficult position to be a government Minister at the Dispatch Box when you are reliant entirely upon government figures which do not necessarily chime with the mood music. However, it is important to look at all the different statistics that will give us the information we need to have a sensible debate. This is not a forecast; this is a static model. The forecast, I believe, will be extremely positive, as will the impact assessments. I reiterate again: the experience of New Zealand in simply one of its trade deals was 10 times greater than any model that it had created. That is the sort of statistical analysis I look forward to seeing.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Lord Johnson of Lainston ExcerptsTuesday 18th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (18 Apr 2023)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I think the consensus continues. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, for introducing this group. As he said, this set of amendments really repeats those spoken to earlier, but in this case concerns micro-entities. He made the points about either accidentally or deliberately tagging wrongly, and that not seeming a substantial argument against increasing its use. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, companies are well used to producing and presenting accounts in different media and ensuring that they are presented consistently across them. This tool should extend their use.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and others that the Clause 54 stand part debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, is not appropriate for the Bill. As others have said, micro-companies are not actually that small. Some numbers have been presented, but the figure I have is that 1.3 million micro-entity accounts were filed in 2019-20, the largest proportion of accounts filed with Companies House. The figures I have are of a turnover of less than £632,000 on a balance sheet of £316,000 with 10 or fewer employees. Over the years, I have been involved in a number of businesses of that sort of size, but they can and do sometimes grow into much larger businesses. There needs to be consistent tracking of these companies to see where they have come from and make predictions about where they might go, so I agree with the point on that made by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh.
Other noble Lords agreed with this point, so I hope that the Minister will resist the argument that Clause 54 should not stand part, if the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, chooses to speak to it, and is sympathetic to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register of interests, including as a director and person with significant control at AMP Ventures and as a shareholder of several other businesses and companies. I do not believe I have any personal conflicts represented today.
I also thank all Members of the Committee who participated in our useful and instructive discussions over the past month or so. I am sorry that the Easter break we enjoyed sort of broke our continual discussions, but I hope that we will reinstigate them in the near future. I am fully available over the next few days, particularly before the next series of Committee amendments and over this process, to make sure that the House collaborates together to reform Companies House for the first time in nearly 100 years, and that we bring to bear the crucial reforms that will enable us to have a transparent business environment that allows businesses to flourish and the data that they provide to Companies House to be used more effectively to create greater wealth and private enterprise in this country. I hope that, in my actions, noble Lords see my desire to collaborate very closely with all your Lordships to ensure that we all reach the same end.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
Regarding the position of micro-entities, I spent a great deal of my time as a micro-entity in a partnership. I did not avail myself of limited liability provisions but, when people do avail themselves of the privilege of limited liability, they must recognise that there is an extra public interest requirement upon them because they have been freed from the prospect of personal ruin. Nowadays, we tend to forget about that balance—that bargain—and I just put in a plea that that is not forgotten. There is a bit of a quid pro quo for limited liability when it comes to transparency because you have to protect the public from otherwise unscrupulous people who just willy-nilly go easily bankrupt.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention. In discussions about the Bill, that philosophy has been raised. I may have mentioned on our previous day in Committee—I certainly mentioned it in private—that, given the very large number of companies registered in this country, one has to ask whether they are all necessary for the function that they purport to perform. Many individuals may be better off as sole traders or in other forms of partnership that do not need to go through these registration processes.
I am also aware of the privileges that limited liability offers, as a result of which there is a fair exchange in terms of the amount of information to be released. I absolutely agree with these principles that we have discussed. However, in this specific instance, it is absolutely right to have a thorough and deep consultation to make sure that through our actions we are not prohibiting people from running legitimate businesses and at the same time compromising their personal privacy or security. That is a sensible debate to have. The point, which is not necessarily specific to this amendment, is about the information that we collect. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that we collect the right amount of information so that we can increase fundamental corporate transparency and reduce abuse of the system.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his reply and repetition of some of the remarks he was kind enough to make at our last meeting. He has prompted me to remind the Committee, for the record, of my commercial interests, as noted on the register, which include directorships and shareholdings of micro-entities. I will read Clause 73 again more carefully, and we might return to this on Report if I am not satisfied with that explanation.
On the micro-entity point, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is right. Those bands are correct, but it is two out of three: one could have a small balance sheet and a small number of employees but a huge turnover and be under the net. I was going to make the same point as that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted: that is the bargain that a proprietor of a limited company makes with the public. You are protected by limited liability, but there must be disclosure. In fact, as I understand it, the information has to be prepared and disclosed to HMRC in pretty much the same format, so there is no extra burden in submitting it to Companies House. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for his Amendments 48 and 54, my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton for his Amendments 49 and 51, the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for their Amendment 50A, the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their Amendments 50B and 51A and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his Amendment 52. I hope I have that right. I will try to cover everything in order this time. These amendments all relate to authorised corporate service providers, known as ACSPs. I am grateful for all the contributions to the debate.
I will cover one point made by my noble friend Lord Naseby on the difference between “foreign” and “worldwide”. Foreign is if you are headquartered abroad; worldwide is if you operate in a large number of jurisdictions. I hope that clarifies that point.
I will start with Amendment 48. The question asked was why not? Why not publish the name of the authorised corporate service provider against its verification? One noble Lord suggested that it would be good advertising for the authorised corporate service provider to attach itself. I am sure that many of them will be delighted to attach themselves to noble Lords’ names when they receive the unique identification number. We have to hope that is the case.
I asked that question myself: why not? Why would it not be sensible to have the name of the verifier next to the entry? I would like to have further discussions with noble Lords about how this can be achieved. The Government do not believe that putting this into primary legislation will be helpful, given the complexities around administering this process.
There are also some specific areas where identities need to be kept discreet so there may be complexities around the process of identifying the ACSP in the sense that there would not be a verified identity to—
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
If noble Lords will allow me to continue with my train of thought before intervening, the difficulty I have is in finding too many justifications as to why it would not be sensible for us to have a full consultation on and review of why we do not want to put the name of an ACSP next to the identity that it has verified.
I welcome the input from the Committee and our discussions on this issue but it is not necessarily as simple as accepting this clear amendment. It is important for the Government to make sure that we have not missed anything but, in principle, having a further discussion around this matter and seeing whether there is a way to ensure that the corporate providers can be clearly identified, with the verification of the individuals in Companies House, seems to be something that we should look at very closely.
I have had private conversations with a number of the speakers in today’s Committee proceedings in which I have been clear about what I am trying to achieve, which is exactly this: an increase in transparency; making sure that bad actors are clearly identified; and making sure that patterns of poor behaviour can be measured and assessed effectively. However, I hope that noble Lords will respect my position on the Bill and the amendments that we are discussing, including my reluctance to support this amendment and the other associated amendments in a specific sense. I would want to make sure that we did this right but noble Lords have my commitment to look deeply into the possibility of ensuring that the proposals that have been discussed today are brought to bear in how we manage the verification and listing of ACSPs.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for his qualified support. I would be interested to understand why the Government decided to go along with this recommendation for the overseas entities register and are resisting it, at least to some extent, for the domestic Companies House. I am not sure that I understand why the two things should be different at all.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his interventions. As I said, we are looking forward to having a full discussion about this issue in our proceedings over the next few weeks. From my personal point of view, it is right that there is a higher degree of transparency and it is absolutely right that we should look closely at trying to ensure that the identity of the verifier is also linked to the verification of the identity.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I was interested in the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I have been listening carefully to what my noble friend the Minister has been saying. When we have these further discussions, either in Committee or elsewhere, could he kindly come with a few reasons to support the arguments that he is currently putting forward? I do not get the impression that the cogs are quite meeting here. I know that the Minister is under some constraint because this Bill has been pushed here from the other place by the Secretary of State, but I would be interested in getting to grips with the underlying rationality that supports the words that the Minister is uttering. I do not intend to be rude—I hope that I am not coming across as such; it is probably my fault for being obtuse—but I am missing bits that might encourage me to think that we are moving forward.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble and learned friend for his intervention, as always. I am sorry if my words have not been clear enough. I hope that, over the next few weeks as the Bill proceeds through the House, we will have conversations that will allow us to come to a sensible conclusion on this issue. In trying to justify why we should not publish the name of an ACSP against the verified identity, we will of course provide reasons. The point is that we should have a sensible, legitimate discussion about this. It is not for me at this Dispatch Box to come up with a variety of reasons or excuses because this is an important point that we want to look into with great seriousness.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I can perhaps come partially to the aid of the Minister by pointing out, and I do not want to be partisan, that if for some reason that we are all looking forward to hearing about it is felt that companies which are registering—these ACSPs—are right to be shy about having their name attached, I point out that Amendment 50A requires those companies simply to notify the registrar of how many companies they have registered and the codes that they have used. That will throw up the sorts of patterns that the crime agencies are very interested in. For example, if registering body X has registered 3,000 companies in a year or 300 companies under a particular code which is of interest, that will emerge very quickly from the data, even if it is not necessary for some reason to attach the name of the company to the companies it has registered, which I think, in line with my noble friend Lord Vaux’s amendment, it should be, but I appreciate that we are going to discuss that later. I want to draw to the Minister’s attention that the statistics that will enable those who are interested to focus on what companies are being registered by whom in what sectors would still emerge without having to attach the name of the registration body to the company.
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.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
On that same point, following on from what the Minister said about the vast majority of these organisations being good, trustworthy and so on, is it that the risk of one mistake being associated with them, because their name would be available, means that people would not want to do it? I asked this associated question: what is the consequence or penalty for getting an identification verification wrong? I made the parallel with the rental side of things, where landlords are expected to be able to know whether they are looking at forged documents and that kind of thing. Are we trying to protect the reputations of organisations in case they make the odd mistake but it blows them out of the water? I am still grasping for reasons but I wondered whether that was part of the response. It is the inverse of what the Minister was referencing.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intervention. I do not have an answer to the question as to whether there was concern over reputational damage but I personally do not see that as a particularly significant reason to withhold one’s identity. If you are an auditor of a corporate account, your name is public. As I am sure we have found with some auditors relating to some national political parties, their embarrassment will be palpable but at least it will be public for us all to see.
To answer the noble Baroness’s other point on penalties, just so she is aware, it is an offence falsely to confirm the identity of an individual. I am unable to make comparisons with the private landlord sector but it is very clear that falsely identifying an individual would be a serious offence. That is part of the legislation we are providing for.
On Amendment 50A, I consider that the measures included in and added to the Bill provide a significant amount of transparency. I will come on to discuss that in a moment. To look at the process that allows an individual to become an authorised corporate service provider, they have to be supervised under the money laundering regulations. They are already required under those regulations to take appropriate steps to identify and assess the risk that their customers would have on their business. Although I understand the noble Lord’s intention, I do not think that this is the right place to consider publishing information about risk assessment processes. In our view, it is beyond the role of the registrar to gather and store this information, or to question it.
The right place to consider the quality of risk assessments is through money laundering supervision. Supervisors are already empowered to compel this information and take enforcement action against firms found to be non-compliant. I have well heard the comments around the money laundering process and whether the supervision regime is adequate. A review is being undertaken at the moment, which is raised in one of the amendments we are about to cover. It makes sense to include discussion of how ACSPs are monitored in that review.
I turn to the suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, around standard industrial classification, or SIC, codes and the publication of this information. SIC codes allow Companies House to track what a business does and are used primarily to indicate emerging trends and the strength of the UK economy. I support the noble Lord’s intention to have clear information about the activities that companies are undertaking. Through the Bill, the Government are extending the requirement to provide a SIC code to limited partnerships. As my noble friend Lord Leigh rightly pointed out, such provision is already obligatory for companies. Companies House already runs reports on how SIC codes are being used and will be capable of filtering these to show only the SIC codes of companies that were registered by ACSPs, for example. I therefore consider that requiring ACSPs to provide this information as well would be duplicative.
I also consider it disproportionate to require ACSPs to provide annual reports to the registrar on the SIC codes associated with the companies that they have registered. It is possible that thousands of ACSPs will be registered and it would not be possible for these reports to be regularly monitored. This is a concern in terms of the cost and burden to Companies House.
Furthermore—this is a very relevant point for me that has been made; it does not negate the necessity to assess the process of SICs but it is important in the context of this debate—a company’s SIC code can and often does change. There is a great deal of—I do not necessarily know the right word—greyness about how people classify their business activities. In my investment career, I looked at a tank company that was classified as a consumer discretionary and I saw a military defence business that had a lingerie subsidiary. I am still trying to work out whether that was related to distracting the enemy but the point is that, in many cases, it is very difficult to be absolutely certain about the occupation or classification of a business.
On noble Lords’ comments about companies obfuscating their actions, this amendment does not necessarily provide a solution. It is not necessarily the role of ACSPs or Companies House to determine the specific validity of every claim made; that would be extremely difficult, particularly where there are grey areas around activities. That change may or may not be presented by an ACSP; it would be unreasonable to expect an ACSP to be responsible for monitoring this.
I am therefore not clear what benefits this amendment would bring and request that the noble Lord does not press it, but I am happy to have a further discussion about SIC codes if they fall within the Department for Business and Trade, which they probably do. At the same time, I am happy to have further discussions with noble Lords about the review of money laundering processes and the supervision environment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I very much look forward to those discussions and certainly do not want the reporting burden here to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. However, is the Minister saying that, if we have a problem with companies misallocating their codes, it is up to the company or the registration body to determine the code? If the registration body is deliberately miscoding companies, we have a problem. If companies are foolishly misqualifying themselves, we have a different type of problem. Either way, we have a problem, but the Minister seems to be saying that there is no problem in either case. Could he just confirm that situation?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s intervention. As far as I am aware—I am comfortable to be corrected, as I am surrounded by so many experts in this area—it is the company that classifies itself, rather than the ACSP. If that is not correct, I will certainly come back to noble Lords. I repeat that we are happy to look at the issue of industry classification, which is very important in understanding the growth of the economy, new industry classifications and how businesses are performing, at the very least—separate from the opportunity it will give Companies House to assess high-risk areas.
I understand Amendment 50B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, but I cannot support it. Information on the money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with the TCSP—trust or company service provider—sector is already published in the national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing. Risk assessment undertaken by firms on their clients can be shared with money laundering supervisors who are responsible for reviewing them as part of their supervision of TCSP policies, controls and procedures.
With respect to the proposal to provide information about the fees that they charge, I remind noble Lords that ACSPs are themselves businesses or consultants which are a part of a market economy. In our view, it would not be reasonable to expect ACSPs to disclose this information. There is nothing in the Bill which would oblige an individual to have their identity verified by an ACSP. Individuals will be at liberty to decide whether to pay any fee that an ACSP decides to charge, or to use the service that will be provided by Companies House. I am confident that, if a prospective customer considers an ACSP’s fees too high, we can trust them to vote with their feet.
Amendment 51A, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is well intentioned. To some extent, we have already covered this, but I will go through these points to make sure that we are complete. I do not agree that the amendment would add value. There are over 600 SIC codes which are used to inform economic trends. Trying to adapt their usage for the purpose of fighting economic crime is unlikely to be successful. I am unclear as to how the Government would determine which SIC codes would be classified as “high risk” or how they could be applied fairly. Perfectly legitimate lower-risk businesses would almost certainly be inappropriately labelled high-risk. I hope that I have covered the other points relating to standard industrial classification codes.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Bennett, for Amendment 54. As I said, I hope that I have covered the points raised in enough detail to satisfy noble Lords present today that there will be a significant amount of work and inquiry in relation to that amendment.
Amendment 49, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew of Oulton, is about blocking the use of ACSPs until HMT’s supervisory reforms have taken place. It would be disproportionate to block all ACSPs from carrying out identity checks while the Treasury works through its reforms to the supervisory regime, which, as I said, I hope will conclude around the summer of this year. It would have a disproportionate effect on the thousands of high street accountants and solicitors, and their business clients, who operate entirely legitimately. I remind the noble Lord that ACSPs will be required to carry out checks to at least the same standard as the registrar and that she will keep an audit trail of their activity and will be able to query any activity that she thinks suspicious. She will be able to share information with the ACSP’s supervisor and suspend or deauthorise an ACSP, preventing it from conducting identity verification.
A delay in allowing ACSPs to carry out identity checks could also impact other areas of reform; for example, limited partnerships will be required to make certain filings via an ACSP and may wish to have their identity checks done simultaneously by an ACSP. The Bill already provides in Clause 65for secondary legislation to be made which would allow spot checks to be carried out by the registrar under Section 1098H. I am confident that, if any rogue agents slip through the net, they will soon be spotted by Companies House, which will have the powers to take appropriate action. In all honesty, I see no merit in delaying ACSPs making identity checks and beginning this important process of bringing transparency and clarity to the register at Companies House.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Does the Minister think that there is a case for there being some form of regulation of ACSPs, or does he think that that is not needed?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention, as with all interventions today. The ACSPs are already supervised by the money laundering supervisory authority. Should there be a discussion over some type of more effective oversight of ACSPs, in the view of this Committee? We will no doubt discuss that in the future. But as it stands, they are regulated and if any noble Lord is involved with such a business—if they have a financial services business or have been involved in financial services—they will know the strength of the regulator and the fear in which decent, law-abiding firms hold their regulator when it comes to enacting the necessary practices to perform their duties and tasks.
The final amendment that I have in my notes is Amendment 52, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. It would require a report on foreign ACSPs to be made one year after this Act is passed. I do not consider this amendment to be necessary, the main reason being that colleagues in the other place have already agreed to the addition of Clause 187, requiring the Secretary of State to prepare reports on the implementation and operation of Parts 1 to 3 of the Bill and to lay a copy of them before Parliament within six months of the Act being passed and every 12 months thereafter. Since authorised corporate service providers are provided for in Part 1, they should already be captured.
For the reasons given, therefore, I do not support these amendments. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, to withdraw Amendment 48.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Captivated as I was by the Minister’s mellifluous tones, I am not quite clear if he is saying that he is prepared to write to us about proposals for SIC codes or to meet us or both. I totally accept that it is within the scope of the Bill and certainly within the scope of the purpose of the Bill, but it is an extra exercise, an extra burden. None the less, I wonder whether he feels it is something he could take on.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this point, and I hope I have not overpromised. Personally, I am very keen to make sure that every part of the Bill is discussed and I am very happy to ensure that the comments we have raised in this debate today are passed on to the right office, which in this case is the Office for National Statistics, which falls under the Treasury rather than the Department for Business and Trade. I am sure it will welcome involving itself in this discussion.
I would like to make a correction: the consultation on the money laundering oversight regime will begin in the summer, not conclude in the summer. I apologise for that.
Lord Fox (LD)
I do not want the Minister to leave this process with the concept that we are entirely satisfied with his answer on the regulation of ACSPs because of the multiplicity of those regulators and, frankly, the variability of those regulators, never mind the absence of any structure or template, which the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, suggests. I hope the Minister can continue to keep that in his list of things to think about at the end of this session.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Will the Minister clarify something? I am sorry that I hesitated, but I am sort of in shock. Has the Minister just told us that he is not going to have consultations with us about so many of these points, but we are going to be talking with the Office for National Statistics about them?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I hope that the noble Lord did not misunderstand my point. I think I referenced the fact that I assumed that SICs would fall under the Department for Business and Trade, but it turns out that that is not the case. I was mistaken in my knowledge of departmental structures and it turns out that they are under the Office for National Statistics, which is under the Treasury, so it would be wrong for me to suggest too much consultation on account of the fact that that is not my department. However, I have committed to making sure that we have further discussions around this. It is clearly very important, and if we are to make the function of SICs work properly, they need to be seen as effective and useful, so I am very comfortable to commit to ensure that a suitable discussion is held around that. I would be delighted to make sure that the relevant officials are brought before noble Lords to have a further discussion around how that can possibly be effected, but clearly I cannot commit another department to a specific activity.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Will the Minister be joining those discussions or is he absenting himself from them?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the point. I very much look forward to those discussions. I would have to be dragged away from such discussions, unless it turns out that it would be inappropriate that I should attend any part of them.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I cannot promise to drag the Minister anywhere, but I, too, look forward to those discussions.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
The Minister very comprehensively dismissed my amendments, but earlier in the debate he committed to thinking much more carefully about bringing much more transparency to the regime that oversees ACSPs. I just want to make sure that is the case. I also want to offer a couple more anecdotes about why I believe this is so important.
The former chief executive of HMRC Sir Jonathan Thompson questioned the role of HMRC in regulating these people. He did not understand, or was not prepared to accept, that anti-money laundering duties were part of the core activities of HMRC. I gave earlier examples of the failings of oversight by HMRC. The Financial Action Task Force review stated that there were “significant weaknesses” among all supervisors, and specifically recommended that HMRC should consider
“how to ensure appropriate intensity of supervision”.
My point is that Companies House is going to be relying on what I believe to be a broken regulator at the moment. I am not suggesting that we create a new regulator, but that is why the risk assessment in Amendment 51 is so important. Who is minding the minders? At the moment, nobody seems to be. It is all moving at a glacially slow pace, and we keep being told that everything is okay, but I do not think that everything is okay. I accept that the protocol is that I do not move my amendment, but I would like a slightly stronger commitment from my noble friend that he really is going to kick the tyres on this and lift a few drain covers, if I can mangle my metaphors.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate my noble friend’s mixed metaphors. I hope I have been clear that the process of making sure that the ACSPs operate in an environment that is trusted and clear is at the root of much of the activity we are discussing today. I will certainly make myself available for further inquiry but, as I hope I have made clear, ACSPs are regulated by the money laundering supervisory authorities and a review of that important process will begin in the summer.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this fairly long debate for their support. Once again, consensus seems to have broken out in the Committee, which must be a good thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, dramatically set out the scale of this problem. We all stand around it. Like him and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I must confess that I thought the Minister was rather complacent in his views on the efficacy of the anti-money laundering regulations as they stand. The Treasury review is welcome; it has been hanging around and talked about for quite a long time now. The fact that it is only starting in the summer is somewhat alarming. We need to fix what is a broken system. In talking to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, it surprised me by telling me that the vast majority of accountancy firms are not regulated by it. This is not consistent and really does not work well; it is an area that we have to improve.
At the outset of today’s debate, the Minister said that he is open to constructive and practical suggestions for improvement. We are all grateful for that. In this group, we have a number of simple suggestions that would add little or no burden on either the registrar or business and could make a genuine practical difference. The Minister was quite right when he said that the vast majority of ACSPs are diligent and honest, and that it is an important industry. It is worth repeating that. I am sure that that vast majority would like to see the poor minority driven out of the business so that it stops giving it a bad name.
I am disappointed that the Minister cannot accept some or all of these amendments today, I must say, but I am grateful for his confirmation that he will consider them seriously. I look forward to the promised discussions that he has agreed to have. On that basis, for now—although I am absolutely certain that we will come back to this issue on Report—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Garnier (Con)
We had a great deal of fun working out which part of the identified person’s anatomy should form the main part of the photograph. I am happy to say that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has obviously learned from that hideous experience. This seems an altogether better set of proposals.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for Amendment 50. As has been discussed, it seeks to require that the new identity verification process includes the use of photographic ID issued by a recognised authority. Although I welcome our shared ambition to ensure that identity verification will be a robust process, I am concerned about noble Lords’ proposed approach to limit the acceptable documents in primary legislation. Under Clause 64 of the Bill, the procedure for identity verification, including what evidence will be required, will be set out in secondary legislation.
I apologise, as always, for not answering noble Lords’ questions. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, raised how I dodged his question the first time. I hope I am not dodging it a second time but I would be delighted to write to noble Lords with some further information on the specific detail that is required for identity verification. Let me be very clear: we assume that it will include a photograph. However, I will come on to explain why that may not necessarily be the case in every instance.
Setting this out in secondary legislation will allow for flexibility and ensure that the technical detail of the identity verification process can be adapted to meet evolving industry standards and technological developments. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations via the affirmative procedure. I assure noble Lords that, for the majority of individuals, photographic ID will be used. The primary identity verification route will be via the so-called “selfie verification” method, which will involve the person providing documents such as a passport or driving licence. The person undergoing identity verification will take a photograph or scan of their face—my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier may be pleased by this specificity—and the identifying document. The two will be compared using likeness-matching technology, and the identity verified.
However, I am concerned that the proposed amendment would exclude individuals who do not have photographic ID. Restricting the acceptable documents could inadvertently discriminate against a number of people and raises equality concerns. For example, would it be fair for the law to prevent individuals setting up a company simply because they do not have a passport or a driving licence? Should an individual who has owned the freehold of their home for decades via a company now be forced to apply for photographic ID despite there being no other statutory requirement to have one? This is why, for individuals who cannot provide such documentation, there will be alternative options available. I assure the Committee that these will be robust and proportionate.
Most importantly, all providers will conduct checks in line with the cross-government identity proofing framework—the GPG 45—which will be comparable to verification checks conducted elsewhere in government. Under the GPG 45 framework, a combination of non-photographic documents, including government, financial and social history documents, can be accepted to achieve a good-level assurance of identity. ID documentation from an authoritative source such as the financial sector or local authorities is also recognised under the cross-government identity proofing framework and is routinely used to build a picture of identity.
For the reasons I have set out, I hope that noble Lords will understand the philosophy of my approach and agree that requiring in primary legislation that an individual provide official photographic ID to verify their identity would be unnecessarily restrictive and potentially unfair. I am afraid that I must therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that serious answer to the amendment that I have just moved. I am also grateful that he has said that the Government’s intention is to harmonise the identity-checking methods across a number of different parts of the government process, if I can put it like that. I acknowledge that the technology for identifying individuals is evolving and that photography itself is not the end of the story; that part of the identification process is evolving as well. I will reflect on the Minister’s answer to that point. I need to look at other pieces of legislation and see whether the way in which identity is going to be checked is explicitly put on the face of the Bill in other Bills. Nevertheless, as I have said, I thank the Minister for the serious way in which he has answered the points that I have raised. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I will speak briefly on this amendment because key to it is: what is the purpose of the unique identifier? Perhaps like the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I thought that it was like the resource identifier that you use for searching. I know that if you search on my name, you do not find all my directorships. I keep amending my name to try to make sure that they are all the same, but you still cannot find them in Companies House, so I was thinking that it was a better way than names of finding out all the companies that people were involved in, and so on.
I can see that, if it is more of a login approach, that might be different, but that then begs the question: is there not a better way of identifying companies and individuals that works on the searches? If you are searching to see whether somebody is doing something in a different company, or how many directorships they have, simply going by name means that too often there are minor variations, and it will not flag up what you are looking for. Like the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I am curious about what the purpose of this identifier is, and therefore why it is confidential.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his Amendment 53. Unique identifiers are unique codes allocated on an individual basis. The Bill will allow unique identifiers to support the effective operation of identity verification, such as allowing Companies House to link an individual’s verified identity across multiple roles and companies. I like to look at it as operating as a username. That is important; it is not a public but a private number that the individual will have allocated to them.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, that this amendment is not necessary to achieve the objectives that they have described—although I am concerned about the noble Baroness’s difficulty in tracing herself in the records of Companies House. This will be a good test as to whether the systems work. Companies House will be making changes to how members of the public view the register so that, although the unique identifiers themselves will not be public, it will be possible to see accurately connections between individuals and entities. That is the central point of the reforms being made to Companies House. This includes how many companies for which an individual is a director or person with significant control.
From my own experience of using the Companies House database, I come up under the various different forms of my name: D Johnson, Dominic Johnson, DRA Johnson or whatever it may be. It works in that instance, but it is absolutely right for noble Lords to be concerned about whether the system will work. We have undertaken to make sure that it does. It is the cornerstone of our activities and everything that the Bill points towards.
Regulations made under Section 1082 will govern the use of unique identifiers. We intend to prevent individuals from having more than one unique identifier, as the name denotes, and anyone submitting a statement with an incorrect unique identifier will commit a false filing offence. Furthermore, the primary purpose of a unique identifier is to allow its owner to communicate securely and privately with Companies House; as I said, it should be looked upon as a username. Unique identifiers can be considered personal data so making them public could expose the registrar to data protection breach risks, in the same way that it would be inappropriate to publish individuals’ national insurance numbers.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the registrar to require a person to provide information not only to determine whether the document is properly delivered but more generally to determine whether it is a document that must be registered.
“(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring the registrar— (a) not to make available for public inspection any information on the register relating to an individual;(b) to refrain from disclosing information on the register relating to an individual except in specified circumstances.”Member’s explanatory statement
This allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the registrar to refrain from using or disclosing information relating to an individual irrespective of whether the individual makes an application.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I intended to sign Amendment 72, but I was beaten in the stampede to support it, which must in itself say something about the quality of the amendment. Amendment 64 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is very similar. Like others, I think that both include important elements and it would be great to try to combine the best of both when we get to Report.
I shall not repeat what has already been said, but it does seem that adding this level of transparency into the system must help in ensuring that we have got this right. During the debates on ECB 1, the previous economic crime Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan said:
“When we introduced the provisions on PSCs—persons with significant control—in relation to UK companies, we had to make some iterative changes to that, as it became evident over time that aspects were not working as effectively as we had hoped”.—[Official Report, 14/3/22; col. 44.]
The best way to see if things are not working as effectively as we had hoped is transparency and reporting, so I hope the Minister can accept this very simple and sensible amendment to promote that level of transparency.
With permission, I will make one addition to the list of items to report on set out in the amendment. Given the importance of the ACSPs to the process, as we discussed in the previous group, I think it would be useful to include some statistics on the number of ACSPs that have approved, both UK and foreign, who they are regulated by and the number which are suspended. With that addition, I add my support to these amendments.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
As always, I offer my thanks to noble Lords for their participation and to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their Amendment 64. I also thank my noble friend Lord Agnew, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for their Amendment 72—if I have got that correct. These amendments address reporting requirements in similar ways and are very relevant and important.
I agree that it is important that Parliament is informed about the implementation and delivery of these reforms. That is why the other place agreed to add an amendment to this effect on Report, which noble Lords have discussed. Companies House already reports on many of the items set out in these new amendments and, in many cases, actually goes much further, either through its annual report or via quarterly and annual statistical releases. Legislating to duplicate this, given the new reporting duty at Clause 187, seems unnecessary.
It is important that any report is holistic and of use to Parliament and the wider public. It should provide the necessary context to facilitate an informed view of performance, which would be difficult based solely on the raw data that these amendments propose. However, I agree that some of the new items of data identified in these amendments could be of interest. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, raised some specific points, which I believe are already covered in part in some of the quarterly filings. In any event, if they are not, they are certainly worthy of discussion. I am happy to explore with Companies House officials how they might incorporate these into their reporting without the need for this statutory requirement.
It may be worth returning to some of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to cover some of the key points raised. Under Amendment 72, each report must
“provide annual data on … the number of cases referred by the registrar to law enforcement bodies and anti-money-laundering supervisors”.
As I understand it, this is already enabled via the Commons amendment and is expected to be included. Also in Amendment 72, each report must provide annual data on
“the total number of company incorporations to the registrar, and the number of company incorporations by authorised corporate service providers to the registrar”.
These incorporations are published quarterly via the statistical release. The amendment says that each report must
“detail all instances in which exemption powers have been used by the Secretary of State”—
which is also covered by the government amendment—and
“confirm that the registrar has sufficient financial resources to meet its objectives”.
The registrar’s resources will continue to come from fees, which will be set according to how much activity Ministers want to be undertaken. Also, each report must
“provide annual data on … the number of companies that have been struck off by the registrar”
and
“the number and value of fines”.
Removals from the register are already reported on quarterly. The number and value of late-filing penalties are published in annual management information tables.
That just gives the Committee reassurance that there is already a great deal of detail published, and we will be looking to publish more. I look forward to a discussion with noble Lords on specific areas that we can cover; I am sure that my officials are looking forward to those discussions. This is all about the sort of data we provide that allows us to run an effective and transparent company system in this country. But I am very reluctant to legislate specifically, according to these amendments, given what I have said and our commitment to making sure that we are publishing useful information.
I will cover the comments from some of your Lordships relating to the supposed sunsetting of requirements to report. As I understand it—I may have misunderstood, but I hope I have not—the purpose of the clauses on six-month and annual reporting relates to the implementation of changes in Companies House that will bring it up to the standards at which we wish to see it operating. At that point, the reports will be included in annual and/or regular reports. It is not that reporting ends, but that it becomes commonplace to report on the data rather than necessarily on the changes that we are instigating to Companies House. I am happy to clarify that further, if my description was not accurate enough.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
Clause 187 says
“on the implementation and operation”.
Therefore, I hoped there would be ongoing commentary and reporting on the operation. I accept that the sunset clause implies that it is about transient stuff, but if the operation—it must be the ongoing operation because it might break down; we do not know—is included in other reports, I would be satisfied. If it is not, I suggest that we need to keep Clause 187 going.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Baroness’s point. As I said, the sunsetting effectively becomes business as usual, which is provided for to enable Companies House to report according to the criteria that have been established. I am happy to discuss what data it is useful to provide. That is a very important and relevant point. My assumption is that it will evolve over time to some extent, but we can be pretty comfortable that a great deal of information is already provided. It might be useful for us to assess that and then engage in further discussions with officials. We are very open-minded on the data provided. I am reluctant to legislate for this, since we are trying to make data useful rather than simply a legislative process.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
Is the Minister suggesting that he will clarify the noble Baroness’s point? The wording in Clause 187(1) it quite specific in saying “operation”. Is he saying that he wants this to drop away as part of the sunset clause, but that another report will endure and he will discuss it with us to ensure that it is fit for purpose for the longer term?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I believe we will have further discussions on that point, yes.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
When the Minister replied to me he used the word “data” rather than “operation”. There is a difference between data and operation. This might not be something that he can instantly resolve, but the ongoing concern is about not just the data but the operation of Companies House. Those are two different things.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that point. There are two separate components to that, one of which is the data and/or requirements tabled in these amendments, which are relevant to understanding the activities of Companies House and ensuring that we have a comprehensive assessment of what they are. The second point is that there is the assumption that, over the next six or seven years, Companies House will have reached its operational capability to deliver on providing the relevant data, so we have a good deal of time to assess whether that has been achieved. There is a potential for Companies House to achieve its ambitions before 2030, at which point it would settle into business as usual reporting.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, this discussion about how we fight economic crime would be an awful lot easier and better informed if we had seen the Government’s national fraud strategy, which I believe was supposed to be with us at the back end of last year. Perhaps the Minister might like to find out when we might finally see it.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships, as always, for this very passionate debate. I am struck, after however many pleasant hours we have been together debating in Committee, by the convinced passion and determination of Peers on all sides. An Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill might be considered a dry, technical matter for specific and weighty thought, but the reality is that this is an emotive subject. It is important for all noble Lords to know the Government’s shared passion for stamping out illegal activity and economic crime in this country. From my point of view, it is extremely costly to the economy to enable financial crime to be enacted in the UK. It is not invisible, and every crime has a victim. I hope all noble Lords understand that my personal passion and that of the Government are allied in trying to make a Bill that is practical, will achieve its goals and will allow businesses to flourish.
I would also like to apologise. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned the meeting which many officials here attended yesterday. I was unable to attend that meeting, for which I sent my apologies. That was the only morning that I have been away in the past six months. I hope all noble Lords will feel comfortable in contacting me directly to arrange further formal or informal meetings.
I now turn to the amendments. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their Amendment 65 on fees and penalties. I also thank my noble friend Lord Agnew, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baroness, Baroness Bowles, for their Amendments 69, 70, 71, which address the economic crime fund and the retention of fees by economic crime enforcement agencies. I also thank my noble friend Lady Altmann for her Amendment 106E on fees and an economic crime fund.
I shall attend initially to the fees and penalties element. The level of Companies House fees has been the subject of much speculation, and I know from our conversations and the amendments in this group that noble Lords have a significant interest in this. At no point do the Government believe, or could anyone in all seriousness believe, that £12 is a reasonable amount for setting up a company. People have suggested that if a commercial organisation cannot afford whatever arbitrary figure one may wish to pick—it could be £50, £100, £150 or £500—for the creation of a limited liability company, it should question whether a limited liability company is the right structure in which to operate.
However, it is very important that fees are set via regulations and that the Government have flexibly over the right level of fee, which has not yet been established. I was grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for confirming his view that that is the most appropriate way to set fees. The fee will be determined following an analysis and appraisal of the volume of investigation and enforcement activity to be undertaken, the associated cost base, the timelines for recruitment and systems development and other factors which we have raised in this important debate. We are currently finalising our modelling but are increasingly confident that we can fully fund the reforms, including creating around 400 new roles at Companies House, while keeping fees low. Current estimates from Companies House suggest fees of no more than around £50.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the annual administration fee. There is an establishment fee for setting up a company and then there is an annual fee, which is currently £13—it is more expensive to register your firm annually than it is to set it up in the first place. I am not entirely sure how we reached those figures, but we are not looking to enshrine a minimum level of fee in primary legislation because to do so would severely restrict flexibility which may be required at a future date. Fees will continue to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they are providing the level of funding that Companies House needs. Companies House is able to retain incorporation fee income under current arrangements between it and HM Treasury, with the arrangement reviewed periodically. That is important. The current intention is that the fees will be used to pay for Companies House, so a raised fee is absolutely right. It is estimated to be used for the functioning of Companies House.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
Will my noble friend clarify the annual filing fee? He mentioned that the one-off fee will go up to around £50. Can he give us any sense about the second fee? I think it is more important because it is regular income. I think the stock of new companies will drop because of this legislation. It will stop very small actors, as we have discussed—the plumber, the painter or whatever—and bad actors will not come in, so annual new registrations will drop, but that is why the filing fee is very important. Will the Minister give the Committee some indication?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend. We do not have an estimate for the annual registration fee so I would not like to speculate on it, but clearly it would be raised to a level commensurate with the £50 initial fee. The Government set the fee levels, as is appropriate under legislation, but they will come from the recommendation from Companies House. We will look very closely to ensure that it has enough income to perform the functions that we want it to perform. I do not think it is anything more complicated than that.
I have had many enjoyable debates about what the fee should be. To some extent, we can enjoy those debates but they are slightly speculative. What is important is that the Government have the flexibility to ensure that the right level of fee is charged and to change that if necessary. I do not think that anyone in this Committee would disagree fundamentally with that principle. Setting a minimum fee level does not seem reasonable, given the flexibility that we wish to retain.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
Can my noble friend explain to the Committee what advantage the Government believe would flow from having low fees for incorporation? There seems to be an idea that we need to raise it to £50 only, as though there is some benefit in having a low fee—I am not sure in what terms, given that the EU average is €300, the US cost is between $570 and $1,400 and the BVI charge £1,000. In the Government’s view, why would there be an objection to going with the Treasury Select Committee recommendation, for example, of at least £100? It would not mean that they could not charge more. It seems to be the general view of the Committee that £100 would not be an unreasonable minimum, at least, for this incorporation fee. The annual fee can always be set in a different way.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate my noble friend’s intervention. It is probably a good thing that we will be cheaper than the EU when it comes to registering a company; we could call it a Brexit dividend. Without being facetious, this is about giving the Government flexibility to ensure that they charge the right amount. I have no personal view on whether it should be £75, £100 or £125; we can have this debate all evening, and I have great sympathy with it. The point is that I do not believe that anyone in this Committee is suggesting a significant change in the volume of cost for either establishing a business or registering it, so it is absolutely right that we should consult widely and make sure both that the right amount is charged and that we have the flexibility to change it one way or the other, if appropriate.
Lord Fox (LD)
This has turned into something of a Dutch auction. We have lost sight of the purpose of this group of amendments, which is to look through the telescope from the other end. This is about enforcement: how much money will be needed by the enforcement authorities to enforce the Act? Does the Minister agree that the current level of enforcement with the current legislation is inadequate? If so, what will change to fund the organisations to create adequate enforcement? If it will not happen through the measures being discussed in this group of amendments, how will it? That point was made by various noble Lords in the Committee. It is the nub of the answer that we are seeking from the Minister.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. If I may, I will come to my conclusion before answering those important points. The Government need to continue setting fees via regulations. I would personally be very reluctant to try to set any minimum floor. The assumption will be that the right amount of fees will be set and they will be higher than currently charged. Estimates from Companies House suggest around £50. We are happy to have discussions about that as we go forward but I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
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.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with the Home Office practice on this. The Home Office has a very clear practice of full-cost charging for visas for entry to this country. I think it now costs £2,000 to £3,000, for example, for the spouse of a British citizen returning to this country to get settled status in Britain. If some parts of government are now insisting on full recovery of costs, perhaps this is a model that could be applied here as well.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord; that is exactly what I am saying. The whole point about the fees is that they are charged in order to pay for Companies House; that is precisely the same principle. Unless I have misunderstood the intervention, this goes directly against the amendment that introduces a fund that has to be paid for by the fees levied on people who are setting up companies or annually registering.
I want to attend to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. He said—rightly—that the whole point of this legislation is not to profit or make money from it but to stop the bad practice happening in the first place. The fines and penalties to be issued by Companies House are designed to drive a change in behaviour, not be a revenue-raising tool. I was grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for raising the point around how these fines could or should be used. It is possible to suggest that the same situation happens with speed cameras. The theory there is that we want to reduce speed on the roads, not raise revenue—at least, that is my personal opinion.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I do not have an interest to declare there, I might add. Using fines to fund other activities results in the perverse scenario of that funding being dependent on behaviour that we are actively trying to stop. I strongly believe that, in many ways, the principles we are talking about are negated by a well-intentioned concept: trying to make sure that there is enough money so that our law enforcement agencies are properly funded in order to achieve their ambitions.
Given the limitations that I have set out—this goes to the point about providing a report—I am not convinced that there would be merit in providing a report on the prospect of a fund or, indeed, providing for a fund. I hope that noble Lords understand my conclusion here.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I am sorry to intervene but I just want to say something. The Minister agreed with all of us that the crime-fighting agencies need to be properly funded but he did not explain how that will happen because he does not accept that we should hypothecate. He gave some good examples of other situations where it was about not the hypothecation but the use of revenue for activities that were not part of the original source and funding litigation. In June last year, the Information Commissioner announced a new arrangement with DCMS in which it could keep some of its civil monetary penalties to fund it to take on large technology companies. All I am trying to do is ensure that we will have the resources to take on these bad actors.
The Minister and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier mentioned ARIS. As I said earlier, the funding has declined by 35% in five years—that is without inflation—yet the problem is getting worse. I do not expect the Minister to come back to us on this tonight but I am looking for some reassurance around how we are going to fund these things properly because we are not doing so at the moment. Everybody seems to be in denial and the Minister has offered me no assurances that we are going to deal with this.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly appreciate my noble friend’s intervention. I hope that I have made clear to the Committee the importance that this Government place on fighting economic crime.
If I may—I am not sure of the protocol—I wish to question my noble friend’s intervention. He said that the asset recovery incentivisation scheme has seen a considerable drop in the monies deployed to law enforcement over the recent period. However, I have a figure here: since 2006-07, just under £1.3 billion—that is based on nominal values and not adjusted for inflation—has been returned to Proceeds of Crime Act agencies to fund further asset recovery capability and work that protects the public from harm. In 2021-22, £354 million was recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act, of which £298 million was paid into the ARIS pot. So I certainly will research the figures given to me by my noble friend.
The point is that we are looking to provide funding of £400 million over the spending review in order to focus on fighting economic crime. I am happy to have further debates around this issue but I hope that I have made my point in relation to these amendments, minimum fee levels and creating a fund out of the fees, which would be completely contrary to the ambitions that we have set in our legislation around Companies House.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I have to say that there is a bit of work to be done on this group of amendments before Report. The Minister certainly failed to convince me and I am sure he failed to convince many, if not everyone, on the Committee. There is a real problem here. There is a problem with raising the fee and what it should be. The Government say that it is a matter for us and then came up with the figure of £50, which I think is inadequate. There we go; there clearly needs to be discussion about that on Report. I take the point that a number of noble Lords have made that the fee is not just to fight economic crime but for the additional responsibilities that Companies House will have. That is very clear.
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) require a company to refrain from using, or refrain from disclosing, relevant PSC particulars except in circumstances specified in the regulations;(b) confer power on the registrar, on application, to make an order requiring a company to refrain from using, or refrain from disclosing, relevant PSC particulars except in circumstances specified in the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This brings the drafting of the amendments made by Clause 89 into line with the drafting of the amendment to Clause 49, page 33, line 19 that appears in the Minister’s name.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Lord Johnson of Lainston ExcerptsMonday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-I(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (27 Mar 2023)
Member’s explanatory statement
Objective 2 currently focuses on the accuracy and completeness of documents delivered to the registrar. The amendment would expand it to refer to the accuracy and completeness of the register more generally. This would, for example, be relevant not only to the acceptance of documents for registration but also to their removal.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests as set out in the register, including as a director and person with significant control of AMP Ventures Ltd and as a person with significant control and shareholder of several other companies. I do not believe that any of these is prejudicial to my role in today’s debate. If anything, they increase my passion for the important objectives of this Bill: strengthening the UK’s business environment for the law-abiding majority while closing the doors to rogue actors.
This Bill will deliver significant reforms to the role of Companies House, making the biggest change to our system of registering companies in over 170 years. It makes significant amendments to the Companies Act 2006, the largest single Act on the statute book. It will affect the more than 500,000 companies established every year in the UK and the 5 million companies currently on the register, which have grown from 3.5 million since the last major company transparency reforms in 2015. That is quite a significant amount and no doubt bears the attention deserved in this debate.
It is therefore vital that these reforms are designed and implemented properly, both so that law enforcement can undertake its responsibilities effectively and to ensure that they benefit business and that any burdens are proportionate. I am confident that the Bill will achieve this balance and set a sensible framework that works for the benefit of businesses while bearing down on those who seek to abuse our open economy.
If noble Lords will allow, I will express my gratitude to Members in the other place, who greatly contributed to the scrutiny and improvement of this Bill as it passed through their House, not least the honourable Members for Feltham and Heston, for Aberavon and for Glasgow Central, the right honourable Member for Barking and my honourable friends the Members for Barrow and Furness and for Weston-super-Mare.
I am also grateful to Members of this House for their invaluable contributions at Second Reading and for the further views that many of them have provided since to me and my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I see that several of them will speak to amendments today. I am also grateful for the constructive engagement of Members on the Opposition Front Bench throughout and look forward to continuing to work with them. It strikes me that all the amendments proposed today and all the work we have done across this House have the same intentions. That is important. We are working together to create a better company system in this country. My thanks also go to my noble friend Lord Callanan for all his past work on these reforms as the previous Minister for this Bill, to Minister Hollinrake, my colleague at the Department for Business and Trade, and to the Security Minister for bringing this Bill through the other place so effectively.
I very much look forward to the constructive debate that we will have over the coming weeks. I am sure that all noble Lords are as keen as I am to get this important legislation on to the statute book, including delivering the long-awaited reforms to Companies House that we will discuss today. As I set out at Second Reading, I hope that all noble Lords are fully aware of the opportunity before us to make a hugely meaningful difference to businesses, law enforcement and our citizens. I trust that we can count on the continued support of the House to deliver this.
I am delighted to be starting Committee by talking to government Amendments 1, 3 and 56, which amend Clauses 1 and 81. I will start with Amendments 1 and 3. The new registrar objectives introduced by Clause 1 are a key aspect of this Bill. They are designed to empower the registrar and the activities of Companies House, acting as a clear and purposeful signal of the manner in which new and existing powers under the Companies Act will be exercised. They will embolden Companies House to be the proactive gatekeeper that many have long wished it to become.
Government amendments 1 and 3 are designed to expand the scope and reach of one of the objectives. Amendment 1 should be warmly welcomed by those who have criticised Companies House as merely the repository of an accumulation of inaccurate, misleading and potentially fraudulent information. While powers in the Bill allow the registrar to revisit and, where appropriate, remove information that ought never to have found its way on to the register that she holds, this amendment will make it absolutely clear that she must endeavour to address that historical legacy.
Amendment 3 recognises and addresses the fact that the registrar is the custodian of registers other than the register of companies. Objective 2 already puts a duty on the registrar to seek to promote the accuracy of information that is already on, or delivered with a view to being put on, the register and to seek to ensure that the register contains everything that it ought to contain. This amendment makes it explicitly clear that this applies to all the registers that she keeps, such as the register of persons of significant control and the register of overseas entities.
Government amendment 56 expands on the registrar’s new ability, introduced by Clause 81, to require information to be provided to her in order for her to determine certain matters. Importantly, it will allow the registrar to require information to determine not only whether the documents delivered to her meet the “proper delivery” requirements in respect of such things as content, form, authentication and manner of delivery but whether the underlying trigger event for the filing has really happened. For example, this amendment will ensure that the registrar can compel the production of information to determine whether a form sent in to report the appointment of a director was genuinely triggered by a real appointment and was not simply a fraudulent attempt to dupe the registrar into recording an appointment that never happened. I beg to move Amendment 1 and hope that noble Lords will support Amendments 3 and 56.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, before opening this debate, I advise the Grand Committee that, if Amendment 1 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment 2, due to pre-emption.
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.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I really thank noble Lords for their contributions. Not for the first time in this House I am surrounded by people who know far more than I do about the subject, with business gurus such as my noble friend Lord Leigh, who gave us the benefit of his many decades of wisdom. It is extremely helpful. As I say, everything that has been said today is mirrored in the emphasis of the Government’s broad objectives, so we are working collaboratively here. I hope your Lordships do not mind me going through each different point—I hope I can answer them all.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I just interrupt the Minister before he goes much further. I have been listening very carefully to what he has to say, but he seemed to imply that a risk-based approach could lead to box-ticking. Surely, a risk-based approach is the very antithesis of box-ticking.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate that intervention. Our view is that if we legislate specifically for a risk-based approach, on top of what we believe is already a risk-based approach, we are not achieving our goals. The concern from the Government’s point of view—and mine, as someone who has registered companies with Companies House—is that you end up box-checking. The Bill is designed to ensure that the registrar is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the register and minimising criminal activity. In my view, those are the core functions of the registrar and the activity of Companies House, so we already have what one would describe as a risk-based approach built in. We feel very comfortable that this ambition, which is what this is all about, is well built into the legislation and will be the core function of the registrar—this is the essence of it—and we believe this to be well represented. Clearly, the ambition of the registrar will be to take a risk-based approach to her activities. We may be arguing over the same point, but I take it very seriously and am happy to consider it with more thought. As I said, this has been drafted effectively to encompass the concepts and points raised by noble Lords.
I believe I have covered most of the points raised. My last point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones: we are trying to create the registrar as a proactive gatekeeper. That is at the core of the Bill’s ambition. We welcome input on how we can ensure this is done more specifically.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, if my noble friend wants my amendment not to be moved, would it be possible for the registrar to write to us to explain her philosophy and how she is going to make this huge change to delivering a risk-based approach? I am very reassured by his comments, but having been in the trenches of government for 12 years, I just know that the reality is a long way from wise words in a process such as this. A simple letter to us saying, “This is my philosophy, what I am doing and how I am training people to cope with this enormous change”, would be very reassuring.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that comment, and I entirely agree that it would be extremely useful to have such a letter from the registrar. I take very seriously the comments about a cultural change at Companies House. We should be aware of where we are coming from. Not to repeat or labour the point, but Companies House is today simply a repository for information; it could practically be a static website. Having said that, in the conversations that I have had with Companies House, I have been very impressed by the tone of the officials I have spoken to there in terms of their determination to crack down on criminal activity around companies and Companies House. They currently make referrals to law enforcement agencies; they are not blind to the issues that present themselves, but they do not have the powers to do what we want them to do.
This Bill gives the registrar and her agents the concomitant powers to execute exactly on this mission that we wish. They talk boldly of a cultural change in Companies House, which we expect, as well as a technological change and a significant resource improvement—and under other amendments we will discuss the resourcing of Companies House. I feel confident that we are going to see a magnitudinous alteration in the relationship between the number of companies and number of directors performing their functions appropriately and providing relevant information to boost the economy, as soon as, or soon after, this Act is enabled—if I have got my terminology right.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I would be grateful for a clarification. Can the Minister say something about the language being used? My noble friend Lord Browne also picked up on this point. It is not that it is wrong, but why in Clause 1 do objectives 3 and 4, for example, talk about minimising risks or the extent? What I suggest in my amendment is acting proactively to prevent. It is about that sense of purpose and that cultural change, whereby the registrar actively seeks out unlawful activity and actively seeks to inform law enforcement to do something about it. It is not a clash of view but, in talking about cultural change, would not a language change help the Government in delivering what they want?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I do not want noble Lords at any point to think that I am being defensive in any way, as we are having a collaborative debate around the objectives of trying to improve company law and registration of companies and the integrity of the information stored at Companies House.
Objective 1 is pretty clear in referring to
“any person who is required to deliver a document to the registrar does so”,
and objective 2 is very clear and specific in saying
“to ensure that documents delivered to the registrar are complete and contain accurate information”.
They are unambiguous points—that is very clear. There is no question about there being some grey area around that. But with regard to objective 3 and
“creating a false or misleading impression to members of the public”,
clearly that is relatively subjective statement. It is clear that we have made efforts in this Bill to ensure that company names, for example, cannot be used to be misleading, and additional powers have been placed with the Secretary of State to ensure that companies have to change their names—but there is an element of subjectivity around a company name. To some extent, it is not totally prescriptive. Objective 4 then says,
“to minimise the extent to which companies and others … carry out unlawful activities, or … facilitate the carrying out by others of unlawful activities”.
These are complicated areas, in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, issues around forensic accounting, and so on, have been raised. Nothing is necessarily as straightforward as it seems. The principle here is to try to reduce the crime clearly to zero—so if the registrar reduced levels of criminal activity to a certain percentage, which they felt were somehow in a target range and then stopped their work, we would consider that to be entirely inappropriate. At the same time, they have a very clear objective, which is to minimise financial misconduct and criminality. That flexibility enables the registrar to perform her functions appropriately.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I do not want to prolong this debate because, although it is fascinating, it is something that can be dealt with in the period between now and Report. Perhaps my noble friend could, with his officials, run through the dictionary to find a slightly punchier verb. We all know what “minimise” means—to reduce to a minimum. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is making. A slightly more aggressive approach to criminal activity or people’s misconduct in using the Companies House system is probably required. It is just a tweak in the language; we are not going to World War III over this—it is just a question of going back, having a look at a dictionary and seeing if they can find a slightly more aggressive word.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
So that the Minister does not have to answer questions seriatim, as it were, I endorse that. I am not sure that I have heard persuasive objections to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I understand what he says about risk-based, but sharing information with relevant public bodies and law enforcement agencies surely does not tie the registrar’s hand in any way. It must be remembered that while we can all applaud what has happened in Companies House and the change in culture that will follow, this is really a second attempt to tie things up. We should not forget that there was the first economic crime Bill, before the Minister came to his post, where much was promised, so this is the final word on it and the time to crystallise where we are on those things. Objective 5 is another step. If the Minister is saying that Companies House is coming a long way and it is further step to ask it to do this, that is an answer, but I do not think it is an answer that satisfies the Committee.
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.
“(2) In Objective 2 the reference to “the register” includes any records kept by the registrar under any enactment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Objective 2 as amended applies not only in relation to the register of companies but also in relation to any other registers and documents kept by the registrar under legislation.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this is a wide-ranging group of amendments which focuses mostly on the amount of information given about subscribers, founding shareholders and limited companies when registering a company and ongoing shareholders. The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Agnew, are aimed at making it transparent whether subscribers and shareholders are holding shares on their own behalf or on behalf of others.
Currently, information about subscribers is very limited. The amendment in my noble friend’s name, and other Back-Bench amendments, are aimed at helping provide more information. The amendment would require the nationality and country of residence of subscribers. There has been a huge increase in the number of shell companies with directors based abroad. This is one step we can take to increase transparency and fight against the UK’s reputation for tolerating dirty money. The theme of this group as a whole is increasing transparency; there are various specific amendments with that aim in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for accommodating this intervention. I thought it would aid noble Lords in having a productive debate if I set out up front the intention of the government amendments in this group, given that it contains a significant number and, as I understand it, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, seek to build on them.
The government amendments seek to further strengthen transparency of shareholder data on the company register. I hope they will reassure noble Lords that the Government take this topic very seriously. A core purpose of the register of companies is to provide details of company ownership. However, users of the register have reported some problems with the way in which company ownership data is recorded. That is why the Bill contains measures to increase the usefulness of the information held on the shareholders, subscribers and guarantors—also known as members—of companies.
The Government appreciate the concerns expressed during the passage of the Bill by expert witnesses and parliamentarians about member information. However, I stress that we are also mindful of stakeholder concerns about imposing disproportionate burdens on businesses. The 2019 corporate transparency and register reform consultation proposed that non-traded companies, such as companies that are not listed on any regulated market, be required to collect the usual residential address and date of birth of their members. Consultation responses were mixed, and the Government concluded that the case had not adequately been made for the collection of the information, given the potential burden on businesses.
The Government consider that the approach taken with these amendments balances competing stakeholder concerns proportionately. The amendments will help to ensure that the policy intent of provisions in the Bill and the Companies Act 2006 are met without imposing undue burdens on business before further consultation is carried out.
Amendment 31 inserts a new clause into the Bill, which will amend the Companies Act 2006 to create an express requirement that old information must be retained where it changes. So, if a member’s name, address or shareholding changes, that old information must be retained for as long as the Companies Act 2006 allows. That is currently implied by other sections of the Companies Act 2006, but the law is unclear. For example, Section 121 states that an “entry” relating to a former member of a company may be removed from the register after the expiration of 10 years from the date on which he ceased to be a member. The retention of old information should already be current practice as it is in a company’s own interests to retain such information for audit purposes. Retrospective disputes relating to votes, dividends, and tax could all hinge on who owned shares at a point in time.
The new clause inserted into the Bill by Amendment 31 will also amend the Companies Act 2006 to provide powers to companies to ensure that member information is provided and kept up to date. The amendments also provide duties for members to provide their information and keep it up to date. There are offences for companies and members failing to comply with the new requirements without a reasonable excuse. That will ensure that the requirements are taken seriously by both companies and members and will enable more effective enforcement activity.
Amendments 6, 31, 34, 59 and 66 restructure existing provisions in the Bill that in turn amend the Companies Act 2006. They also provide powers to strengthen the regime by regulations. The powers allow regulations to require more information to be provided and to ensure that any new personal information is protected as appropriate. That would allow the Government to act swiftly to require more information to be provided if it is deemed proportionate to do so—again, following further consultation. Equally, law enforcement agencies may identify additional types of information that the registrar could require the collection of, which would help them in the prevention and detection of crime.
If new information is later required, it may not be appropriate for it to be made available for public inspection or disclosed except in specified circumstances—for example, if regulations later require a person’s personal email address to be provided, as that could have unintended consequences with spam mail and so on. These amendments ensure that personal information can be protected where appropriate, applying the principles from similar provisions in the Companies Act 2006 and this Bill to these measures.
I want to highlight that the power in new Section 113C could be used to limit any additional information requirements to companies that are not traded on any listed market, as those companies are already subject to similar disclosure requirements. That would reduce the burden on business, in line with the proposals in the 2019 consultation.
These amendments set up the framework for the policy intent to be met and leave the heavy lifting to regulations, once consultation has been carried out. The Government consider that to be an appropriate balance, as all regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure such that Parliament will have its say when those regulations are made.
The Government intends to remove Clauses 2, 4, 46 and 47 from the Bill because the provisions of those clauses are amended and/ or incorporated into the new clauses that I have described. Amendments 35 to 38, 60 to 62 and 67 allow the provisions to be sequenced more coherently and make consequential drafting tweaks.
I hope that noble Lords will support the amendments, and I look forward to the rest of this debate.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 7, 8, 32 and 33 in my name. Before I start, I hope the Committee will not mind if I point out that my name is pronounced “Vawks”. It is astonishing how many different pronunciations of a four-letter word it is possible to come up with. I should also remind the Committee of my interest in the register as a non-practising chartered accountant.
I thank the Minister for arranging to meet me to discuss the various amendments that I have tabled and for his engagement so far. Like, I think, everyone in the Room, I support everything that the Government are trying to achieve with this Bill. My amendments to the Companies House section try to make it more effective in achieving the Government’s stated aim, which the Minister explained at Second Reading is to
“bear down even further on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our open economy, and it will strengthen the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive, while ensuring that dirty money has no place to hide”.
He went on to say that:
“The use of anonymous or fraudulent shell companies and partnerships provides criminals with a veneer of legitimacy and undermines the UK’s reputation as a sound place to do business.”
I think we all agree with that, but the Bill remains weak in improving transparency.
At Second Reading the noble Lord also said that the Bill would be
“helping to ensure that we know the real people acting for, and benefiting from, companies.”
The Bill makes some improvements in that respect, but it is pretty thin gruel and is not likely to make any real practical difference unless it is strengthened. That is what I am trying to do with these amendments, which I have tabled as amendments to the government amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I think I need to say very little given the barrage we have heard. These Benches firmly support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and congratulate him on putting up with the mispronunciation of his name on such a consistent basis. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has exactly the same problem, so there is a commonality across the Benches here. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, talked about “heavy lifting” and others have talked about “very light requirements”. Those who have argued for the amendments have made a very strong case, not least my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire on the implications for overseas territories and revealing beneficiaries there. Transparency is the essence of what we are trying to achieve here.
I think we all agree that one of the core competencies of Companies House needs to be expertise in verifying the identity of applicants, whether subscribers or members, and so on. Identity verification, which we will discuss throughout Part 1, will be a vital tool in the policing of the sector if it is to be successful and should be a core competence of what we might call the new model of Companies House. There is some doubt about how far this is being, in a sense, outsourced to others. These amendments make it absolutely clear, particularly as regards nominees, that it should be the applicant and Companies House which make sure that we know who we are dealing with here. It has several distinct advantages and, as everyone has emphasised in this debate, is not an onerous requirement.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments. The Government appreciate their intent but consider that we already have the powers we need in the Bill to address the substance of these concerns. Following on from comments from my noble friend Lord Faulks and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we are not discussing the verification of corporate providers. I think there is a significant amount of discussion to be had on that a bit later.
I totally agree about the importance of the transparency of the records and understanding who the beneficial owners of companies are—that is the whole point of much of the work we are undertaking today. On the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, about the ownership level of 25%, in a private company you have to have your identity verified if you are a director, own 25% or more of the company or are a person with significant control. To clarify, the 25% level does not denote a person with significant control. Somebody who has one share can be a person with significant control, and it is the company’s duty to report who they are. It is extremely important to make that clear in this discussion.
I was not in this great House for the previous piece of legislation, the debate on which has resulted in this new piece of legislation, but I am very aware of the importance of understanding who stands behind the companies—as has rightly been said, to quote myself, the people acting for and benefiting from companies. The 25% level does not denote a person with significant control, and companies suffer significant penalties—the penalty regime, which I am happy to share with noble Lords, is substantial and at the very core of this process.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The noble Lord is quite right: there is the question of being able to influence or control the company other than through shareholdings, but he referred to penalties and so on. How many times has anyone been penalised for failing to provide information about being a person with significant control when they did not hold 25%?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
That is exactly the sort of question that should be asked; I look forward to returning to this Committee with the answer, as I unfortunately do not have it at my fingertips. However, I know that Companies House continues to do a great deal of investigation into these matters, even before this Act has come into place.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, also raised an important point in saying that it is too easy and cheap to create a company and that the 1855 principles around the corporate veil are a privilege. At the time, they were considered a great risk to the economy, abrogating people of their personal responsibilities and liabilities to the debts of their businesses. It caused great debate, as noble Lords may remember—looking around the Room, not all noble Lords will, but some may. It is important to understand that it comes with privileges and obligations.
Having done a great deal of investigation into this Act, of the 4.8 million companies on the register, I would have thought that many should not be limited companies; it is not necessary for a sole trader or a small partnership to have a company, so I have a degree of sympathy for upgrading the entire concept of what a limited company is and what sort of information should be provided. It may be important, philosophically, to look at it in that way, rather than simply saying, “Here are a very large number of companies; if we impose undue obligations on them, that will be unfair or overly burdensome to businesses.” It is not unreasonable to look at the picture in the round.
Having said that, we undertook a variety of consultations and feel that the way this Bill has been drafted gives us the security to understand who the beneficiaries of companies are and the requirements of companies to record that information and link those individuals across the information processes and systems in Companies House to ensure that we have integrity of data. To require all shareholders to verify their identity would be unnecessarily burdensome for many thousands of companies and, potentially, millions of small shareholders who are simply passive holders of a business.
I would not like my comments to be taken in the wrong way—perhaps in the way that “minimise” has been taken—but we are making a significant change to the way that companies are established in this country and to the sorts of information levels that we require from businesses to ensure the integrity of data at Companies House, in what both individual directors, persons with significant control or corporate service providers and companies have to provide. It is very important that we do not lose sight of the fact that this country is one of the easiest places to do business in the world. Our wealth comes from our entrepreneurial nature and the importance of having a company structure, system and process that does not place unnecessary burdens where they will not necessarily add value.
I am, however, very open to further conversations to ensure that the philosophy presented here matches our ambition, which is to ensure that we understand who benefits from companies and who is behind them.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The noble Lord has explained the onerous nature of verifying the identity of every shareholder, which I accepted in part when I spoke. We will come back to that issue on Amendments 39 and 43. However, he has not talked about whether and why a shareholder making a simple statement as to whether they are holding the shares on their own behalf—and if they are not, on whose behalf they are—is particularly onerous. I am afraid that I do not see why it should be.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
The company is obliged to register if there is a person with significant control or someone with more than 25%. If it is not truthful in that registration, it will be committing an offence.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
But that is different from any shareholder having to make the positive statement: “I am”—or “I am not”—“holding the shares on my own behalf”. It is very different from, “I’ve got 25% and therefore I have to make some disclosures”. Why is it a problem for an individual shareholder to say, “I’m holding these shares on my own behalf”, or “I’m holding them on behalf of somebody else”? I am sorry, but I really do not see why that is difficult or onerous. It is a very different thing from the 25% threshold that the Minister just mentioned.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s intervention. I expect some of this comes down to nominee companies and the roles that they perform on shareholder registers, but I am happy to look in more detail at this point. We had the good fortune to have a conversation about this some days ago and came to the conclusion that it was certainly worth further investigation to ensure that anyone who puts information on to the Companies House website has to ascertain whether they are acting on behalf of other people. However, I believe, and very much hope, that the answer will lie in the depths of the legislation.
My noble friend Lord Agnew’s amendment is very similar. I hope I have covered this point, particularly in relation to the PSC framework already in place.
I turn to Amendment 5, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his helpful replacement of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in speaking to it. The amendment would require a memorandum of association to include the nationality and country of ordinary residence of each subscriber. A memorandum of association is a memorandum stating that the subscribers wish to form a company, and they agree to become members of that company. Their names are then entered into the company’s register of members.
This amendment, if I may be so bold, would not require the same information to be provided by persons who later become members. Frankly, it is considered that that would create inconsistency between the information requirements of members who were subscribers and other members. The Government consider that any new information requirements should be consistent between the two.
The Government appreciate the intent behind the amendment, but we consider that this would be better addressed by consulting stakeholders about what additional information, if any, it would be proportionate to require every company to provide about all its members, rather than just subscribers who are individuals. To reinforce that point, we would look to consult stakeholders about what additional information it would be proportionate to require.
This Bill, and government amendments to it, provide the powers to require additional information to be provided via regulations. This discussion can happen on an ongoing basis, and we welcome that. The government amendments that I outlined earlier signal our willingness to review the position on this issue, albeit having first consulted stakeholders, given the potential burdens involved. I know we all agree about the importance of keeping the legislation sensible so that it does not impinge on our entrepreneurial spirit and the creation of companies in this country. That is absolutely right, and noble Lords would expect the Government to consult in ensuring that we get the right information registered in the right way. I hope this reassures the noble Lord and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this relatively short but important debate. I make it clear to the Minister that I do not think anyone contributing to this discussion was questioning the underlying philosophy of the Bill. Indeed, we were trying to enhance its underlying philosophy, which is to provide greater transparency about who the ultimate beneficial owners of all these companies are.
The Minister’s response to the various amendments was about disproportionality. He said that they would put disproportional burdens on smaller companies, that personal information may be made available, and that people should be protected from spam, promoters and so on. I do not think anyone is questioning that. Various amendments put forward by various noble Lords try to increase transparency and to stop people being able to hide behind layers and layers of nominee companies.
I was drawn to what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said: “Having to lie in public is very different from just keeping quiet”. That is a very sound principle to operate on. He also made the point that identifying shareholders should be the same as identifying directors or people with significant control. That is a second principle behind his amendments.
“Information about subscribers
(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section 9 (registration documents)—(a) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) The application must contain—(a) a statement of the required information about each of the subscribers to the memorandum of association (see section 9A),(b) a statement that none of the subscribers to the memorandum of association is disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation (see section 159A(2)),(c) if any of them would be so disqualified but for the permission of a court to act, a statement to that effect, in respect of each of them, specifying—(i) the subscriber’s name,(ii) the court by which permission was given, and(iii) the date on which permission was given, and(d) if any of them would be disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation by virtue of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (designated persons under sanctions legislation) but for the authority of a licence of the kind mentioned in that section or Article, a statement to that effect, in respect of each of them, specifying—(i) the subscriber’s name, and(ii) the date on which it was issued and by whom it was issued.”;(b) after subsection (6) insert—“(7) In subsection (3A)(c) “permission of a court to act” means permission of a court under a provision mentioned in column 2 of the table in section 159A(2).”.(3) After section 9 insert—“9A Required information about the subscribers(1) The required information about a subscriber who is an individual is—(a) name;(b) a service address.(2) The required information about a subscriber that is a body corporate, or a firm that is a legal person under the law by which it is governed, is—(a) corporate or firm name;(b) a service address.(3) In subsection (1) “name” means the individual’s forename and surname.(4) Where a subscriber is a peer or an individual usually known by a title, that title may be stated in the application for the registration of the company instead of the subscriber’s forename and surname.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) amend this section so as to change the required information about a subscriber; (b) repeal subsection (4).(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”.(4) In subsection 10 (statement of capital and initial shareholdings), omit subsection (3).(5) In subsection 11 (statement of guarantee), omit subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the information that an application for the formation of a company must include about the subscribers and confers a power to amend that information (similar powers currently exist in sections 10(3) and 11(2) of the Companies Act 2006). The clause also incorporates material from Clauses 2 and 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Clause 40 that appear in the Minister’s name.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I begin by apologising for my lack of fluidity in the procedures of Committee stage—I have not taken such a complex and important Bill through before, so I am grateful for noble Lords’ indulgence and apologise for any confusion caused.
I speak now to the set of government amendments in this group: Amendments 9 to 12, 25 to 30, 40 and 41. These will replace existing Clauses 36 and 38. They create a completely new type of sanctions measure in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 called “director disqualification sanctions”. It will be unlawful for a designated person subject to this new measure to act as a director of a company. These amendments improve and extend the existing clauses, which prohibit individuals who are subject to the asset freeze sanctions measure from acting as directors of companies. Instead of automatically applying director disqualification status to individuals who are subject to an asset freeze only, this amendment allows Ministers to apply the new measure on a case-by-case basis using the existing designation procedure within the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. That will ensure that the measure can be better targeted at those designated persons who are acting, or could act, as directors. It provides the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office with flexibility as to when to apply it and does not limit it in applying it only to people subject to an asset freeze. That is standard practice for our other designation-based sanctions measures, such as asset freezes and travel bans.
It will be for the Foreign Secretary to decide when and how to deploy the measure, alongside the full suite of other sanctions measures. For instance, this measure could be applied on its own or alongside an asset freeze, travel ban or other measures. While other countries may be able to prevent designated persons from acting as company directors through the effect of other prohibitions, we will be the first country to introduce this as a specific type of sanctions measure.
The amendment will utilise the procedures set out in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to disqualify the designated person from directorship of UK companies. An individual subject to this new measure will commit an offence if they act as a director of a company or take part in the management, formation or promotion of a company.
As with existing sanctions measures, the relevant authority will be able to issue a licence to an individual to allow them to undertake activity that is otherwise prohibited. This may be necessary, for instance, where the individual needs to continue to act as a director for a short period of time in order to wind down the company. Additionally, the Secretary of State can by regulations create exceptions to provide more general carve-outs from the sanction.
Information about individuals who are subject to this new sanction, and any relevant licences, will be published on the director disqualification register maintained by Companies House, as well as on the UK sanctions list. This will ensure that the use of the sanction is transparent. It will also make the information more easily accessible. Members of the public will be able to find all the relevant information on the existing register, and will not have to search unfamiliar sources to access information on disqualified directors.
Introducing this new director disqualification sanctions measure will be an important addition to the UK’s sanctions armoury. I beg to move Amendment 9 and very much hope that noble Lords will support the other government amendments in this group.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my amendment on designated persons. The Minister is already dealing with this issue in some of his own amendments, but I stress that mine would be a slight tweak to the system that would have enormous power over the very few people who would be impacted. Last year only 1,200 people were designated for the Russian activities—across the whole world, not just by us—so we are talking about low numbers of thousands of people relative to the 5 million on the register. We also know that some of these bad actors got wind of their designation before it happened and were able to reorganise their financial affairs, so the horse had well and truly bolted by the time we rumbled into action. This slight amendment would give much more transparency into what these people were doing and allow the enforcement agencies to act accordingly.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I note that these various amendments cover England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the UK financial system very much includes Jersey and Guernsey for a great many company formations and associated company forms. I wonder whether at this stage the Minister could explain whether or not the disqualification of persons from being directors within the UK will in time apply to the Crown dependencies, or whether one will still be able to act as a director for companies formed in the Crowd dependencies while disqualified within the UK.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s comment about the Crown dependencies. I am happy to confirm that this debate develops the specific answer to his question. My assumption would be that they fall under the register of overseas entities and the requirements placed around them, but I will confirm that. The noble Lord makes a very valid point. It would be peculiar if we did not include the Crown dependencies of Jersey and Guernsey in our legislation. My assumption is that they are well covered, and I hope that is the case.
I thank my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton for his Amendment 24. I assure him that I do not think it is necessary to achieve his intentions. Provisions in the Bill already allow Companies House proactively to share data more widely for purposes connected with its functions. Data sharing will also be permitted to assist public authorities with exercising their own functions. This will include government bodies such as OFSI, which is part of His Majesty’s Treasury, the National Crime Agency and so on. Examples of data sharing could be for the purpose of confirming the accuracy of data provided to the registrar to ensure the register is kept up to date or for passing on intelligence to law enforcement agencies to minimise criminal activity.
Companies House will operate a risk-based approach targeting its efforts primarily in those areas where information and intelligence gleaned through new data-sharing powers and through Companies House’s own systems and processes suggest that particular scrutiny is warranted. The Government believe that this amendment, while well intentioned, is overly prescriptive and would lead to Companies House having to share potentially irrelevant and unnecessary information with OFSI and NCA. This would be an inefficient use of government resources and could lead to more serious intelligence that needs to be shared being missed. Although Companies House already works very closely with government departments, including HM Treasury’s OFSI and law enforcement agencies, this Bill will strengthen these existing relationships through enhanced data-sharing provisions.
This amendment seeks to impose a duty on the registrar only with regard to material information, which it leaves undefined. The imposition of such a vague duty could lead to confused and ineffective results and underlines the importance of the registrar being able to share data using a risk-based approach. Furthermore, information about individuals who are subject to this new sanction and any relevant licences will be published on the director disqualification register maintained by Companies House as well as on the UK sanctions list to ensure that the use of the sanctions measure is transparent. Discussions about implementing the new sanctions measure, including data sharing between Companies House, the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, are already under way to ensure that the new measure is effective. For the reasons set out above, I ask my noble friend not to move his amendment.
“(7) Where any of the persons named as directors would be disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation by virtue of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (designated persons under sanctions legislation) but for the authority of a licence of the kind mentioned in that section or Article, the statement must also include a statement to that effect, in respect of each of them, specifying—(a) the person’s name, and(b) the date on which the licence was issued and by whom it was issued.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions), (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI)(which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38).
(c) if any of them would be so disqualified by virtue of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (designated persons under sanctions legislation) but for the authority of a licence of the kind mentioned in that section or Article, a statement to that effect, in respect of each of them, specifying—(i) the person’s name, and(ii) the date on which the licence was issued and by whom it was issued.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new Clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions), (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI)(which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38).
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for speaking in this debate and for tabling Amendment 13, to which I will now respond. All these amendments are concerned with directions issued to a company by the Secretary of State requiring it to change its name under provisions already in the Companies Act 2006 and added to that Act by virtue of the Bill.
I am very sympathetic to some of the background comments relating to this amendment, but we feel that it is better to allow an element of flexibility around the time it takes a company to change its name. There is already a 28-day target point, and it is right that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to extend that.
Noble Lords in the Committee who have been involved in company management will know that sometimes, in order to have a formal resolution, there are certain requirements of notice periods for boards, which can be 30 days. For the businesses I have been involved in, that tended to be common practice; you can have a special resolution, but it is more important that the change happens and that we do not necessarily set arbitrary timelines, which could cause other issues at a later date.
I am very comfortable with having a further discussion with the noble Baroness and her colleagues about this in case something has been missed in the debate. Ultimately, I believe that we have set the right level of activity requirements and that allowing the Secretary of State to have the flexibility would be more appropriate given the ambitions we are trying to achieve.
The second element of the amendments—I am not sure whether they were spoken to, but they were certainly proposed so it is worth covering them briefly because they are part of the debate—is the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish details of any directions. Directions are issued to companies by the Secretary of State rather than the registrar so they do not form part of the company register, which is a record of information provided to the registrar by companies and material issued to companies by the registrar. We do not believe it would be appropriate to depart from that principle. However, to repeat commitments made at earlier stages of the Bill, we would be happy to examine on a case-by-case basis the appropriateness of annotating the register where name change directions have been issued. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the Minister. I was indeed referring to all the amendments in the group. I note his offer of further conversations to make sure that we have absolutely nailed down the clarification that we are seeking and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I have very little to add to what my noble friend said. This is clearly a bit of a curate’s egg and Amendment 23 is a good start, but there are objections to it, which were very well set out by the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Vaux. As my noble friend said, it is quite usual to use professional offices as a registered office. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that new subsection (2) in Clause 29(3) is not as good as it should be and that he will take on board some of the points made about Amendment 23. Then, we would be in a much better place.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Leigh, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Clement-Jones, for their contribution to the debate on this issue.
The Government’s view is that Clause 29 already introduces a revised Section 86 to the Companies Act 2006 in an effort to introduce a definition of what constitutes an acceptable and effective address for a company’s registered office. The amendment seeks to define the opposite: what would not represent an appropriate address. I hope your Lordships will agree with the following argument for why that is unnecessary.
I begin with the suggestion that PO box addresses be explicitly forbidden. We do not believe there is a need for this. A PO box address cannot be an address at which deliveries can be acknowledged, nor an address to which a sender can be assured that what is sent will find its way to the hands of a company representative. It is therefore clearly not an appropriate address—we very much agree with the noble Baroness on that.
I turn to the “reasonable suspicion” element of the amendment. Where the registrar has reasonable grounds to suspect that the company does not have permission to use an address, she will almost inevitably conclude that the conditions that I have just mentioned will not be capable of being met and, again, she will be within her rights to reject or force the company to change it as appropriate.
The other element of the amendment would prevent companies having their registered office address anywhere other than their main place of business. There are, frankly, many reasons why a company may choose to separate the two, so this could be problematic for many companies. That includes, for example, particularly small enterprises that carry out businesses from home but choose to register the company at the premises of their accountant in order to protect their residential address details, which I think we would agree is perfectly reasonable. We have been at pains elsewhere in the Bill to introduce measures to extend, where appropriate, the ability to suppress addresses that the public have access to which might jeopardise the safety or security of individuals. There are elements of the amendment that we believe would run contrary to those aims.
I hope the Committee will be reassured that new Section 86 will be an effective means by which to monitor and police the accuracy of company address information and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. As a final point, I personally have great sympathy with the ambitions of the amendment to make sure that the right address is being provided for the company register, but I hope I have laid out the reasons why the processes that the Government have put in the legislation should be sufficient to ensure that real addresses are given and other protections are employed.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Personally, I am convinced by what the Minister has said about the substitute for Section 86. I just have one query. It creates an offence whereby a person is guilty on summary conviction. The offence appears to be committed by a company and
“every officer of the company who is in default.”
Could the Minister help with who the statute envisages will be an officer of the company who is in default?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate that comment. I will come back to the noble Lord with more detail, if that is possible.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their comments, and I thank the Minister for his explanation. We will of course take those comments away and consider them, but at the moment I feel that there is still room to explore this issue and perhaps come up with another form of wording to take forward at a future stage. As I said earlier, the emphasis on reflecting the fact that the onus is on a business to prove that it is legitimate will need to run through all this. With those comments, and in anticipation of future discussions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Power to impose director disqualification sanctions
(1) The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1 (power to make sanctions regulations), in subsection (5), after paragraph (a) insert—“(ab) impose director disqualification sanctions (see section 3A);”.(3) After section 3 insert—“3A Director disqualification sanctions(1) For the purposes of section 1(5)(ab) regulations “impose director disqualification sanctions” if they provide for designated persons (see section 9) to be persons subject to director disqualification sanctions for the purposes of—(a) section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, and(b) Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.(2) As to the effect of such provision, see—(a) section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, and(b) Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.”(4) In section 9 (“designated persons”)—(a) in subsection (1), for “3 and 4” substitute “3 to 4”;(b) in subsection (3), after “3,” insert “3A,”.(5) In section 15 (exceptions and licences), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Where regulations provide for designated persons to be persons subject to director disqualification sanctions for the purposes of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, the regulations may—(a) create exceptions from subsection (1) of that section or paragraph (1) of that Article;(b) confer power on an appropriate Minister to issue a licence to authorise a designated person to do anything that would otherwise be prohibited by subsection (1) of that section or paragraph (1) of that Article.(3B) Regulations may, as respects any licences provided for under subsection (3A), make any provision mentioned (in relation to licences) in subsection (3).””Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause would allow an appropriate Minister to designate a person as subject to “director disqualification sanctions” for the purposes of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.
“Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI
(1) The Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/3150 (N.I. 4)) is amended as follows.(2) After Article 15 insert—“15A Designated persons under sanctions legislation(1) It is an offence for a person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions to act as a director of a company or directly or indirectly to take part in or be concerned in the promotion, formation or management of a company (but see paragraph (2)).(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply—(a) to the extent that an exception from paragraph (1) has been created by virtue of section 15(3A) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, or(b) to anything done under the authority of a licence issued by virtue of section 15(3A) of that Act.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article to prove that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that they were subject to director disqualification sanctions at the time at which they engaged in that conduct.(4) In this Article “person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions” means a person who under regulations under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is a person subject to director disqualification sanctions for the purposes of this Article (see section 3A of that Act).”(3) In Article 18 (criminal penalties)—(a) omit “15,”;(b) for “and” substitute “; and any person guilty of an offence under this Article or Article 15 or 15A”.(4) In Article 19 (personal liability for company’s debts where person acts while disqualified)— (a) in paragraph (1)(a), after “Article 15” insert “, 15A”;(b) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (1)(a);(c) after paragraph (1)(b) insert “, or(c) as a person who is involved in the management of the company, they act or are willing to act on instructions given in contravention of Article 15A or section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.”;(d) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) A person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions (within the meaning of Article 15A) and is involved in the management of a company is not personally responsible under paragraph (1)(a) for all of the relevant debts of a company if the person proves that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that they were subject to director disqualification sanctions at the time at which they were so involved.”;(e) in paragraph (3)(b), after “(1)(b)” insert “or (c)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause provides that any person who has been designated as being subject to director disqualification sanctions will be committing an offence if they act as a director etc. in NI, unless they have been issued with a licence or unless an exception applies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new Clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions), (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI)(which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38).
“Register of members: information to be included and powers to obtain it
(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section 112 (the members of a company), at the end insert—“(4) Where an individual’s name is entered in a company’s register of members but is not in the form required by section 113A, that does not affect the person becoming a member of the company by virtue of subsection (2).”(3) For the italic heading “General” at the beginning of Chapter 2 of Part 8 substitute “Duty to keep register”.(4) In section 113 (register of members)—(a) for subsection (2) substitute—“(2) There must be entered in the register, in respect of each person who is a member—(a) the required information (see sections 113A and 113B), and(b) the date on which the person was registered as a member.(2A) Where a person ceases to be a member there must be entered in the register the date at which the person’s membership ceased.”;(b) in subsection (3), omit “, with the names and addresses of the members,”;(c) in subsection (5), after “show a single” insert “service”;(d) in subsection (6), omit “, with the names and addresses of the members,”;(e) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Where any of the information required to be entered in a company’s register of members changes—(a) that does not relieve the company from the obligation to include the old information in the register if it has not already done so,(b) the old information must be retained in the register until its removal is authorised by section 121 or by court order under section 125, and(c) a note must be included in the register recording the date on which the information changed and the date on which the change was entered in the register.”;(f) in subsection (7), after “If” insert “, without reasonable excuse,”.(5) After section 113 insert—“113A Required information about members: individuals(1) The required information about a member who is an individual is—(a) name;(b) a service address. (2) In this section “name” means forename and surname.(3) Where a member is a peer or an individual usually known by a title—(a) any requirement imposed by section 113D or 113E, or by a notice under section 113F, to provide their name may be satisfied by providing their title instead;(b) the title may be entered in the register of members instead of their forename and surname (and references in any enactment to the name of a person entered in a company’s register of members are to be construed accordingly).113B Required information about members: corporate members and firmsThe required information about a member that is a body corporate, or a firm that is a legal person under the law by which it is governed, is—(a) corporate or firm name;(b) a service address.113C Power to amend the required information(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) make provision changing the required information about a member for the purposes of this Chapter;(b) repeal section 113A(3).(2) The provision that may be made in regulations under subsection (1)(a) includes provision amending this Chapter.(3) The consequential provision that may be made in regulations under subsection (1)(a) by virtue of section 1292(1) also includes provision amending section 51 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.(4) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.113D Duty on new members to notify required information(1) A person who becomes a member of a company must provide the company with the required information about the member (see sections 113A and 113B).(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if or to the extent that—(a) the person has already provided the information to the company, or(b) the person becomes a member of the company on its incorporation and the information is contained in the application for the registration of the company.(3) A person must comply with this section within the period of two months beginning with the date on which the person became a member.113E Duty on member to notify changes to required information(1) A person who is a member of a company must give notice to the company of any change in the required information about the member (see sections 113A and 113B).(2) The notice must specify the date on which the change occurred.(3) A person must comply with this section within the period of two months beginning with the date on which the change occurred.113F Power for company to require information from members(1) A company may, for the purposes of ensuring that its register of members includes the information that it is required to include, require a member or former member of the company to provide any of the required information about the member or former member (see sections 113A and 113B). (2) The notice must require the recipient to comply with it within the period of one month beginning with the date on which the notice is given.113G Failure to comply with section 113D , 113E or 113F(1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with section 113D or 113E commits an offence.(2) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a notice under section 113F commits an offence.(3) Where an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is committed by a firm, the offence is also committed by every officer of the firm who is in default.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction—(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both) and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory maximum;(iii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both) and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory maximum.113H Basic false statement offences in connection with sections 113D to 113F(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with section 113D or 113E and without reasonable excuse, the person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 113F and without reasonable excuse, the person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(3) Where an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is committed by a firm, the offence is also committed by every officer of the firm who is in default.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.113I Aggravated false statement offences in connection with sections 113D to 113F(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with section 113D or 113E, the person makes a statement that the person knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 113F, the person makes a statement that the person knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular. (3) Where an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is committed by a firm, the offence is also committed by every officer of the firm who is in default.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction—(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both) and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory maximum;(iii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both) and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory maximum.Duty to keep index of members”.(6) Section 115 (index of members)—(a) is moved to after the italic heading “Duty to keep index of members” inserted by subsection (5) of this section, and(b) is renumbered section 113J.(7) In that section as renumbered—(a) in subsection (1), for “names of the members of the company” substitute “names or titles of the members of the company (to be known as “the index of members’ names”)”;(b) for subsection (3) substitute—“(3) The index must include the same details of a person’s name or title as are entered in the register of members.”(8) Before section 114 insert—“Inspection etc of register and index of members”.(9) Before section 121 insert—“Removal of entries from register of members”.(10) In section 123 (single member companies)—(a) in subsection (1), omit “, with the name and address of the sole member,”;(b) in subsection (2), omit “, with the name and address of the sole member”;(c) in subsection (3), omit “, with the name and address of the person who was formerly the sole member”.(11) In section 771 (procedure on transfer being lodged), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The company may not register the transfer under subsection (1)(a) unless satisfied that it has the information that it is required to enter in its register of members in relation to the transferee.””Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause confers a power to amend the information that must be kept in a company’s register of members. It also creates an express duty for companies to retain old information about members (eg former address information).
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) require a company to refrain from using, or refrain from disclosing, individual membership information except in circumstances specified in the regulations;(b) confer power on the registrar, on application, to make an order requiring a company to refrain from using, or refrain from disclosing, individual membership information except in circumstances specified in the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring a company to refrain from using or disclosing membership information, whether or not a member applies for protection.
Member’s explanatory statement
This severs the link between the operation of Clause 51 and the commencement of Clause 46. The appointed day could be later than the commencement of Clause 46, allowing a company more time to obtain the information it has to provide to the registrar.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for that summation. I am very grateful to noble Lords for the powerful reason which they bring to bear on these amendments. The Government are delighted to have more discussions around how we ensure that we have full knowledge of people who have control of companies and of companies’ beneficiaries. I believe that the Bill as it stands gives us that level of security. The Government would be reluctant to set arbitrary levels in terms of that above a certain percentage one should have additional registration information, but I am happy to have a discussion around those principles, if that is helpful.
If people do not have confidence in Companies House, we will not have achieved part of our goal, which is to give people a sense of that the data has integrity and is true. The whole point about this exercise is to make sure that people put the right data in so that we know who the people are who are behind businesses and people can trust that information. I am very sympathetic to this discussion, which is extremely important.
To balance this, I say that this is about helping businesses function better in a lawful environment. One can go to the ultimate degree in terms of requirements for information and verification that do not necessitate greater degrees of security but cause significant burdens for businesses. This is not simply about satisfying our desire for excess information simply for the sake it; it must be linked to whether this is going to help us achieve our basic goals, which is to understand who owns these businesses, who is behind them and who is benefiting from them. With that in mind, I am open to having further discussions, as my colleagues would be.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I thank the Minister for his offer to have an ongoing conversation about this, because that is how you achieve the best results in these things. This very formal and rigid process of trying to look at individual clauses in isolation does not solve the problem. We have had several clauses this afternoon that all mesh together with one objective, which is to improve transparency. I take my noble friend Lord Leigh’s point about creating a bureaucratic system that impacts adversely on thousands of decent people, particularly small businesses. However, the transaction of changing car ownership in this country, where you have an asset worth a few thousand pounds, it is a very simple process. You fill in a change of ownership form, you send it to the DVLA, and the job is done—so to the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulks, I do not believe that we have to create a bureaucratic system to get transparency.
I remind noble Lords of the downside of not having this information. A case study was given to me by Members in the other place. The awful ammonium nitrate explosion in Beirut a couple of years ago killed and wounded hundreds of people. It was eventually uncovered that the company that owned the warehouse was a British-registered company, Savaro Ltd, but it was almost impossible to find out who the shareholders of that company were and to get to grips with who were the people who caused that terrible accident.
There is a lot more to this issue. As someone who has created a lot of small businesses in my career, I do not want a heavy hand on this, but light-touch regulation done well is the answer. I urge my noble friend to have an open conversation with Members here as a way of solving the problem in a business sense, not in this very formal way.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate my noble friend’s summation. Again, I hope that the Government have demonstrated today that the principles of the Bill conform to the expectations and desires of this Committee. Clearly, there are details that require further discussion, and that debate will help propagate the ambitions and values that we are trying to inject into the Bill. I am grateful for the comments but, in this instance, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, given that we will have further discussions to try to ascertain the right levels and what burdens we should impose on business to achieve our outcomes.
“(f) if the person would be disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation by virtue of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (designated persons under sanctions legislation) but for the authority of a licence of the kind mentioned in that section or Article, a statement to that effect specifying—(i) the date on which the licence was issued, and(ii) by whom it was issued.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new Clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions), (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI) (which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38).
“False statements about persons with significant control
(1) Schedule 1B to the Companies Act 2006 (enforcement of disclosure requirements in relation to persons with significant control) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 13, in sub-paragraph (1), omit paragraph (b) and the “or” before it.(3) In paragraph 14, in sub-paragraph (1), omit paragraph (b) and the “or” before it.(4) After paragraph 14 insert—“False statements: basic offence14A_(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 790D or 790E or in purported compliance with a duty imposed by section 790G or 790H, and without reasonable excuse, the person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) Where the person is a legal entity, an offence is also committed by every officer of the entity who is in default.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction—(a) in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.False statements: aggravated offence14B_(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 790D or 790E or in purported compliance with a duty imposed by section 790G or 790H, the person makes a statement that the person knows is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) Where the person is a legal entity, an offence is also committed by every officer of the entity who is in default.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction— (i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or to a fine (or both);(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(iii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).””Member’s explanatory statement
This is about the provision of false or misleading information about persons with significant control. The current offences require the prosecution to prove knowledge or recklessness in all cases. The amendment replaces that with a strict liability offence (not dependent on knowledge) and an aggravated offence (where there is knowledge).
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I apologise if I have not followed the procedure correctly, but I am grateful to our Deputy Chairman of Committees for her guidance in getting us to the right place.
The purpose of Amendment 42 is to align the drafting of the false statement offences in the Companies Act with the equivalent offences in Section 15 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 and the amendments made by Clause 161 of the Bill. This will ensure the same approach to misconduct by a UK company or an overseas entity.
The current offences require the prosecution to prove knowledge or recklessness in all cases. The amendment replaces those offences with a strict liability offence not dependent on knowledge, and an aggravated offence where there is knowledge. The amendment also removes the need for the prosecution to prove recklessness in any case.
The amendment inserts new paragraph 14A into Schedule 1B to the Companies Act 2006. New paragraph 14A introduces a basic offence, where a person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular without a reasonable excuse.
The amendment also inserts new paragraph 14B into Schedule 1B to the Companies Act 2006. New paragraph 14B introduces an aggravated offence, where a person makes a statement that the person knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular. The penalties are more severe to reflect the knowledge of misconduct. If any of the three offences is committed by a legal entity, the offences are still also committed by every officer of the entity who is in default. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised that point. I am not sure whether there was confusion about whether it related to this part rather than an earlier part, but I would be delighted to clarify that point later.
The penalty for the basic offence is a fine. The penalty for the aggravated offence is up to two years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both. The level of fines and prison sentences a person will be liable for are the same as for the equivalent offences in Clause 161 of the Bill. This amendment ensures that equivalent offences can be prosecuted in the same way, with the same penalties applied for non-compliance, whether the misconduct relates to an overseas or a UK entity. I beg to move.
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.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly appreciate the input from noble Lords. Knowing my record over the last hour, I will probably vote against this in any event.
I shall just explain this in my own words, if noble Lords will tolerate my lack of legal expertise. The point was that, until this amendment, you had to prove—I welcome interventions from noble Lords if they feel that I am straying into their legal territory—either dishonesty or recklessness, rather than simply misfiling, in order for there to be a prosecution, which set a very high bar for prosecution. As I understand it, a number of important prosecutions—which is the whole principle for us being here—failed because they were unable to prove that exceptionally high bar.
This therefore makes it an offence to misfile which, as has been rightly pointed out, is a statutory event. However, it would seem to be unreasonable that, if you accidentally put your address down as “46B” when it should be “46C”, you then receive a two-year prison sentence or indeed a significant fine. It is right in this instance that “reasonable excuse” is brought to bear.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Unfortunately, I do not think that is a “reasonable excuse”; that would not be a “material particular”.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am delighted that the noble Lord pointed that out; that is certainly true. I think noble Lords understand the direction of travel in the intent of this amendment. It is important; it is not simply tidying up. There are some elements of making sure that penalties relating to overseas entities relate to companies registered in the United Kingdom, but, following consultation with department officials, it seems to me that this is a very important part of the Bill. I do not support dropping it at this stage, but I am very comfortable having further conversations about it. I would be grateful if the Committee gave me a few moments to consult my team on the specifics about how to proceed. I want to make sure that we have a sensible and reasoned debate but that I do not get the process wrong regarding amendments to the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The appropriate procedure would be for the Minister to withdraw it, and then move an amendment on Report. We would be very happy if the Minister came back on Report.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
At this stage, I believe it would be appropriate to consider further the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
May I just clarify for the Minister that it would be very unfortunate if he pressed his amendment? If he pressed it and lost it in Committee, I do not think he could bring back exactly the same amendment on Report. That is the rule: he would have to bring back something different on Report, even if all the officials and legal advice said that it was a perfectly sound clause—he may well get advice on that. I suggest that he withdraws it so that we do not have to vote against it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I advise that, if the amendment is voted against, it is negatived.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords for their input. I hope they felt, over the last few hours of very productive debate, that the intentions of this Government and the speakers in this debate are entirely aligned: to try to create the right structure for Companies House and the right penalties and compliance regime. Given that, and my gratitude to the Committee for the constructive discussion, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment, with the understanding that we may easily return with something identical on Report, having followed a good degree of debate and discussion on that point.
Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill
Lord Johnson of Lainston ExcerptsFriday 24th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 View all Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 September 2022 - (7 Sep 2022)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Wyld for bringing this important Bill forward for debate today. It is a great personal honour to be here to confirm the Government’s ongoing support for the Bill. The cross-party support for this initiative is significant; almost all parties represented in Parliament have supported this legislation specifically. I also thank Stuart McDonald for initiating the process that led to us being able to be here at this moment debating such an important topic. I am sure that we can agree that enabling parents to be with their babies when they are at their most vulnerable is clearly the right thing to do. I will address some of the comments made by noble Lords today in a moment.
Importantly, the Conservative Party manifesto in 2019 committed to introducing neonatal care leave and pay, stating that:
“We will legislate to allow parents to take extended leave for neonatal care, to support those new mothers and fathers who need it during the most vulnerable and stressful days of their lives.”
I am aware of discussions around larger pieces of legislation but, in my view, having had the privilege of taking through other similar Private Members’ Bills over the last few weeks, it is important that we do these right things and do not lose sight of the importance of these specific Bills in making people’s lives better and giving people protections. That is my priority today and I am grateful for noble Lords’ support, and the support of the body politic in general, for this Bill.
If it is helpful, I will go through some of the comments made by Members of this House in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made a number of very relevant points, particularly outlining his expertise. I join him, the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Blake, and other Members who did not necessarily articulate it, in expressing my admiration for our doctors and nurses who care for our young babies when they come into this world, exemplified by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his expertise and contribution to this area over his lifetime.
The noble Lord and others mentioned the time for implementation. If I may say, I too share a slight degree of frustration at the expectation of an 18-month wait between Royal Assent and implementation. I have investigated this myself, as noble Lords would expect, and I am afraid that there are legitimate reasons relating to the systems and processes—two words that really should not go hand in hand with such an important and emotive topic. They relate to the practicalities of implementing these measures and ensuring that HMRC has the right systems in place. A number of pieces of secondary legislation must also be enacted, which simply takes time. All I can commit to from this Dispatch Box is my personal commitment—I am sure that I also speak on behalf of my Secretary of State and other Ministers—to ensuring that this will be enacted as speedily as possible. We will not let the processes of government delay us except to the absolute minimum. We are targeting April 2025 and we will certainly make sure that, if we can enact any parts of this legislation sooner than that, we will do so.
It was quite right that the eligibility of other types of worker in our workforce was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Blake and Lady Taylor. It is felt that we want this to focus on employed workers. It is right to make sure that this mirrors our current maternity and other leave entitlements so that it can be effectively integrated into HMRC systems, pay systems and how businesses function.
I am perfectly aware of, and will take back to the department, the need to continually find ways to ensure that parents in this situation are able, with security, to spend time with their children. There are two very important reasons. First, it is a direct benefit to the health of the child. I would like to raise further in this debate the profile of the charity Bliss and to follow on from the comments about the parents who contributed to this work. This is a deeply personal, emotional and powerful subject. To share those experiences and to broadcast and propagate the importance of this mission is very meaningful. I congratulate them for this and hope to have the opportunity at a later date to do so in person. I hope that they are watching this debate and feel a sense of satisfaction that we continue to progress towards a suitable conclusion. My first point, then, is that it is absolutely right for the health of the child that parents are able to care for them in this difficult and essential period. It is also absolutely right, by the way, for the health of the parents.
My second point is that we must realise that there is a cost to businesses for these important social goods. We should not just ignore that fact. We as a society come together to decide how we want to structure ourselves, and how businesses respond to our needs and to important matters such as this is to be recognised—and I do recognise that. On the effectiveness of business, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the need to make sure that people remain in the workforce, having a structure and framework for how neonatal care leave is taken is far more helpful than the current system, which relies, in effect, on the charity of businesses. Many are extremely forward-footed, very generous and very compassionate but, clearly, they do not have a framework in which to operate effectively.
It is therefore extremely useful to have clear rules, such as we are bringing to bear in other areas such as carers’ leave and so on, so that employees and businesses know how to interact with each other, what their rights are and what the expectations are. As a result of that, I think that we will have far more effective functioning of businesses. We can see from the studies and some of the statistics raised today by my noble friend Lady Newlove and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the number of fathers who are simply taking sick leave or just not going to work. It is not as if , therefore, by not having these frameworks in place, we will somehow have more people in work and that the business situation will be solved. What is happening now is the worst of all worlds: a great degree of insecurity, a huge degree of uncertainty for business and poor outcomes for parents and children. The Bill will solve a number of very important issues. It is absolutely right in every respect and will be an important element of the framework for how we want to make our economy function.
I believe I have covered most of the points raised. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned that the delegated powers have been taken out of the Bill, so I do not need to cover that in my speech, if noble Lords do not mind. I was very touched and moved by the personal stories of my noble friend Lady Newlove about the Bagnall family—I am very pleased that super Sam is thriving—and by the stories and important personal experiences related to us by the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster, Lady Taylor and Lady Blake, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lady Wyld. I am very grateful to them for contributing to this debate in such a powerful way.
To conclude, these measures will provide valuable support and protection for parents during some of the most stressful days of their lives, when their children are in neonatal care. The Government are pleased to support this Private Member’s Bill and to deliver our manifesto commitment. Supporting the Bill is in line with our ongoing commitment to support workers and build a fairer, high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy. It is good to see that there is such fabulous support from across the political spectrum in the House for this important measure, as is clear from today’s debate. I very much look forward to continuing to work with my noble friend Lady Wyld as the Bill progresses through the House.
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill
Lord Johnson of Lainston ExcerptsMonday 20th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 View all Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (10 Mar 2023)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, it is with deep regret that the UK Government have been unable to secure legislative consent for this Bill from the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. We have also not been able to secure a legislative consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly, given the lack of a functioning Executive. This is disappointing, given that the same approach was followed in the Trade Act 2021, for which the Scottish and Welsh Governments did recommend consent.
The Government have sought to agree compromises with the devolved Administrations. However, despite the best efforts of officials and Ministers, we have not been able to reach an agreement with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. I remind noble Lords again that during the passage of the Bill and the deals it implements, the Government have undertaken extensive engagement with the devolved Administrations, including ministerial meetings, official-level meetings and meetings of ministerial fora, and there were 25 chief negotiator calls with the DAs regarding the Australia free trade agreement alone. In addition, as I have made clear in each debate on the Bill, I reaffirm the UK Government’s commitment to consult the devolved Administrations before exercising the concurrent power in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking through the Bill, which is a first for both the Minister and the country—our first trade deal signed following our exit from the European Union. The Minister’s enthusiasm for the Bill was always evident throughout its passage. We now have a trade arrangement with Australia and New Zealand. We will wait to see the overall and specific effects, particularly upon our agriculture sector. While the overall impact is predicted to be very limited, a factor caused by the huge distance between Australia and New Zealand and the UK, there were some specific concerns about certain Australian farming methods and the effect on small hill farmers in the UK. I suspect that these account largely for the failure to get agreement from the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
My thanks go again to the Minister and his team of advisers for their openness and, on this side, to Milton Brown, who again has shown good judgment in facilitating the progress of the Bill.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, it has been a pleasure to take my first Bill through your Lordships’ House. I thank noble Lords for the constructive approach that has been evident throughout the Bill’s passage. We have had robust discussions and debates on the Bill. Likewise, I have had the privilege in recent weeks of engaging with Peers outside the Chamber, and I have benefited from those conversations, which have been in-depth and valuable. The experience, diligence and practical knowledge of noble Lords have challenged and tested the strength of the Bill and its underlying trade deals. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this provides reassurance to the public on the quality of our democratic processes, our accountability and the constructive challenge function of your Lordships’ House. It remains for me only to give a few specific thanks to noble Lords and others before we complete our consideration of the Bill.
First, I thank the Opposition spokespersons, the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Purvis of Tweed, for the constructive way that they have continued to approach the scrutiny of the Bill—as well as the additional work outside in engaging with our various high commissioners, which I personally appreciated very much.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for the valuable conversations that we have shared on this legislation and her continued championing of our important agricultural sector. I hope that she has been reassured throughout the Bill’s passage through this House of the Government’s commitment to maintaining our high food standards and safeguarding measures for this sector and UK farmers within both deals. It was due to the scrutiny of my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we identified the minor drafting error in Clause 2(1)(a), which has subsequently been corrected.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley, whose knowledge, frankly, makes my job all the easier as he makes the points in my speech before I get the chance to do so. It is absolutely right that I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and all the members of the IAC for their considered input.
This has been very much a team effort. Behind the scenes, the extraordinary Bill team have put in an unbelievable amount of effort. My thanks go to: James Copeland, Thomas Bingham, Donald Selmani, Jack Collins, Alex Garcia-Pineiro and Catherine Ajani. I also thank my private secretary Sehar Shaheryar and other officials who make up my private office, led by Simon Moore.
Finally, I thank the parliamentary staff, the doorkeepers and the clerks for their professionalism and continued support and to your Lordships’ House.
The Bill provides a power to give effect to our procurement commitments within these agreements, improving three areas of our existing procurement legislation in the UK. We will see benefits to our public services and companies trading in these partner countries—ultimately, unlocking billions in government contracts in a more secure way than ever before.
In conclusion, the Bill will achieve the essence of our post-Brexit vision of Britain. Some noble Lords have questioned the presence of the Government’s trade agenda during the Bill’s passage. In response I say: here it is. These deals guarantee a global interconnectedness of trade deals, with the United Kingdom at the very heart of these new routes, meaning new opportunities for our businesses and citizens. This will result in new markets for our goods and services and new ways to travel and share our cultures. To our friends, trading partners, clients, suppliers, brothers and cousins in Australia and New Zealand, I say, “Hold tight! The UK is coming.” I reiterate my thanks one final time and, with that, I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Purvis, who is, unfortunately, unable to be here this afternoon. We thank the Minister for his comments, as well as his patience and expertise during the passage of this Bill. We thank the Bill team for their help and support, as well as the Labour Front Benches and Cross Benches. We also thank Elizabeth Plummer in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, without whose help I do not think that my noble friend Lord Purvis and I would have been where we are today. We support the passage of the Bill and thank the Minister for his help.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I offer my congratulations to the Minister for skilfully conducting the debates on this important Bill, which I think will lead to much greater things in our future. I want to put before him three issues, almost housekeeping issues, that have arisen during the handling of the legislation, one of which has just been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
I declare an interest as a member of the International Agreements Committee, where the issue of trade policy and how specific or general it should be has been a matter of lively discussion. That is of course relevant to everything that we have been talking about.
I ask the Minister to keep the three points that I want to comment on in mind when we enter into future discussions on these sorts of areas in FTAs, of which there are going to be plenty more. First, the CRaG system—the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—has come under a bit of strain, and the question has arisen as to whether, when the other place resolves that something should not be ratified, the 21 days that then follow are enough to get the appropriate debates organised, or whether in fact the Government are not obliged to have a debate and maybe it does not fit into parliamentary time and the net effect can be that there is no debate at all. Perhaps that is an area that needs looking at again.
Secondly, the whole of the CRaG system depends on the assiduity, energy and powers of the committees. The resources on the clerical and research side of many committees, including all the ones that I have served on for 30 years, have been second to none, and have been particularly superb here in the House of Lords itself—but are they enough, given the size and number of the treaties that are coming through? We are not even talking about the EU treaties that are handled by the International Trade Committee; we are talking about thousands and thousands of treaties and agreements, let alone instruments, pouring through day by day. Today’s giant Executive generates a continuous flow, a cascade, of these things. Do the committees have the resources and underpinning that committees in similar parliamentary systems to ours, here in Europe and elsewhere, seem to have? Should there have been harder thinking about whether, in a modern society with a modern Parliament trying to hold the Executive to account, the resources of committees are the key—the physical resources, clerical resources, research resources and back-up, and the power to summon and so on. These are all matters of lively discussion that have arisen in this area.
My third point is a bit of a puzzle, but we are going to hear a lot more about it: the question of consent from the devolved Administrations. I need to have one thing clarified for me. I thought foreign policy was a reserved matter under the devolution legislation that we passed through both Houses. When the Holyrood Parliament refuses consent, I want to know under what powers it is doing that. As the Minister has indicated, that does not actually stop a Bill proceeding and being enacted, but it is a rather curious situation when, if the devolved Administrations have views on this, they can just sit there and not provide consent. Is it because they think Scotland should have some separate relationship with Australia and New Zealand—I cannot believe that is the case—or is it simply some inner procedural matter where they do not feel there has been adequate consultation? Either way, it is a very uncomfortable situation to encounter. My noble friend has handled it excellently, but these things sit there and require some hard thought if future Bills of this kind, of which there will be many, can be conducted in a reasonable way where Parliament feels that it really is getting a grip on what is happening.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly appreciate noble Lords’ comments. I think I was so keen to get this Bill through that I slightly jumped the gun. I apologise to those noble Lords who were waiting to speak. I greatly appreciate the personal comments towards my own enthusiasm. I have hugely enjoyed the process of working with so many noble Lords in the first of what I hope will be a series of very exciting, exhilarating and profitable trade deals for the whole of the UK.
I have always been very specific, as have the Government, that this is a journey. We are very keen to hear how we can engage better. It is absolutely in the interests of the Government and these trade deals that there is a broad consensus around their power and effect to elevate our economy to new heights; otherwise, we will not be able to broadcast the ramifications and specifics of the trade deals to the country and people will not take advantage of them. Personally, I am continuing to engage at all possible points.
I am delighted to answer a few of the questions. In terms of the committee resourcing, I will certainly take that away. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for raising that. The IAC under the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has done a very good job. A number of noble Lords have spoken to that today and during the debate. It is certainly worth making sure we have the resources in this House to ensure we are scrutinising according to the appropriate CRaG process.
The noble Lord touched on the consent issues. They have clearly been an important feature of the debates around these trade deals. It does not necessarily look like we have resolved them for future trade deals. However, as the noble Lord rightly said, these are reserved powers. If you consult your Walter Bagehot, as I did over the weekend, he makes it very clear and is absolutely right that the Executive should be making treaties and be given the freedom of rein to implement them across the entire United Kingdom.
Having said that, we have made huge efforts to consult and engage with the devolved nations. I personally made extra efforts, which I would not describe as effort at all but part of a necessary process of good governance and communication, to ensure that devolved nations felt that they had a way in to this process. It is absolutely confirmed that our negotiators spend a great deal of time with officials from all parts of the United Kingdom to make sure that their views are fed in. This reflects on the sort of trade we are trying to do in terms of the specific industries of these nations. We are one United Kingdom, and our power in negotiating global trade deals comes from that fact. It would be a great mistake to try to abrogate that for any reason. Having said that, consultation and communication are paramount to us, and I personally commit to them.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Will my noble friend confirm that the Bill is about incorporating into domestic legislation the procurement provisions and chapters of the treaty? Although treaty making may be a reserved power, the implementation of the procurement-related legislation reflects directly on devolved matters. That is why consent should have been provided by the devolved Administrations.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that comment. I do not believe that is necessarily the case, in the sense that this is a procurement Bill relating to a trade deal, so it is right that concurrent powers can be initiated. I believe that is the case. That is certainly how we have operated on the premise of this Bill.
We wanted to gain consent because that is good practice, but, as I say, we focused on consultation and communication, which has achieved the same goal. The whole point of this Bill and the trade deal it underpins is that it will lead to greater trade, more commerce and economic activity and greater wealth creation for the entire UK, which we should celebrate.
If I may come to a conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their extremely helpful scrutiny. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned. It proves the power and point of this Chamber. Any of the body politic who discuss significant revision of the powers of this Chamber should think very carefully about the actions taken on this Bill. Through the scrutiny of this House and the participation of individual Members, we have been able to draft a more effective Bill and draft it correctly, for which I am extremely grateful. I am very excited about the opportunities that the Australia and New Zealand trade deal will give us, our citizens and this nation. With that, I beg to move.
National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 March
Motion agreed.
UK Car Production Since 2016
Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My apologies; I was waiting outside.
The Government are focused on transitioning our car industry from internal combustion engines to electric and other sustainably powered vehicles. Shortages of semiconductors and supply chain disruption have been key factors affecting recent UK and global car production numbers. However, the Government are accelerating and positioning ourselves for growth in electrification and unlocking industry investment.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I also appeal to Ministers to be more open. My question asked about car production. Car production in the UK has collapsed by over half since 2016—the worst performance of any car producer in Europe. Even the soaring demand for electrical vehicles is likely to be affected when, under the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, car industry rules of origin exemptions for EVs come to an end this coming December. Brexit has created nothing but uncertainty, extra costs and supply chain problems for business. What incentives have the Government provided for international investors in the car industry to come to this country at a time when the major trading blocs, from which we are now excluded, are becoming more protectionist?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I sincerely thank the noble Lord for raising this point. It is important that we have a strong car industry in this country, and there are some legitimate reasons why the industry is transitioning. As many noble Lords who have been involved in this industry will know, we are moving from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles, which means some lines end and it takes time to start new lines. I am also very aware of the rules of origin issue, and I sincerely hope that our new relationship with Europe will allow us to have a more constructive conversation around that. It is in no one’s interest to have a trade war on cars.
I will finish by saying that there have been some great announcements over the last few years, and the Government have been extremely influential and relevant in supporting companies such as Nissan and Envision, with investment in the Vauxhall plant at Ellesmere Port and support for Pensana’s factory near Hull. Ford has committed just under £0.25 billion of investment in Halewood, and in 2022, Bentley announced a £2.5 billion investment to produce its first battery electrical vehicles by 2026, which will secure 4,000 jobs at its Crewe plant. There is certainly more that we can do, but we are acting, and we are trying to transition our car industry into one that is sustainable for the future.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, with growing Chinese competition in car manufacturing—in fact, China is dominating the EV market altogether—there are obviously even worse challenges to come. But would my noble friend like to say what he thinks about the EU proposal, announced yesterday, to go for what it calls a Net-Zero Industry Act to compete with the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, because it is very nervous that Volkswagen and other European manufacturers are all about to move from France and Germany to the United States? How are we going to work it out in this situation? It seems rather dangerous.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his comments. There has been a large amount of debate around the value of the Inflation Reduction Act, which I believe is the greatest oxymoronic legislative title in history, frankly, as I cannot believe that it will reduce inflation. Some of its measures are also relatively protectionist. The Government are investing heavily, not just in car manufacturing but in the research and development around it. For example, the Faraday Challenge amounts to £500 million, the Automotive Transformation Fund is hundreds of millions of pounds and the Advanced Propulsion Centre is providing huge amounts of much-needed money for new car production facilities and the inventiveness around that. It is not good enough just to try to find a bigger bazooka; we must ensure we focus on regulation and proper support for R&D, because our brains are our best defence.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may call it “transitioning” but most people will call it “declining”. But let us take his word: transitioning. In order to create the industry for electric vehicles, Britain needs a gigafactory. The Government pinned their hopes on the Britishvolt factory. That failed, the company is being taken over and it will now be used for a different purpose. Last week I asked how the Government’s ambitions for a gigafactory would be fulfilled in the very near future. I did not get a detailed answer and I would be very grateful if the Minister could give me a proper answer now that explains how the industry is going to be able to rely on a gigafactory at the centre of government strategic thinking.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly appreciate the pressing on this point. It is essential that we have strong battery manufacture capability in this country if we are to have an automotive industry. Do not be under any illusion: the Government are concentrating on this night and day. I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the fact that I think the Britishvolt transition —if I can use that word again—was quite successfully handled. The Government pledged money, which should have worked in the financing. Unfortunately, it had to evolve to a new owner, but that transition has been successfully managed and it will still be making battery materials and technology.
As I highlighted earlier, through government support through the Automotive Transformation Fund, Nissan and Envision have signed a deal to produce batteries. Importantly, this is linked to a critical mineral supply deal we did with Indonesia that I personally helped steer through after the excellent work of my noble friend Lord Grimstone. This does not just give us battery manufacturing capability. As importantly, the focus of this Government is to make sure that we have the materials to supply these batteries, so that we can be ahead of our competitors.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Minister referred to our brains as being our competitive advantage. The Government reiterated in the integrated review refresh their ambition for the UK to be investing 2.4% of GDP in R&D. The OECD average is 2.7%. Does the Minister think that the Government’s ambition is likely to turn us into a so-called superpower in terms of science, and will that be sufficient to support the kinds of ambitions we ought to have in our car industry?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his point. I am glad he agrees with us that our brains are our best defence. I see around this House many good examples of that. I would stress that the Government are investing not simply in R&D in science and technology to become a science and technology superpower, but heavily in education, which is not necessarily classified under those figures. I saw recently an extra £2.8 billion being announced for education and training. We have further projects to ensure that our tertiary education remains the strongest in the world with, I might point out, three of the top 10 greatest universities in the world coming from this nation, which is something we should celebrate.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, why are the Government investing for their own fleet of cars in South Korea? My friends in Sunderland are bewildered as to why investment is going to South Korea and not to the Nissan Leaf in Sunderland.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly appreciate the noble Baroness for drawing this to my attention; I am afraid that I was unaware of government investment in Korean car production, so maybe we can follow that up at a later date. As I said, the Government have provided a huge amount of support for the motor industry, not just financial support but real support. I can assure her that the Office for Investment, which is under me at the Department for Business and Trade, works continually to ensure that all the opportunities around the world are brought to this country so that we can have a strong car manufacture and research and development industry in this nation.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is good that the Minister emphasises R&D, but, truly, electric cars are not really sustainable, so the Government will actually have to think about the next generation of much more sustainable vehicles. Will any of that research and development go into improving our public transport networks—not HS2?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful, as always, for the prompting on the importance of achieving net zero and sustainability over the next so many years. I draw this House’s attention to the broadness of our attempts to build a sustainable automotive sector in this country, with Johnson Matthey announcing in July an £80 million hydrogen gigafactory at its existing site in Royston. So this is not simply about EVs; it is important that we want to have a diversified strategy to ensure that we are sustainable for the future. That requires effort, finance and the businesses themselves to be successful, and we are supporting all those three.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, is the European-wide nature of the problems facing the car industry not illustrated by the fact that Germany in 2021 produced fewer car passenger vehicles than it did 30 years ago? The German Ministry for Economic Affairs has prophesised that there will be loss of 100,000 jobs in the car industry because of the transition. Has my noble friend the Minister noted the intention announced by both the German and Italian industry Ministers that they may veto the previous decision of the EU to phase out CO2-emitting cars by 2035? If that were to happen, what would the impact be on Britain, with its different target?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate my noble friend’s point on this subject. We are committed to our targets, and it is absolutely right to achieve net zero by the date we have set. I am glad that he mentioned the other European car manufacturers, because this past week alone the Prime Minister travelled to Paris for a summit with President Macron to work on the very important task of rebuilding our links with Europe, to ensure we can have sensible conversations with our European partners. I call that Project Grand Amour, and it has been enormously successful. If we look ahead at some of the problems facing us, particularly in our automotive industry—and at the importance of ensuring we have strong trading relationships with our European neighbours, which is the essence of this point—we should be extremely grateful for, and indeed celebrate, the Prime Minister’s wonderful and marvellous actions last week in the new Belle Alliance.
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill
Lord Johnson of Lainston ExcerptsTuesday 14th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 View all Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (10 Mar 2023)
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord; he knows I respect his work on this area very much. I would like the Minister to confirm that that will be the case, because I am not convinced. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her place. She was kind enough to have a meeting with me about it. I am not yet convinced, because of the elements within the Procurement Bill which will require there to be no discrimination for any of the treaty countries for public procurement in this country, that what he is arguing for, which is effectively a carve-out, will in fact be the case. My understanding is that under the Procurement Bill, we are unable to discriminate against any of the treaty suppliers. I am not sure that a public body in this country would be able to discriminate. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify that point.
The reason this is relevant and why I quoted the then candidate for leader of the Conservative Party’s commitment to 50% of public procurement in this country being local is that I do not know how that squares with what will be the legal requirement under the Procurement Bill that we are then unable to discriminate against Australian and New Zealand produce which will enter the market. I do not know how that squares.
I am simply asking the questions, because we have not had more meat on the bone, if that is not too inappropriate an analogy, about what has been published as a government commitment and is in the Procurement Bill. If the noble Lord has any other answers, I am happy for him to intervene on me. I do not know how he knows how this might be squared. I do not at this moment. That is why part of our agriculture sector is also questioning how these two commitments will come together. The different sequencing of this Bill and the Procurement Bill is relevant. Because it also sets the precedent for Canada and Mexico, with new produce coming in, and if these are gateway agreements for CPTPP, we are looking at potential competition with all CPTPP members for public procurement of produce. If you are a public body in the UK looking at cost-effective procurement of food for schools or hospitals and you are unable under the Procurement Bill to discriminate against Australian or New Zealand produce or that from any CPTPP country and state that there is local producing, similarly, I do not know that it is matched.
I hope that, at this late stage, the Minister can offer some reassurance. I hope that he is able to explain how these commitments to 50% of procurement can be matched, as well as give further reassurances, specifically on the impact on tenant farmers and biodiversity. There are genuine concerns here, I do not think they will go away and we need to offer that reassurance to these sectors, which are so vital to our rural economy.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests, although I do not believe there is any conflict relating to our debate today. I am also grateful for the apology of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for being slightly late. I was fractionally late for Questions this afternoon, and was called on to resign, among other things. I hope the House does not mind that I have not taken that too seriously.
I am delighted to be speaking on Report of this very important Bill. If it is appropriate to make a personal comment, I have deeply appreciated the high level of engagement with the Opposition Front Benches, my noble friends and noble Lords across the House. I do not want to put words into people’s mouths, but I think we agree that it is a fundamentally good thing to do a trade deal with Australia and New Zealand. I was watching the news yesterday and seeing the extraordinary advances we have made in collaboration, particularly with Australia, in our defence. It will benefit the economy in many areas in the north-west of this country, among other parts of this nation. The sheer sincerity of the brotherhood between our nations should be expressed very clearly. I very much hope that if the high commissioner of either Australia or New Zealand—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for engaging with Phil Goff recently—is watching this debate, they know that the fundamental spirit of the House is for a successful conclusion of this process and a good and successful trade deal with Australia and New Zealand.
At the same time, I am very aware of the issues that trade deals create. I am certainly not triumphal in any way about trade liberalisation or the effects that this trade deal will have on individuals and farming communities. I have been very sensitive to those discussions over the past few months and take this very seriously. I express my personal view that we must support our farming community, and this is unquestionably the view of this Government as well. It is important to have that on the record.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am aware that the Minister suggested that there be no interventions, but I have to say one word: mulesing. That is a dreadful animal welfare issue in Australian sheep farming.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. It is not my plan in this debate to be triumphal or to score points or whatever in terms of coming backwards and forwards. I have done a great deal of work in order to satisfy myself that when it comes to mulesing, the reports suggest that a tiny percentage of meats that would appear in this country—I am only going on the reports that I have been given—would be at risk of being from that practice. I have also been encouraged by reports that I have read about changing practices and standards in Australia. In particular, farmers who come under the Australian farm assurance programme certainly insist on anaesthetising before mulesing. I do not want to go down an alleyway, but the point is that great efforts have been made to ensure that, broadly speaking, our standards are aligned.
I have two more important points. The New Zealand Government have introduced a significant upgrade to their animal welfare standards. I cannot recall the name of the Bill, but if noble Lords wish to look, they will see that they are introducing a whole raft of new animal welfare standards and general environmental standards for farming, which will have enormous ramifications for their production and align them even further, if not go even further than we do. I spoke yesterday, specifically ahead of this debate, to the Australian high commissioner and raised this issue again, as I did with the Trade and Agriculture Minister who I met a few months ago. This has been my main issue, particularly when speaking directly to interlocutors about animal welfare standards.
They have confirmed to me that they are doing further work, which is very important. The Government of Australia have announced the banning of other practices, not associated with our exports but relating to live animal exports and so on. The direction of travel is very positive. We have not celebrated enough that our work in negotiating these trade deals has helped to drive up standards in both countries. I applaud our negotiating team for doing that, and applaud the debates that we have, with leadership from individuals such as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, ensuring that these areas are properly highlighted and that we can draw attention to our interlocutors and set standards, and that our negotiating partners know that we have these standards and that we wish to be aligned on them.
I have only a few more points to make. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made some very relevant references to the Food Standards Agency. I wrote to her and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Lennie, covering some of the questions raised in the last debate. This issue was raised. I have interviewed staff there to ensure that they carry out physical checks at the border for Australian and New Zealand products. They do not check every container, and frankly it is quite right that they do not. It would be an extreme impediment to trade, especially for food produce. However, they take a very proactive approach to ensuring that our standards—which, to reinforce the point, are not derogated in any way by these trade Bills—are upheld.
On top of that, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, raised a point about whether we can be comfortable of certification on the ground. In my recent call with the Food Standards Authority, I particularly covered the topic of Australia, which has a local assurance system, as do we. To be eligible to export, a farmer must sign up to the federal export assurance scheme; I cannot recall its name, but your Lordships will know what I mean. Therefore, vets who are under obligation to perform their duties—
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
The question that follows from the helpful remarks of the Minister is: are the British Government confident and fully in line with what those schemes have to say?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I was just coming to that. I may have taken a bit too long to get there but I am trying to reassure noble Lords by describing in detail the lengthy process of assurance that Australia provides us with. It is part of the global trading system and not necessarily unique to Australia. We must do the same, as I understand. If I am wrong, I will ensure that this is corrected, but we must do the same with any agricultural or meat exports that we send to Australia.
Are we confident that Australia is upholding their system and managing it properly? The answer is yes. I have been impressed with the calls that I have had around this subject. It is a detailed and complicated process of assurance that ensures that we are comfortable that what we receive is indeed what is advertised. I do not want to be called back here if there is a case where that does not happen, because clearly that is not my intention, but on whether we are confident about the processes in place, the short answer is yes.
Regarding South American beef being passed off under British beef titles, I understand that this was only from one retailer, and the National Food Crime Unit is investigating. This struck me as an isolated case. Forgive me that I do not have all the details, but the major supermarket retailers have all denied any knowledge of this and it has not affected them. This is a unique case. I am happy to have someone write to the noble Lord because it would be interesting to find out a bit more about this, but it is not relevant in this instance. It does not seem to be widespread, but is specific. That it has been caught and is being investigated is very important.
I come to a conclusion—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Can the Minister address the commitment that the now Prime Minister made for 50% of public sector procurement to be sourced locally? Is that government policy? How does that interact with the legal requirements in the Procurement Bill that a public body in this country would not be able to choose a local producer over a treaty supplier producer, on that basis?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s comments and was about to come on to that when I said “conclusion”. Sadly, my conclusions can run to several topics, the noble Lord’s being one of them.
It is correct that the procurement legislation prohibits a nationalist tilt towards procurement, which is what we want. When it comes to government procurement, we want the highest quality products at the lowest possible prices, and I would like to think that they will be British products. It will reassure this House to know that 81% of all beef sold in this country is under British brand labels. Only 19% international beef is sold in this country in the first place. The assumption is that you are already looking at a very high level of local procurement. A 50% threshold would be logical for something such as beef, which already fits into that.
There is a further question and further investigation regarding whether procurement can be assessed in terms of other relevant factors. I am happy to have a further debate about that in general. It can apply to a wide range of concepts. It could even apply to how energy is sourced and supplied. There is always work defining what concepts such as sustainability or relevance to the environment could be in terms of transportation distances and so on. They are discussions to have. I have been having discussions in other areas, for reasons not linked to these trade discussions, on whether these factors can be brought to bear in procurement. We are very wary of introducing anything other than straightforward procurement rules, but I assure the noble Lord that—as with beef, where 81% is already UK beef—it would seem logical that a very high proportion of produce is sourced locally.
Lord Lansley (Con)
At the risk of delaying us on this point, the access that is given through these procurement chapters and for treaty state suppliers under the Procurement Bill is to cover procurement, which means procurements larger than the threshold amounts set out in the schedule to the Procurement Bill. For example, for local food production for a set of schools, this would have to be a procurement over £213,000. In truth, the issue is not whether there is an Australian company that is likely to bid for such a procurement, because these procurements will be smaller than that. It is whether beef from Australia is in this country and in circulation in their market which might then be used by local suppliers—but then they are a local supplier to the school.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I have appreciated my noble friend’s extremely positive interventions and applaud wholeheartedly his phrase, “Let’s get on with it.” He has also been extremely helpful in pointing out the specifics of the Bill and the difficulty of attaching these sorts of amendments to it, although I am very sympathetic to the overall philosophy of the desire for proper impact assessments, which we have had and agree to wholeheartedly in terms of the two-year and the five-year monitoring report. I stress again that this treaty does not create a precedent. However, it does create a model. I am very impressed and support wholeheartedly the flexibility of this agreement because it will allow us and allow noble Lords to call Ministers to account on a constant and rolling basis concerning the effectiveness of these trade treaties.
I believe that I have covered most of the points raised. I am very happy to continue a dialogue around these and any other measures that may not have been covered on this important piece of legislation. We believe, and I believe passionately, that this trade Bill is a good thing for this country. It will be of huge benefit to our citizens and our consumers. It will give us enormous additional security and allow us to have a closer relationship with two nations that have been, since their founding, sister nations of this country.
I am continually being asked by the representatives of Australia and New Zealand when this treaty will come into force because, as soon as it does, and only then, their businesses and citizens, and ours, will be able to take advantage of it. I call on this House to support the Government in this mission. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, to withdraw his amendment, and for the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, not to move theirs.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
The TAC covering procurement seems to be a future possibility, and I welcome the Minister’s comments on it. On the questions of food standards and quality assurance that noble Lords have raised, we will wait and see. We will have a review in two years and a conclusion to that in five years, and we will find out whether the assurances that we seek on food standards have been maintained. I do not think that there is any doubt about this being a gateway agreement: it is clearly to do with the CPTPP. The impact assessment that we are calling for is a one-off. This is the first time that we have negotiated a trade deal for some 45 years. To make sure that we have covered all the bases and got things right, we thought that a review—rather more frequently than the five years offered—would have been better. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a word missing from Clause 2(1)(a).
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 2, in my name, is a minor and technical amendment that has been tabled by the Government to correct a typographical error in the Bill and clarify the power available to Ministers of the Crown or a devolved Administration under Clause 1. I am very grateful for noble Lords’ scrutiny, which was instrumental in highlighting this typographical error in the Bill. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is not in his usual place, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh, for highlighting this issue in Committee. If I may say so, their laser focus on detail in the Bill shows the real value of your Lordships’ House in ensuring that legislation is as robust and clear as possible. The Government are very grateful to noble Lords for highlighting this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
I rise briefly to speak to Amendments 7 and 8 in this group. These two amendments would sunset the ability to make amendments to two years after the law passes or the UK’s accession to the CPTPP. Incidentally, the Government previously said that accession would happen last year, but, as I am sure we are aware, it has not yet taken place.
The Explanatory Notes to these deals state that each party to the free trade agreement should ensure that its domestic legislative framework is consistent with the obligations in the FTA. The UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand free trade agreements require changes to domestic procurement law. Therefore, why not have sunset powers in the legislation? Is there any expectation that achieving this intention would take more than two years, and are there concerns that constant updates would be required for whatever reason? If so, would it be right to do so for more than two years in any event? If accession to the CPTPP will change our trade relationship with Australia and New Zealand, will a domestic legislative framework need to be updated in a manner not possible within the powers in the Bill so that it is aligned with the CPTPP and these deals if they are to coexist? A series of trade experts have commented that the UK will be a rule-taker, not a rule-maker, when we join the CPTPP. The Minister may perhaps wish to comment on this interplay between the Australia and New Zealand trade deals and the CPTPP. I beg to move.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I turn to Amendment 8 specifically, which seeks for the Bill to lapse when the UK joins the CPTPP. Bilateral free trade agreements, such as these signed with Australia and New Zealand, do not lapse due to membership of plurilateral agreements such as the CPTPP and the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. They exist alongside each other—that is important to note—with the UK having separate and continuing commitments under each. This is already the case with the numerous bilateral trade agreements that the UK has with members of the GPA, such as Canada, Switzerland, the Republic of Korea, the EU and Ukraine, to name a few.
I emphasise that the procurement chapters of the Australia and New Zealand agreements will not be superseded by the UK’s accession to the CPTPP. Accordingly, the power in the Bill will still be needed when the UK has acceded to the CPTPP, to implement future modifications to the Australia and New Zealand agreements. In light of this, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of these regulations, which were laid before the House on 30 January 2023, is to raise the national living wage and the national minimum wage rates on 1 April 2023.
The strength of the UK labour market remains something to be proud of. Unemployment is low, the number of employees on payrolls is 1 million above pre-pandemic levels and demand for workers remains close to record levels. The Government’s overarching priority is to achieve sustained economic growth. Our commitment to a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy will further address cost of living pressures, as well as levelling up every part of the UK and hastening the transition to net zero.
However, we recognise the impact of inflation for people right across the country, which is why this Government have continued to take robust action. This year sees the largest cash increase in the history of the minimum wage, and, once these measures come into force, the national living wage will have risen more than twice as fast as inflation since its introduction in 2015. Furthermore, benefit payments and the state pension will increase by 10.1% in April, in line with September’s CPI inflation rate. We have also delivered a package of measures, including the energy price guarantee, which has saved a typical UK household around £900 across the winter, and hundreds of pounds-worth of support in the form of cost of living payments targeted towards the vulnerable households that need it most.
I turn to the detail of the national living wage and national minimum wage regulations, which will come into force on 1 April. Following a comprehensive impact assessment prepared and published by the Government, we estimate that 2.9 million workers will receive a pay rise across the United Kingdom. I am pleased to confirm that the Government have accepted all the rate recommendations made by the Low Pay Commission in October 2022. The Low Pay Commission is an independent body which conducts expert research and analysis and brings together input from representatives of business and workers. I thank it for its tireless efforts.
The Government remain committed to their ambitious target for the national living wage to equal two-thirds of median earnings by 2024, provided that economic conditions allow. This will have the effect of ending low pay in the UK in line with the OECD definition, and this year’s increases keep us on course to achieve that target. Under the new regulations, the national living wage, which applies to those aged 23 and over, will increase to £10.42 an hour. This is an increase of 9.7% or 92p. As a result, a full-time worker on the national living wage will see their annual pay before tax rise from £17,300 to over £18,900—an increase in excess of £1,600. This also ensures our national living wage rate remains one of the highest in the world. According to the Low Pay Commission, as of the start of 2022 the UK had the fourth highest minimum wage rate in Europe.
These regulations will also increase the national minimum wage rates for younger workers and apprentices, as well as the accommodation offset. Workers aged 21 and 22 will be entitled to a minimum hourly rate of £10.18, representing an increase of £1 or 10.9%. This narrows the gap with the 23 and over rate and keeps this group on course to receive the full entitlement to the full national living wage by 2024—another ambitious target set by this Government. Those aged between 18 and 20 will be entitled to a minimum rate of £7.49 an hour, an extra 66p, while those aged under 18 will be entitled to a minimum rate of £5.28 an hour, an extra 47p. Both these changes represent an increase of 9.7%. Apprentices under 19 or those in the first year of their apprenticeship will also receive an increase of 9.7%, as their rate rises from £4.81 to £5.28.
Finally, on the detail of the regulations, the accommodation offset will also be increasing. This is the maximum daily amount that an employer can charge a worker for accommodation without it affecting their pay for minimum wage purposes; it will be rising by 4.6% from £8.70 to £9.10. The Low Pay Commission has made recommendations about the future of the accommodation offset in its recent report. The Government are continuing to consider them carefully and will issue a full response in due course.
These regulations aim to reward the lowest paid workers in every sector and in every part of the country for their contribution to our economy. We are aware of cost of living pressures and will continue to closely monitor all the impacts of increases to the national living wage and national minimum wage rates. To that end, the Government will shortly publish this year’s remit to the Low Pay Commission and ask it to provide recommendations for the rates which will apply from April 2024.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the report on this statutory instrument. I note that, only a few minutes ago in the Chamber, the Minister answered an Oral Question and gave a lot of information related to what we are discussing here. I thank him for that information as well. He said that we do things in bits to get them through. In a sense, it is not very clear when you are doing it “in bits” what the whole picture is.
The increases in minimum wage must be welcomed; of course, we welcome them. But they are not that generous, as £10.42 per hour times, say, 35 hours over a seven-day week is only £364. I wonder if we really consider that anybody can manage on that sort of sum in our large conurbations—£364, if you manage to do 35 hours. It should be more.
The Minister kindly gave us the detail that in October 2022, five months ago, these were considered to be the increases that ought to happen. The question I ask him to consider, because we are doing this five months later, is how up to date those figures are. Should they be more generous? As a start, perhaps we should consider an independent review to consult on how to set a genuine living wage across all sectors. For instance, we could pay the living wage in all central government departments and their agencies and encourage other public sector bodies to do likewise. It is important to set minimum wages at appropriate levels, including setting a 20% higher minimum wage for those on zero-hours contracts at a time of normal demand to compensate for the fluctuations in their hours of work. This statutory instrument takes no account of that.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My thanks are due to the Minister for setting out the upratings on the national minimum wage, the living wage and associated allowances, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for setting out his views on how things should improve in future. These changes are welcomed by the Opposition. Not surprisingly, it was us who set up the national minimum wage in 1999. We had a minimum wage, below which earnings must not fall, in the teeth of fierce opposition from the then Conservative Opposition Benches. I am glad that that situation has now been ameliorated, and they now support the minimum wage; all converts are welcome.
I think the number of jobs covered in all these figures is 2.9 million. The number affected by the national minimum wage is approximately 1.5 million, which compares with 700,000 at the time of its introduction. Does the Minister have any explanation for this increase in the numbers covered by the national minimum wage? Retail, hospitality and cleaning and maintenance are overrepresented in the minimum wage sector, and women are approximately two-thirds of those currently on the national minimum wage. Some explanation for that would be helpful.
The Labour Party would ensure that the national minimum wage was a real living wage. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked how to do so. We would do it by changing the Low Pay Commission’s remit so that, in addition to other factors, it reflected the need for working people’s pay to at least cover the cost of living. The national living wage would finally live up to its name. We would ensure that the national minimum wage applied to every adult worker and was properly enforced. It is unfair to pay adult workers below the national minimum wage, and by adult worker we mean everyone aged 18—the age at which you are treated as an adult in the UK—or over.
Many employers already pay the national minimum wage, and that is to be commended, but compliance is a big and continuing problem. Can the Minister tell us how many prosecutions or enforcements took place last year for failure to pay the national minimum wage? We welcome these upratings, as I have said, and look forward to having the opportunity to progress this legislation further by extending the protection that the national minimum wage provides for all adult workers sometime in the near future.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions in today’s debate. I particularly appreciated the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, about my responses on the OQ earlier. I like to think that we will have a slightly more mature exchange over this issue than we experienced then—but such is the nature of the important scrutiny of the parliamentary system.
If noble Lords do not mind, I will go through and try to answer some of the points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked about the relationship between the October date and the bringing into practice date of 1 April. In normal periods, that would be a perfectly reasonable time lag; in fact, it is relatively fast for Governments to move with only a six-month or so period. I am very sensitive to the fact that we live in an inflationary environment, and inflation is taken into account by the Low Pay Commission. A number of factors are taken into account, as noble Lords may imagine. It would be difficult to make sudden changes, however, given the fact that we need to make sure that employers have a suitable timeframe to bring into practice the pay increases. Although the public sector is also paying the minimum wage and the national living wage, we must not forget that it is on the whole employers who are paying these additional wages, and we should be thankful to them for the support of this overall concept.
Given that this is appraised every year, I hope we will still be in a position to make sure that these wages reflect our ambition, which is to make them represent two-thirds of median earnings. In preparation for this debate, I did some work with the officials from the department, who can bear witness to this. I wanted to see where we were in relation to other European countries on median earnings and absolute amounts, given the currency fluctuations. It is not my place to celebrate or feel triumphant about minimum wage levels, because we want people on maximum wage levels—but it is important to see where we stand, so at least we can benchmark. We compare very strongly. If you look at where we are on the European averages, you can see that we are one of the highest, out of the whole of Europe, and we compare extremely favourably with countries such as Germany.
The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, made a very good point, and I have thought about the philosophy of minimum wages, which were brought in in 1999 by a Labour Government and not supported by the Conservative Opposition at the time. I personally was unsure of what the effects would be on business; I was concerned that it would drive up costs for business and cause a negative or opposite effect to giving people security—that it would lead to greater insecurity and lower levels of employment. Actually, it has made sure that people are guaranteed a level of income, and it is an extremely powerful way for us to manage our economy. I am very pleased that we have converted—and, like all converts, we have probably ended up being more passionate about the cause than the original proponent. We have introduced the national living wage, which is a very effective way to ensure that the overall pay rates are raised.
On the noble Lord’s comment about the age at which these rates should apply—in other words, that the national minimum wage and the national living wage should be synchronous—I have some sympathy. At the same time, it has been believed, and I think there is evidence, that an element of flexibility for 18 to 22 year-olds, or those in their early 20s, is necessary, particularly as that is where there is greater vulnerability for employment volatility. We have plans for the pay scales of those over the age of 21 to eventually come into line with the national living wage, but we would still be keen to retain some flexibility for employees below that level.
This is all about making sure that the employment market functions properly and that we can employ as many people as possible at the right rates. This is certainly a matter for debate—we are trying to ensure, not that people are paid less, but that there is flexibility in the market so that new workers in the workforce can get the jobs they need.
It is important to cover the noble Lord’s point about there now being 1.5 million, from 700,000 when this came into practice. I am happy to do some more analysis of that, but my surface suspicion is that there are 3.75 million new people in the workforce since 2010. It would be interesting to see an analysis of what those jobs are. I would like to inquire into this, as I appreciate that the noble Lord has raised a very relevant point. In some respects, I would like to think that it is a good thing that we have people coming into the workforce, but clearly we do not want to see a derogation of wages. We want to see people being paid more. I stress that these are minimum-wage levels—they are not the set wage levels—to ensure that no one is paid less than that rate.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned issues around fixed-hours contracts and the flexible economy. We are doing an awful lot in that area to make sure that people have an element of certainty. He was generous enough to remember my response to the Oral Question earlier today. There is quite a long list of different types of specific protections that we are bringing in. I draw his attention to the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill, which effectively allows employees to demand flexible working from day one, rather than week 26, and to the Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill, which is probably more relevant to what he was talking about. It gives more strength to employees’ requirements for predictability in terms of numbers of hours if they are on temporary work contracts. Once you have worked for an employer on a part-time basis for a certain length of time, you will be given a greater opportunity to ask for predictability in how you are paid and your hours.
We have to strike a balance—and I think we do—in giving employers flexibility, which is at the core of what has been an incredibly dynamic and successful labour market over the last 20 years or longer, and making sure that workers feel protected. Importantly, flexible working hours are very much appreciated by a number of workers who want flexibility. It would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water and get rid of zero-hours contracts or highly flexible working. People appreciate them, as they give a great deal of flexibility. A lot of students and part-time workers who could not do full-time work and would not want predictable work will use these contracts. They constitute about 3% of the workforce. There are mechanisms and there is analysis of how we can improve the rights of workers, but we do not want to dilute the flexibility that these structures give to our workforce and economy.
The question from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, about the factors that the Low Pay Commission takes into account is well made. It takes a great number of factors into account when assessing pay. I believe that the Government have accepted all the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission; this is a very important partnership that we have. My assumption is that the factors in decision-making are continually reviewed, which is absolutely right. Ultimately, our ambition is to ensure that the national living wage effectively reaches two-thirds of median earnings by next year. I am very pleased to say that we are on track to achieve that. As a nation and a society—let alone a sense of triumph for the Government; this is about people’s hard work and being rewarded properly—it would be a great thing if the United Kingdom could achieve that, and we are on track and very close to doing so.
I believe I have covered all the issues, except for the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on tips. I am afraid I do not recall seeing the noble Lord in his usual place on Friday for the debate on tips. The legislation is very specific and will be brought to bear specifically so that all tips go to the workforce, with no deductions, not even for credit card charges. I hope that is clear, because that is the whole purpose. They will be paid monthly, so they cannot be accumulated, and, importantly, they cannot be used as so-called “pay bonuses” or “top-ups”.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, could he comment—or write to me if he cannot—on enforcement actions in the past 12 months? What are the numbers and so on?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. I try to answer all the questions, but there is always one that I miss. Enforcement is very important and all businesses are responsible for paying the correct minimum wage to their staff. HMRC follows up on every worker complaint it receives, even those that are anonymous. This includes complaints made to the ACAS helpline. In 2021-22, HMRC identified pay arrears in excess of £16.3 million for more than 120,000 workers. I am very happy to go through this now, but it might be more useful to write to the noble Lord if he is happy with that.
I will address one point that has been raised. To some extent I am embarrassed by it, but not embarrassed to be open and transparent about it. The question was why the listing of companies that have not paid their staff the minimum wage had not happened. The list is supposed to be published every quarter. I am afraid that there has been some turnover of Ministers. I spoke to the Minister responsible today and he is determined to make sure that it happens in the very near future. I cannot give a specific time, but we are very aware of it. We want to make sure these companies are named; it is a powerful incentive for employers to behave properly. We are entirely of one mind here and I will be delighted to put the information in the House of Lords Library relating to enforcement. The good news is that I can reassure the Committee that HMRC in particular has been focusing on tackling wilful non-compliance and that significant progress has been made.
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill
Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 3 and 4, Title.