Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by offering sincere congratulations to my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton on sponsoring this very important Bill, introduced by Yasmin Qureshi in the other place. I also thank her for her very clear explanation of the provisions within the Bill, and Members across the House for their very thoughtful contributions.

The Bill has Labour’s full support, and we recognise also the cross-party support. However, we still expect much greater action from the Government to enhance workers’ rights. As we have heard, the Bill will help many across the country to balance work with caring for loved ones, and the circumstances and the needs are various, as we have also heard. We know there are many statistics around this subject. I have seen estimates that at least 2.2 million employees are unable even to make requests for flexible leave. Indeed, some statistics suggest that only 11% can do so. So Labour welcomes the provisions in the Bill, which will begin to create the environment for a fairer and more equitable discussion between employers and employees about flexible working, with a very strong belief that this should be universally available.

The Bill also represents an important step towards ensuring that legislation reflects where we are as a society. We have heard a great deal about the need to take the lessons learned from Covid very seriously indeed. Remote working is one area, but there is also hybrid working, the ability for people to go to the workplace and work from home at the hours they choose, where that is possible. Surely this presents the best of both worlds for so many people, acknowledging that workers still need greater protections, and that flexible working should be an employment right, not a “nice to have” or a job perk. We need this Bill to be a very welcome starting point, not the endpoint. I was very struck by my noble friend Lady Taylor’s reflections on the needs of those such as the MS Society, and her very poignant explanation of the challenges that are faced by so many people.

As I have mentioned, in responding to this Private Member’s Bill and considering how we move forward, I have to say that it is a great disappointment that the Government have not taken the chances to bring forward comprehensive legislation in the form of an employment Bill, as was promised in the 2019 manifesto and the subsequent Queen’s Speech. I ask the Minister to reassure us of his full support for the provisions within this Bill going forward and a commitment to continuing the steps that need to be taken.

We on these Benches are of course proud to commit to strengthening rights at work. Labour’s A New Deal for Working People will ensure the right to secure flexible working for all workers, as default, from day one, with employers required to accommodate that as far as is reasonable. From my own experience, talking to employers for many years around this issue, I know that matters have been heightened by Covid and the response—but this issue goes back many years. I was very struck by the employers’ comments that, when people are seeking employment, often one of their first questions now is whether the company, or the employer, will offer flexible working conditions. This is across many sectors. It is not limited to the high-end providers.

To their credit, many employers now understand that being responsive on flexible working leads to a happier workplace and a more stable workforce. It contributes to the building of loyalty to the employer and of course is a significant factor to consider when we are looking at the very vexed issue of staff retention. We have heard that we are in a climate where too many employers are struggling to recruit and retain staff, and this must be an important consideration.

Both men and women seek flexibility in their parental duties. I welcome this and I see it in members of my own family: both parents want to share the care of their children. We also have to acknowledge that many of these thoughts are driven by the prohibitive costs of childcare, which mean that too many parents are seriously struggling to balance and juggle the needs of caring for their children with returning to the workplace.

As we have heard, too many requests are still declined. We know from the evidence that too many people do not make requests for flexible working due to the fear of the consequences. Many people are sensitive about their personal circumstances and find it difficult to be open and transparent when they are afraid of the punitive consequences of disclosing their particular needs. If three in 10 requests are declined, we also know that too few jobs are advertised with flexible working as an option; I understand it is as low as one in four. If we are serious about closing the gender and disability pay gap, and recognising the challenges to the workforce whether due to personal health needs or caring responsibilities, surely this area is crying out for change.

I confirm our support for the Bill. I also note that the Government referenced flexible working in the Spring Budget, including that they

“will work with employers to demonstrate the benefits of offering flexible working, including through initiatives such as employer pledges and offering flexible working in job adverts”.

We welcome those statements. However, can the Minister confirm how the Government plan to evidence the impact of the commitments made in the Budget, in particular those on encouraging employers to include flexible working in job adverts, widening access to flexible working and improving the quality of flexible working?

It goes without saying that I am delighted that the Bill has made such good progress and I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments giving us the reassurance that we all need and deserve to make sure that this welcome first step is adopted, with a commitment to doing far more in future.

Carer’s Leave Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Friday 19th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very worthy Bill and one that I am glad to see through to its final reading. We know that caring can take many guises, and providing unpaid care for a family member, friend, neighbour or dependant is a reality for many millions of people across the UK and is something that almost everyone will experience either directly or indirectly through their lives.

New findings from Carers UK and the University of Sheffield released earlier this month show that unpaid carers in England and Wales now contribute a staggering £445 million to the economy of England and Wales every day—that is £162 billion per year of voluntary work and the equivalent of a second NHS in England and Wales.

At an individual level, staying in work while providing care for a relative or friend can be incredibly challenging. Latest estimates show that over 7 million people in the UK are juggling work and unpaid care and, every year, more than 1.9 million people in paid employment become unpaid carers. The stresses and strains of having to juggle paid work alongside unpaid care without the support they need has left many exhausted and burnt out, and too often it is impossible for them to manage. As a result, on average, 600 people per day have had to leave work because they need to provide care. Many others have had to reduce their hours.

Research shows that having a supportive employer and the ability to take time off work to support dependants can mitigate those pressures. That is why this Bill would create a new entitlement for employees to take up to a week of unpaid leave a year in order to provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need, and it is why it is so important. I am delighted that my Liberal Democrat colleague in the Commons, Wendy Chamberlain MP, brought forward this Private Member’s Bill with government support, for which I express my thanks.

The Bill will provide, on day one, a right to one week of unpaid leave for carers in employment, with the flexible option to take as little as half a day at a time. This will be available to all employees providing care for a dependant with a long-term care need. Carers will have the time and flexibility for their caring responsibilities and to make the required preparations for the future, such as being able to take half-days off for medical appointments. The Bill will give carers the opportunity to be able to put work to one side and focus solely, for that time, on their caring responsibilities without the added pressures of having to juggle both duties. Although the Bill does not provide carers with a paid leave right, it will nevertheless go a long way towards helping to relieve the financial burden by providing carers with the confidence of job security. It is also an important step in recognising the role of carers in the workplace.

I am pleased that the Bill will support women in particular to stay in work, as they are more likely to juggle work and care and to be a part-time, rather than a full-time, worker. Indeed, the impact assessment produced for the Bill recognises this, stating:

“In the context of the gender pay gap, the fact that women are more likely to provide care means that they are more likely to face adverse employment effects associated with caring i.e., lower earnings and leaving the labour market”.


I hope that the Bill will bring some peace of mind to all employed carers so that they can live in the certainty that their jobs are secure while they are caring for their dependants. I beg to move.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this stage of this important Bill. I acknowledge the very rich debate we had at Second Reading, including the incredible personal testimony from so many Members on behalf of their own families and people they had met in their communities or work. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, laid out, this is an important first step, but we need to acknowledge that there is still much more to do. I emphasise, to avoid any confusion, that this refers to unpaid leave, although many arguments have been made to move to paid leave.

We have heard very clearly that the Bill will help to relieve the stress and isolation that carers often experience—the loneliness, the impact on mental health and, as we have heard, the disproportionate impact on women. But what we also know, which is not emphasised enough, is that the Bill will benefit employers by reducing the risk of the absenteeism, turnover and retention of staff.

All that remains is to thank Wendy Chamberlain MP, the Bill’s sponsor in the other place; the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for bringing it to the Lords; and the cross-party support we have seen. I also refer to the work by Carers UK from which we have all benefited. I thank carers and their families who have shared their stories and experiences. In particular, I make special mention of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley; she is very sorry not to be able to be here today. I thank her again for her tireless work over many years and her absolute determination to make progress on this really significant issue.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (The Earl of Minto) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for bringing the Bill through the House. The Government have been pleased to support it throughout all its stages. This is in line with our 2019 manifesto, which committed to introduce one week of leave for unpaid carers; I am pleased to continue that support today at Third Reading. I am also very grateful for the cross-party support that the Bill has received.

The Government appreciate the time dedicated by unpaid carers to help those who rely on them for their everyday needs. No one should underestimate the contribution that unpaid carers make. They play a vital role in society, supporting those who are unable to care independently for themselves. Many provide that care while holding down a job. We know that there are some brilliant, supportive and flexible employers out there already who are taking great steps to support those in their workforce with caring responsibilities, recognising the value to both their businesses and their employees of helping carers to stay in work. The Bill will extend aspects of what those employers do voluntarily to all employers, ensuring a baseline of support for all working unpaid carers. This will help to alleviate the pressure that carers—particularly women, who are more likely to provide care—can face as they seek to juggle their work and caring responsibilities.

The new right to carer’s leave will provide more flexibility to those unpaid carers. It will enable them to take more time out of work if they need to. Carer’s leave will allow employees to be absent from work on unpaid leave to provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need. Eligible employees will be able to take the leave, regardless of how long they have worked for their employer. It will be available from the first day of their employment. The leave will be available to take in increments of half-days, up to a week, to be taken over a 12-month period. Employees will not be required to provide evidence in relation to a request for carer’s leave. Employees taking carer’s leave will have the same employment protections as associated with other forms of family-related leave, including protection from dismissal or detriment as a result of having taken the leave.

I am personally very pleased to support the Bill; it is a huge step in the right direction for our carers, who give their time to help others who need it. I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his sponsorship of the Bill as it has moved through the House. I also thank Wendy Chamberlain and my honourable friend Kevin Hollinrake for their stewardship in the other place and their hard work in putting the Bill forward.

Car Industry

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I watched this Urgent Question in the other place keenly today but was left disappointed by the number of questions actually answered, so I thank the Minister for coming here to answer ours.

This situation is extremely serious. As we know, all manufacturing is facing supply chain difficulties globally, and our car industry is suffering. Does the Minister agree that our trading relationship with the EU should reflect this? Will the Government follow the sector’s advice by reopening negotiations on the trade and co-operation agreement to protect it from further risk?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are acutely aware of the global challenges that the UK car industry faces. We have been leveraging private investment, alongside government support, to bring EV manufacturing to UK shores. The UK remains highly attractive; our workforce is among the most productive in Europe, and we excel in R&D and innovation. The DBT Secretary of State is aware of this issue facing the automotive sector, and is raising this with her counterparts in the EU.

Whistleblowing Framework

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I quite agree that taking any form of case to an employment tribunal is risky and difficult for the individuals involved, and it is no less so in a whistleblowing case. When the review is done and we are able to take a look at what the recommendations are—I think I have said this twice already—it will be very surprising if the question of an office of the whistleblower did not come up.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, evidence suggests that the UK’s law on whistleblowing is falling behind international best practice and has not kept pace with the modern workplace or the scale of the problem. We welcome the Government’s announcement of the establishment of the review into the whistleblowing legislation, but perhaps the Minister could tell us when this will report. In the light of that, would he not agree that the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, shortly going to Report, provides an ideal opportunity to act now to bring in immediate, obvious improvements? Further, does he agree that requiring all employers to introduce effective internal arrangements would be a beneficial step forward?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

I absolutely agree that the current whistleblowing framework is not current best practice. This was basically put in place in 1996 and 1998, and that is one of the main purposes for the review being carried out now. The review is due to complete its work in October this year and will report very soon after that. Hopefully, from that, we can get to a situation where we are able to move forward to something that really is world-class.

Register of Overseas Entities (Definition of Foreign Limited Partner, Protection and Rectification) Regulations 2023

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his opening comments. I think he will be aware that several of us are spending quite a lot of our time on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is going through the House at the moment, and many of the issues in the statutory instrument we are discussing today are the subject of ongoing conversations.

We recognise that this is secondary legislation to amend the Act that went through last year. I welcome the Minister’s comment that this is work in progress and that further revisions will be required because there are still some gaps that we may need to consider in future.

I preface my remarks by highlighting the scale of the problem that we are dealing with. I do not think any of us should shy away from the real problem we have in this country now as a result of not taking action sooner. It is a tragedy in many ways that it was the onset of the conflict in Ukraine that necessitated swift action, and it is regrettable that this problem, which had been highlighted before, had not come into our focus and received the attention necessary.

I welcome in the main the provisions in the statutory instrument, but I shall make a couple of comments and ask a couple of questions. I make it clear, as we have done throughout the discussions in this area, that we recognise that the vast majority of companies investing in the UK do so with good intentions and bring great benefit to the country and that we are concentrating on the actions of the relatively small number of bad actors. Sadly, their contribution to this is profound and has done an enormous amount to damage the reputation of the UK on the world stage. I hope that we are united across the Committee in making sure that we take every opportunity to improve the chances of our reputation being recovered and are seeking out problems as they arise.

My main hope is that those at serious risk if information is given out are protected. It is very important that we recognise that there are genuine cases where protection needs to be secured. By the same token, we have to avoid disproportionate burdens and make sure that legitimate investors are welcome to operate in our country.

I seek some clarification. There seems to be some concern that the Act still does not provide a complete definition of what a foreign limited partner is. The description in the Explanatory Memorandum seems rather abstract. I wonder whether this may lead to practical implications where the confusion continues to exist. Reassurance on this point would be gratefully received. Most of all, we want to make sure that the register is populated correctly and effectively. Throughout the discussions on this matters, transparency is paramount in the context of those who will need further protection, as the Minister outlined.

I thank the Minister for his comments about risk, but I want to understand if bringing this instrument forward has led to further thought on the definition of risk. Have we gone far enough? I would like to understand how this is demonstrated and whether there has been an assessment of how well this is working so far. As has been highlighted, the issue of the alternative address could still be problematic. I understand the need for flexibility, but is there a risk remaining? We would like to be confident of the success of this provision. Again, this links to the balance between protection and transparency.

The other area is—if you can describe it as this—cleaning up the register and recognising, as we have heard, that some of the information held is clearly not factually accurate or even worse, as we know there is certainly a measure of intent in some of the entries. Do we know the extent of this? On how many occasions is this going to be necessary? Do we have an estimate of how much of a problem this is and how regular it is? Most importantly—I think this runs through all the debates on the Bill itself—how will this work be resourced? Can we be reassured that there are adequate personnel and resources at our disposal to make sure that we get this done successfully?

What are the sanctions once a forgery or anything factually inaccurate has been identified? Are there punishments? Do we have any evidence of this? Can we have a general clarification around the deterrent factor to make sure that we do not have problems going forward? Obviously, with there being an equivalent provision in the Companies Act 2006, I would hope that we have learned from the experience of working on this. I wonder if there are examples of that that would help to inform the debate.

I understand the Minister’s comments about the deadline of 31 January, but I have heard an estimate that 7,000 companies failed to register. Is that about the ballpark he is suggesting? Since January—we are now in May—has there been an understanding of how successful the action taken against the remaining numbers has been?

There are still other issues and I look forward to other measures coming forward to fill the loopholes. In conclusion, of course we welcome the provisions being made, but are seeking reassurance and confidence that concerns will be addressed, and the necessary changes will be made as we go forward.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. The Government are committed to ensuring that the register of overseas entities is robust and effective at tackling the use of UK property to launder money. These regulations provide the mechanisms that ensure that the register of overseas entities operates effectively. A clear definition of “foreign limited partner” provides greater certainty concerning registrable beneficial owners of overseas entities; I have a full definition for the noble Baroness that I can share. Applicants will be able to identify registrable beneficial owners more easily with a definition that is recognisable across multiple jurisdictions.

The amendment to the protection regime will address the unintended consequences of the regulations as they stand, by removing the requirement to demonstrate the risk of violence or intimidation arising directly from the individual’s association with the overseas entity. The measure on rectification ensures that errors on the register, whether deliberate or accidental, are identified and removed. The points raised by noble Lords highlight the necessity of the measures in these regulations, and I will answer some of them now.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised the question of accuracy—that is definitely ongoing. I do not think Companies House fully knows the number of inaccurate entries, but it still stands by the estimate it has used before of there being 32,000 registrable entities in total. We are up above 28,000 now. Although there will be some inaccuracies, I hope that by continuing to approach these organisations, Companies House will iron them out. I have not been involved in this sort of thing before but, despite the fact that it has taken some time to get there—it took the atrocious situation in Ukraine to bring this to the fore—it has certainly made some significant progress in getting that many people to register in such a short period of time. However, the point is well made that the accuracy of the register is paramount, including in terms of lost revenue.

On the younger people mentioned, I understand there are issues of family trusts, particularly with UK beneficial owners. That point, too, was well made. I could go through what is meant by the “foreign limited partner”, but I would rather share that with the noble Baroness. I hope that answers some of the more direct questions, and I will write to noble Lords if there is anything that I have not answered.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

Behind the noble Lord’s question is the question of resource. Companies House has 120 full-time equivalent staff working on this and pursuing precisely what the noble Lord referred to. I hope that will continue to improve the situation as time moves on, but the point was very well made.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Can I link that to the question I asked about what punishment or sanction there is? I apologise if the Minister is coming to that.

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 21st April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very simple Bill and the issue is one of fairness. I am very keen that there should be no extra and unnecessary regulation; the chances of extra bureaucracy are negligible. Similarly, we do not need to worry in any way about the likelihood of great costs, as they are also negligible.

Most businesses already allocate tips fairly to their staff, but, regrettably, a minority have not done so. That gives the staff, who are often among the least well-paid in the hospitality sector—waiters, for instance, and others, stretching beyond the hospitality sector, but in particular waiters—the opportunity to insist that they are given the service charge that many of us in restaurants pay whenever we go to a restaurant, so they get the tips rather than the money going to the profits of perhaps a big company. This does not happen that much but does happen a bit, and we need to make sure it does not happen at all. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, on sponsoring this important Bill, as he has outlined. I also thank Virginia Crosbie, the Member for Parliament, for stepping in to take up the discussions in the other place. As has been said, this is indeed an important issue; the Bill will support some of the lowest-paid workers across the country, and I am pleased to recognise the cross-party support it has received during its passage.

I will also reflect the comments my noble friend Lady Chapman made at Second Reading. This is a very welcome Bill; it may not deal with absolutely everything on the topic, but when the Government are supporting a sensible agreement, we should acknowledge that. We do recognise that there are probably some more details that need to be ironed out to ensure that the intent of the Bill is carried forward. I also add my thanks to everyone, including officials, who has supported its passage in both Houses.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th April 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment is to ask for much more information from the Government on the international implications of the Bill, which is a way of asking whether the Bill is serious in terms of enforcement. Most serious economic crime—indeed, all serious economic crime nowadays—is cross-border: the money is taken out of your bank account and rapidly moved to another jurisdiction. One of the huge problems we all face in a globalised economy is that policing is bounded by sovereign borders and criminals are not. Therefore, Governments are forced to co-operate across them.

One of the questions I hope we will pursue on these amendments and the ones that follow on the overseas territories is how Whitehall ensures that the various parts of it that deal with the various parts of our international efforts to combat different forms of crime—terrorist financing, drug smuggling, people smuggling, et cetera—co-ordinate, and which are the lead departments for what. Reference has already been made to HMRC and the Treasury. I note that, in Washington, the US State Department has now established a State Department-led but cross-department anti-corruption board to deal with these necessarily cross-border problems. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us—if not now then perhaps, as I asked at Second Reading, in a briefing in the context of the Bill—how Whitehall will make the necessary changes to ensure that different departments work together coherently in coping with these very complex problems.

It might help if I remark briefly on how I became involved in some of these problems of international crime. In 1989 I was director of research at Chatham House, the international affairs think tank. I was approached by a chief inspector who was then head of the strategy unit at the Metropolitan Police to ask if we could run a seminar on the international dimensions of policing, now that it seemed likely that the Berlin Wall might come down. As it happened, I was then attached briefly to an institute in Germany, in Bavaria, and when I asked it whether I could get any briefing on the subject, which I knew nothing about, I found myself very rapidly being taken to the Bundesnachrichtendienst headquarters and given a very thorough intelligence briefing on how the German Government were approaching the likely explosion of cross-border crime that would accompany the end of that very hard border that had kept a lot of crime away from western Europe.

Since then, we have had 30 years of globalisation, the communications revolution, digitisation and international banking deregulation, which have made cross-border economic crime far easier, far faster and far harder to keep up with. It is no accident that the Financial Action Task Force, one of the main mechanisms for international intergovernmental co-operation in combating money laundering, was also founded in 1989 by the G7; it saw what was coming. Perhaps the Minister can consider whether we could have a briefing on this to be told more about how effective the Financial Action Task Force is.

When I looked rapidly for an update on the FATF, I was a little worried to find that there is rather more up-to-date information on Wikipedia than there is in statements from GOV.UK, which tend to be from 2015, 2018 or 2019. The Wikipedia comments say that the FATF is now pretty good at setting standards and maintaining a blacklist and a grey list of countries that do not observe basic international standards. Some of your Lordships will have seen the article in the Financial Times yesterday about the Government of Panama hoping that it may finally be about to be taken off the grey list, which has clearly damaged its position as an international financial centre. But apart from reporting and setting standards, the FATF does very little in terms of enforcement. The question of enforcement, verification and the exchange of information is extremely relevant to whether the Bill is really going to make a difference to our pursuit of economic crime.

I followed the development of international police co-operation in the 1990s, partly because, when I came here, I became chair of the sub-committee of the European Union Committee that dealt with justice and home affairs, and thus followed quite closely the development of Europol, the Schengen Information System and those other forms of European police co-operation. I was struck by the extent to which progress was driven not by any commitment to some fantasy of a European superstate but by the demands of police forces and intelligence agencies in different countries. They needed to share information—in good, constant time if possible—and share activities and operations, as they now do. Of course, we have now left Europol and the Schengen Information System, which has denied the British authorities access to one of the closest ways in which we used to share information on transborder economic crime. I am not very well informed about the other mechanisms, apart from the OECD’s various activities on beneficial ownership and the FATF, which we find useful.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, may remind us, David Lammy, the shadow Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, proposed some weeks ago that there should be a transatlantic anti-corruption council to bring together more closely the various agencies, authorities and law enforcement bodies concerned with these areas. I am not aware that the British Government are actively engaged in all this, so my amendment asks the Government to tell us what the current situation is, what their strategy is and how this intrinsic element of any serious approach to economic crime will be treated. If they are unable to do that, they cannot be very serious about the enforcement of action against economic crime, which is not, after all, primarily a domestic matter. I beg to move.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I will respond to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in moving his Amendment 68. I was very struck, looking back at the comments from Second Reading. He very forcibly talked about the international dimension and how important it is, and the fact that the international dimension in the Bill generally is thin; I think those were the words he used. I think we all knew that we would require amendments to look at this area. I am keen to understand from the Minister what actually is being proposed.

We talk a great deal about collecting data, but one of the rules of thumb I have always worked with is that data is of use only if it is open and transparent, there is a responsibility for the data to be analysed and, where things are held up as being untoward, appropriate action is taken.

I do not want to draw out the debate, but this could be an opportunity for the Minister to give us an update about the progress made since the Government launched the register of overseas entities on 1 August. What is the Government’s assessment of the success of the register and of the beneficial ownership registration being set at 25%? Do we know whether many companies are avoiding this by spreading out shares throughout a family? We know that there were significant concerns about nominee arrangements being used to disguise true beneficial owners. What is the Government’s assessment of this, now that the register has been introduced, and will they use the regulation-making powers in the existing economic crime Act to address this?

I anticipate a full response to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I would like to understand and am seeking reassurance that the Government are putting arrangements in place. As we have heard, the scale of the co-operation is quite significant. It needs constant review, and it needs to relate to finance, trade and crime. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

I thank noble Lords very much. It is a great pleasure to be here again to continue this valuable and important inquiry into how to make our company structures more transparent, fairer and more effective for our long-term business needs.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for this amendment. Over the next few hours, I hope to cover many of the points raised and clarify further points from our discussions earlier this week. Specifically on this amendment, I hope it will be of some reassurance to noble Lords that Companies House already has excellent relationships with overseas counterparts—it is important to emphasise that. It works closely with authorities in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories on the implementation of the register of overseas entities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, asked about the progress of the register of overseas entities in relation to UK companies and, specifically, property ownership. We have come a long way: I think we are now 75% to 80% registered. Some overseas entities have not fulfilled our requirements, and I am happy to send a note to Peers about that. This changes regularly but it is a minority, which is important. I am pleased about that, and we are grateful for the collaboration of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories.

As a government Minister it is important that I say that, if you listened only to this debate and did not have any experience of the outside world, you may be forgiven for thinking that every single authorised corporate service provider, Crown dependency and overseas entity was somehow engaged in and designed for criminal undertakings, which we all know is not the case. It is important that I state that many of these measures and the discussions we are having are about a very small minority of bad actors and that the overall industry is worth while and valuable. The principles around high-quality corporate service provision, Crown dependencies managing their own affairs and how companies are structured are very much to be celebrated and embedded. What we are doing here is making sure that there is transparency and legitimacy. I want to make sure that is on the record.

Earlier today I met a former regulator from one of our Crown dependencies, who was surprised at the tone that some noble Lords are taking in the debate, given what he had done with his own regulator in his Crown dependency. He felt that it had set the standard—a higher standard, maybe, than some other Crown dependencies. He felt that they had lessons to teach us in the United Kingdom. We ought to be aware of this. I do not want to belabour the point, but it is important to get the tone right and make sure that the messages are clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

To follow on from those comments, my comment will be very much in the same vein. We need to bring this part of the conversation into the general understanding that if we are to be successful, there has to be a root and branch reform of Companies House and the way in which it works. We need a massive cultural shift. Moving away from being a passive receiver of information to a dynamic analyser of data will be quite a step. It speaks to the need for resource to make sure that everything we are doing can be delivered. I emphasise the comments that have been made: of course we want this to succeed, but I am sure that everyone will understand our calling for more information and calling out opportunities to improve what is before us. Significant improvements can be made as we move forward.

Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, said, we need to make sure that we do not follow the law of unintended consequences by introducing new measures and then creating new loopholes which will let bad actors fall through the net. We need to triple-check everything proposed through these measures to ensure that that cannot happen. As we have all said throughout this debate, the best way is to make sure that the data is transparent and can be viewed and seen. There have to be ways to introduce safeguards so that sensitive matters can be protected as and when they occur. It cannot be outside the bounds of possibility to make these improvements and move forward in a way that gives greater protection to all those involved.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for those well-expressed sentiments. I hope the Committee knows my passion for these important reforms. I apologise for not declaring my interests at the beginning of this debate, as I should have. We have had so many different meetings it is easy to forget. It is important that I declare them because I do own companies, I have set companies up and I have been a participant in LLP structures and so on—although I do not believe I am now; please refer to my entry in the register. There is no conflict in my mind; if anything, I hope that gives me quite a good perspective on how these structures can be used for good but also by bad actors.

On the importance of eradicating corruption in our economy, there is, potentially, no greater value that a person can engage in than allocating capital to the highest point of return. That may sound a bit cynical and clear-cut but the point is that the effective functioning of our economy is what gives us the goods, services and quality of life that allow us to exist in harmony and happiness. Corruption, which we are trying to eradicate, is extremely invidious in allowing us to have successful economic growth and, in many cases, it is invisible. It is also assumed to be victimless, which is not the case: it is highly corrosive to our economy and every crime has a victim, even if they are not immediate or apparent.

Our determination to eradicate corruption and economic crime is at the core of our agenda to make our economy work better to provide better lives for our citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised a good point when he said that the public demand this. That is absolutely right. If one believes, as I do, in business and capitalism, and the power of capitalism to do good, if it is being distorted, that destroys our foundation and means that we do not have the true legitimacy to carry on effectively legitimate affairs, because they are conflated with illegitimate affairs.

I am completely dedicated to this mission and am grateful to all noble Peers. I am very glad that we have put on record our group support, if I can call it that, for an industry that, as we have discussed, is incredibly valuable and performs enormously important functions for companies that work in it. It is important; I am happy to state that.

Given this opportunity, I will go back over some of the statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised the issue of compliance. This has been well flagged; there was an assumption, perhaps, that the compliance rate is low. It has taken time for these overseas entities to register themselves. The population of entities in scope is around 32,000 but it is assumed that some of them—perhaps as much as 10%; let us say around 2,500—are dormant, defunct, in the process of being wound up or just part of the general churn of overseas entities. We now have 28,000 entities that have complied with our requirements; that is a high level if one assumes that, as I said, 2,500 or so are probably part of natural churn. So we are already looking at a non-compliance rate of maybe 1,500 to 2,000 companies out of 30,000—I know that I am making estimates; I would be happy to write to the Committee with specific numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I appreciate the noble Lord making that comment, which I will come on to but, if the Committee does not mind, I would like to correct some of my statistics. Slightly fewer than 28,000 of our overseas entities have registered, although it is very nearly that. My officials want me to be accurate, so that I never mislead this august Committee. I should also be specific about the PSC regime relating to registered overseas entities. As noble Lords know, but were kind enough not to pick me up on, they have a separate regulatory regime, which is similar to it but not actually called that. I apologise and hope that has been corrected.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

It would be helpful if we were regularly updated on the number of overseas entities that have registered, with a running total. Otherwise, we keep having to come back and it is not clear where we are in the process.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I would also be grateful if the Minister could answer the question about whether there is a process for privacy.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

73A: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause—
“Beneficial owners in overseas territories
In section 51 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (public registers of beneficial ownership of companies registered in British Overseas Territories), after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that an Order in Council of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) comes into force on a date no later than 30 June 2023.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would amend the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to ensure that an Order in Council requiring open registers of beneficial ownership in the British Overseas Territories, for the purposes of the detection, investigation or prevention of money laundering, comes into force no later than 30 June 2023.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, included in this group is Amendment 108, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will refer to. Amendment 73A is straightforward. It seeks to amend provisions in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to require the introduction of open registers of beneficial ownership in each of the British Overseas Territories for the purposes of detection, investigation or prevention of money laundering, and for those to come into force no later than 30 June 2023.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

The noble Lord is right, and it has not been an easy history, but these small jurisdictions have a choice. I am well aware of the criminal cases currently going on in the Turks and Caicos, and the need for direct rule there. But I have seen too many occasions—not a vast number, but too many none the less—when these small jurisdictions are prepared to be seduced by China rather than maintain their relationship with the United Kingdom. We need to be careful that we do not force these smaller jurisdictions into the arms of the Chinese, when it would be much better for their well-being and ours if we were to maintain them within our own family. I will leave it there.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

With apologies, as I am not sure whether this is an appropriate time to raise this, but given that our amendment refers to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act, perhaps the Minister can explain what sensitive negotiations and discussions, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, mentioned, have taken place and the reasons for the disappointing progress. It would be helpful to have a better understanding of why we have not been able to progress.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I greatly appreciate the noble Baroness’s comment. I would be delighted to go through this in as much detail as I can. I am very aware, as a Minister in the department and someone guiding this legislation through, as a Peer in this House and as a member of the public, of the issues the Crown dependencies and overseas territories have when it comes to reputational issues surrounding financial probity. It has been well reported and widely discussed. I am very happy to comment on that and to come back to the Committee with more information on the specific work we are doing.

If noble Lords allow me to go through my notes, I should be able to answer some of the questions. I am very grateful to the Committee for the complimentary clerking advice we received from my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, although, since they both seem to have been educated in exactly the same way, I am not quite sure why they did not both have the same answer. That might be something to revisit.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Wallace, who I have named in my brief, for their amendments; of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, spoke to her part. Before I respond to the amendments, it will be useful for me to set out the long-standing constitutional relationship that exists between the UK Government and the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, although I do not want to repeat the very helpful comments made by noble Lords, particularly my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier.

The Crown dependencies and overseas territories are not part of the UK. It may seem obvious to state that, but it is very important. They are separate jurisdictions with their own democratically elected Governments responsible for their domestic affairs, including in these areas. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised the National Security Bill, which I am advised would be more relevant since we are responsible for the national security of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, or at least many of them—I am receiving reassuring nods. It would have been appropriate, in that instance, for there to have been some mention of them in the legislation. I will explain why there is no mention of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories in this Bill.

I make very clear my sympathy with the principles expressed in this debate. I cannot remember the exact phrase that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, used because the metaphor was very mixed, but it was something about there being no point shutting the stable door if we leave the barn door open. I very much agree with that principle; it would seem peculiar to go to all these lengths to make our system right if there were a backdoor through a Crown dependency or overseas territory, but I do not believe that will be the case. I assure the Committee that anything that happens in the UK has to have the additional level in terms of the equivalent regulatory framework to the PSC register, whatever the framework is so called, and so on.

We have a great deal of protection around us, but we should be aware of the fact that the Crown dependencies and dependent territories make their own laws in these areas. There is a well-established constitutional convention that the UK does not legislate for the Crown dependencies on domestic matters or otherwise intervene without their consent, except in very limited circumstances. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, would be comfortable talking to this, but it really is in very limited circumstances. We should be aware of that and very respectful of it, since we do far better collaborating in a more powerful way to ensure that our frameworks are meshed together so that we learn from and support each other rather than being heavy-handed, even in this specific and practical sense. Furthermore, the UK Government also recognise the long-established practice that the UK does not legislate on domestic responsibilities for the overseas territories without first consulting them, other than in exceptional circumstances.

I am grateful for the thrust of these amendments. On Amendment 73A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I am aware that beneficial ownership registers in British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies have long attracted significant interest from across the House, as I said earlier, and in general from the public. But it is worth mentioning that, when these types of amendment were tabled to Bills several years ago, we were in a very different place. The point is that all inhabited overseas territories and the Crown dependencies have now committed to introduce publicly accessible registers of company beneficial ownership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I will simply comment on the capacity question, which the Minister raised. There is a clear distinction between our Crown dependencies and some of our smaller overseas territories. The Crown dependencies have a lot of qualified people, and I am well aware that, in recent years, they have increased their staff capacity to cope with the rising amount of international financial business they have been dealing with. One regrets that, in some of the smaller and, I have to say, weaker overseas territories, there is not enough capacity and trained staff. They are further away from the United Kingdom. There are reputational questions and costs if and when a major scandal breaks out, as in the Turks and Caicos Islands, to the UK’s standing in the world because they are under our protection, they follow UK law and they have the reputation of having UK law.

I am conscious that this is part of a wider problem in the global financial system. The argument has been made to me in the past by people from these territories: “After all, if people do not come here as their offshore financial centre, they’ll go to somewhere dodgier and smaller, perhaps in the Pacific rather than the Caribbean.” We are all conscious of there always being that set of issues, but the UK and its associated territories need to ensure that, in managing a complicated global financial system, our overall contribution is one of which we continue to be proud and that all those territories for which we are responsible maintain higher standards. That is what this is really about.

We recognise how much has been done and how well Crown dependencies have improved the quality of their oversight in recent years, but some territories will simply not have enough people who are prepared to live there for 12 months a year to deal with the quantity and complexity of the financial movements through them. That has to be a matter for our long-term concern. I would love to hear more about the Open Ownership charity that is involved in helping them with this, because we clearly have to assist them to develop their capacity to cope with an increasingly complicated, and often dodgy, set of offerings from countries with which we have to deal but which do not have the same standards as us.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this group of amendments. We have uncovered some important areas, but the overarching consideration, as we know and as has been mentioned, is the damage to our reputation if this matter is not addressed.

I take some comfort from the Minister’s offer to meet us to talk this through in more detail, but I remain concerned about the very real question of progress. If the necessary progress has not been made across the piece by the end of the year, I would like to know exactly what the Government are intending.

Given the sensitivity about relationships and the different stages that places are at, which has been highlighted so well, it would be useful to know whether there is an established framework around support and approach to make sure there is consistency in achieving this. This is not a terribly ambitious request; it should be straightforward. I look forward to our further discussions and, with those comments, beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 73A withdrawn.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

13: Clause 14, page 8, line 8, after “days” insert “and no more than 90 days”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments, would require that, when a when a company is ordered to change its name under the provisions of this Bill (including in cases where the name is considered misleading or it may facilitate criminal activity), the company must comply with the order with between 28 and 90 days.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 13 is tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby. I thank the Minister and his team for all the briefings we have had and for their openness and support in getting us this far, and all noble Lords in the Room for all the information we are gleaning on almost every group that comes before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

23: Clause 29, page 17, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) An address is not an “appropriate address” if—(a) it is not a place where the business of the company is regularly carried out,(b) the registrar, following appropriate investigation, has reasonable grounds to suspect that the company does not have permission to use the address, or(c) it is a PO Box address.(2B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—(a) for exceptions to subsection (2A), and(b) for the registrar to exercise discretion to disapply subsection (2A) in exceptional cases.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify the Bill’s definition of an “appropriate address” for a company’s registration.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 23 is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, which my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and I have signed in support. The amendment does not form part of a group. It seeks to clarify the Bill’s definition of an appropriate address for company registration. It is aimed in particular at trying to stop the terrible practice—which is widespread, as we heard at Second Reading—of companies using false addresses. Although Clause 28 defines an appropriate address, our amendment goes further in defining what is not an appropriate address, including a Post Office box.

In terms of public awareness of the debate that we are having as the Bill goes through, the use of false addresses is one of the most publicly well-known issues with Companies House, and we really should be putting all our efforts in to try to prevent it. People trying to prove that companies are registering falsely at their address often have to go to far greater lengths to prove that they are the proper residents of the said address than the person setting up the company. I hope that this amendment provides an opportunity to talk about the use of false addresses and, therefore, the impact that it has on the public. It is one of the most visible parts of the current failure of Companies House. As things stand, Companies House does not do any detailed check on an address where a company is registered, particularly if it uses the basic criteria laid down by Companies House.

I am sure that I am not alone in having listened to many of the different programmes in the media, particularly on the radio but on other outlets as well, which have had this vexed issue as their subject. You hear about the absolute distress caused to people, who are completely innocent in the process, who come home and find letters sent to their address and many other factors which lead them to understand that someone has falsely set up a company using their name or address—and on this occasion we are talking about their address. The most important issue to recognise here is that this can take years to disentangle, and it can cause distress and untold misery, and we have a collective responsibility, with the passage of this Bill, to make sure that Companies House does all the work that it can to help.

The important issue to bear in mind is that the onus should be on the businesses to prove that they are legitimate rather than it being on individuals to prove it is a scam and their innocence. I hope that other noble Lords will comment on this amendment, and I hope that collectively we can work together to make sure that innocent members of the public are given the full protection possible by the new legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I take up the noble Baroness’s invitation to comment on this amendment, although I have just received a text from my mother who says that, having been called a business guru by the Minister, I should keep quiet and not say any more. However, this is a very important issue on which I spoke at some length at Second Reading, and quoted an article in the Times highlighting the problem. The noble Baroness is quite right that it blights people’s houses when they find it to be a registered office, which they had not intended it to be and, of course, the information does not go to the right person.

Nevertheless, I am very concerned by this amendment as worded, because it says:

“An address is not an “appropriate address” if … it is not a place where the business of the company is regularly carried out”.


I assume that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in the amendment would be separated by an “or”, because many companies choose as their registered office their solicitor or accountant, with good reason, particularly in these days of working from home, start-ups and virtual companies, where they do not have a single office space but move around the place. The main place of business may be an apartment where they happen to live, so it is convenient and sensible to choose a solicitor’s or accountant’s office as their base. Indeed, when I worked as a chartered account in a large accountancy firm some 35 years ago, that was very common.

Sadly, I do not think the amendment as worded achieves what the noble Baroness seeks, but neither does the Bill: with the greatest respect to the Minister,

“would be expected to come to the attention of a person acting on behalf of the company”

is a bit convoluted for what we know we want to achieve. Although I cannot support this amendment at this time, I very much hope that before the next stage, we might come up with some wording that achieves where we all want to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to give my support to this Private Member’s Bill. I add my sincere thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, for all the work that has gone into preparing for this moment and for her very detailed, informative and passionate speech. I thank everyone who is taking part in what is actually quite an emotional discussion for many of us in the Chamber.

As my noble friend Lady Taylor said, I would like to thank Bliss for its dedication and for the information that it has provided us all with to inform this debate. It is true to say, as we can see when we look in Hansard, that there was a very good debate in the other place, and there are some real champions of the cause before us today. I would also like to extend my thanks to the families who have taken the time to give information and background on their own particular circumstances.

It is appropriate here today to extend our enormous thanks to the incredible staff in the NHS, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, highlighted in his moving speech. I had, fortunately, a very minor episode, whereby my latest grandchild, at the age of five weeks, had to go into hospital to be put on oxygen as a result of infection. To see at first hand the dedication of those staff, and all the other commitments that they have while caring for children, is remarkable, and we need to continue to remind ourselves of just how significant their contribution is.

To pick out some of the highlights, the issue around regulations is key, but we are hoping that the Bill will introduce two new rights: neonatal care leave and statutory neonatal care pay. Of course, both rights will require the Secretary of State to pass the necessary regulations, and we look forward to seeing, as we move forward, the details of how they might operate.

The other important element to highlight is the right to neonatal leave being a day one right available to employees. We have heard a great deal today about who would be covered and the time period. The issue of extending eligibility is one that we will need to revisit.

I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is here today, because Northern Ireland obviously has a slightly different situation, in that employment law is a devolved matter.

When debating these matters, we get a significant list of statistics. One in seven babies born in the UK receive some level of neonatal care just before birth and an estimated 50,000 babies in the UK spend more than one week in neonatal care after birth. But what we have heard today and need to emphasise is that each one of those cases involves a child and an extended family, and each one of those situations will have very different circumstances. What we know from the feedback from families is that the current inflexibility of the parental leave laws actually contributes to the trauma that they experience and adds to the family’s stress.

The figures speak for themselves, in that more than half of families say that their finances were affected. One in four families have had to borrow money or increase their debt because of the baby’s neonatal stay, and 80% of parents have reported that their mental health became worse after the experience. We have heard a lot about the fact that this is not just a situation that relates to mothers; it is about fathers and non-birthing parents as well.

I emphasise the points that have been made about the importance of early bonding with babies. Those first few days and weeks are so important for children’s development, going into their early years, and we must do everything we can to enable those significant relationships to thrive and develop.

I also pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, that this is also about employers, and how actually this will bring benefit to employers. I think that, if you go out and talk to employers, you find that the vast majority would like to be able to be more supportive, but there is no framework to enable them to do so. We know that the Government have consulted with business and have had a broad range of respondents, and overwhelming support, and we need to take account of that in our discussions today. We have conversations on a repeated basis, as the Minister will be well aware, on many of the issues that prevent people from going back into the workplace. All those discussions are relevant to the subject before us today.

I emphasise the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Taylor. I do not know whether I am particularly susceptible to this—one of my older sisters had a significant stretch in hospital when I was about three from a very severe case of measles. I can remember vividly the fact that my parents were not around and that my grandparents suddenly appeared from nowhere; other carers came into my life. We were very fortunate in that respect. But what has not been highlighted, which I learned from my experience working to keep the children’s heart unit open in Leeds General Infirmary, and the other fact that we have to consider, is that many of the specialist units that these children will go into are not on the family’s doorstep. They often involve significant periods of time away from home for one or both parents, and this obviously has a knock-on effect for the entire family. We have to make sure that those elements are factored in.

We know that the Government have been active over the past three or four years. They launched a series of consultations under the Good Work Plan in July 2019, responded to that consultation in March 2020 and made a number of commitments, as we have heard. That commitment was also included in the text of the 2020 Budget, published the same month, which stated:

“The government will create an entitlement to Neonatal Leave and Pay for employees whose babies spend an extended period of time in neonatal care, providing up to 12 weeks paid leave so that parents do not have to choose between returning to work and taking care of their vulnerable newborn.”


The December 2019 Queen’s Speech included mention of an employment Bill that would introduce both the neonatal leave and pay rights, alongside a range of other commitments. The employment Bill was ultimately not introduced in the 2019-21 Session and did not appear in the Queen’s Speech of 2021 or 2022.

There has been a commitment from the Government, repeated on several occasions, including in the Good Work Plan, but sadly no action flowing from that. We must acknowledge our disappointment with the delay and the subsequent need to bring these matters forward in a Private Member’s Bill. I repeat that I pay sincere tribute to all those who have initiated and supported this Bill.

We are where we are, as we say, and I am very pleased to restate that those on our Benches are supportive of this Bill and hope that we can get assurance from the Minister about the speed with which he can act on behalf of the Government—indeed, to help the Government —to move forward and bring some relief to all those families who clearly deserve our support and help.

Carer’s Leave Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Friday 3rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for sponsoring the Bill before us today on this important matter, and indeed his colleague Wendy Chamberlain MP in the other place for initially sponsoring it. I note the cross-party support in the other place, as has been mentioned today, and I hope we can move forward in the same spirit. I also add my thanks for all the different briefing papers we have received—from Carers UK, for example, and the MS Society.

I particularly pick up on the reference the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester made to the Archbishops’ Commission on Reimagining Care. I, too, recommend it to those who have not had a chance to look at its recommendations. It was my great privilege to work closely with Anna Dixon in her former role at the Centre for Ageing Better when I was the leader of Leeds City Council. So many of the pieces of work we did there have informed my views on how we need to move forward on this issue.

I also pay tribute to the other speakers in the debate for their passion and obvious long-term commitment to this agenda and for standing up for the most deserving in our society—all those unsung heroes who do so much to support their loved ones. Indeed, as we have heard today, many noble Lords have personal, as well as professional, experience of these matters; I note the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. These are incredibly important insights that we need to use to inform our discussions and policies as we take them forward. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and thank her for her inspirational speech, and I acknowledge her wealth of experience in these matters.

We fully support the Bill, although we believe that carer’s leave should be paid. We have to ask why it has taken the Government so long to introduce legislation, therefore necessitating its introduction by Private Member’s Bill. We remain disappointed that the promised employment Bill has not materialised. However, we acknowledge that this is a significant moment to take a step in the right direction, and we believe we should seize the moment. It is also worth noting that, under the proposals set out in Labour’s New Deal for Working People, the next Labour Government will legislate to ensure that working people can respond to family emergencies as and when they arise, without being left out of pocket.

As so many have said, unpaid carers are among the many unrecognised stars of the health and care sector. They step in to support friends and family with care so that those people can retain some of their independence and dignity. We need to emphasise, particularly with International Women’s Day approaching next week, how important it is to point out that, tragically, the highest proportion of unpaid carers are women. The highest proportion fall in the 50 to 59 age group, where a staggering one in five women are estimated to be carers. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, there are 350,000 more people over 50 who are economically inactive, with health cited as the largest single reason but caring and family responsibilities coming second.

Carers UK has stated that granting unpaid carers the right to carer’s leave would improve the finances of carers who would no longer have to reduce their working hours or give up work altogether. I think we all took on board the points outlined by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley about the impact on mental health and, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, the impact of loneliness.

The scale of the issue is huge. We have heard many figures today. Carers UK estimates that there are 7 million people in paid work who also provide unpaid care. Every year an estimated 1.9 million people in work become carers, and there is evidence of many using up their holiday entitlement to provide cover as needed. An estimated one in seven juggle work and care, with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation stating that over 1 million carers are living in poverty, feeling “abandoned by society”.

In the 2017 to 2019 parliamentary Session, the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee held an inquiry on employment support for carers. Its May 2018 report, Employment Support for Carers, stated:

“Balancing care with paid employment is a tricky juggling act”—


I think that is putting it mildly—which, as we have heard, causes many carers to either give up work or reduce their hours. It said that this was costly to the individual, who can lose financial security and may need to recruit a replacement. In addition, it found that there was an economic cost as

“productivity, and ultimately tax revenues, suffer from people who want to work, or work more, being avoidably unable to do so”.

Putting my business and trade hat on, I will say, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the impact on the economy is profound and needs to be taken into account by the Government, particularly by the Treasury. I will not repeat the figures that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, quoted, but they are stark and significant. Indeed, our Adult Social Care Committee estimated in its excellent report a loss to the Exchequer of £2.9 billion in carer’s benefits and lost tax revenues.

We welcome the broad definition of reasons for needing carer’s leave and the fact that the definition of “dependant” is also broadly drawn. These definitions are often misunderstood, and further clarity is indeed welcome.

I particularly welcome the reference to young carers made by the noble Lord, Lord Young. He raised the links to deprivation and that awful tendency of those in this category to suffer in silence and not to come forward and claim any support that might be available to them. Given the important role that unpaid carers play and the fact that so many of them find themselves in precarious financial positions, especially with the soaring cost of living crisis, the situation is simply unacceptable. Through this process, the ability to raise the profile of the issues is very important.

I feel that it is impossible to talk in this debate without referencing the urgent need to tackle the crisis of social care in this country—across all age groups, those caring for both children and adults with disabilities, respite need and home care, as well as in the residential sector. It would be very helpful in this debate to have an update on progress in this area.

I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that, in line with other contributors’ support today, we will hear that the Government support this important Bill’s passage so that we can start to move forward on the journey to give carers support and to continue to increase awareness for those who so desperately need, and richly deserve, our support.