Category Archives: Hansard

My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in this debate, and my noble friend the Minister for her response. This will continue to be a significant issue until we have something in the country which looks far more like financial inclusion for all those who are currently feeling the sharp end, or the wrong end, and who are shut out of so much of what passes for financial services today. However, having listened to my noble friend the Minister, I will not push this matter any further today. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Amendment 14 not moved.

Clause 25: Regulatory principles: net zero emissions target

My Lords, there are currently quite a few difficulties with the UK economy, but one that seldom gets the focus, attention and commentary that it requires is the lack of financial inclusion for so many people right across the United Kingdom. At its extreme, it is best summed up as: those who have the least are often forced to pay the most for financial services and products. However, it is a question not just for individuals but for micro and small businesses, which can find themselves effectively financially excluded.

Amendment 13 simply seeks to introduce a secondary objective for the FCA on financial inclusion. It would not in any sense fetter any of the other objectives, not least the primary objectives. It could operate effectively and efficiently within that current stream of objectives for the regulator.

Without in any sense seeking to pre-empt my noble friend when she comes to wind up, I think that she may well say that it is not the right approach to introduce a new objective for the financial service regulators without first undertaking a significant and serious consultation. That is a fair point. If she is unable to accept my Amendment 13, would she agree to take away the opportunity and possibility to launch the consultation into a secondary objective for our financial service regulators on financial inclusion? I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the thorough and clear manner in which he introduced it, taking us through all its provisions. It has to be a positive Bill with respect to the equipment and kit that so many often small businesses and individuals rely on; to make that equipment more difficult to steal and more difficult to sell is clearly a positive thing. The Bill brings support to our rural communities and the countryside and, through that, to our country. I support it and I wish it a swift, positive passage on to the statute book

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate. I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. I congratulate the Boltonians in this House and another place on bringing this important Bill to Parliament. Similarly, I congratulate Kevin Hollinrake, the officials and all the team who have worked so hard to get it to this stage. I support the Bill. It does precisely what a Private Member’s Bill should do: it is simple, straightforward, clear, concise and will have such a positive benefit once it comes swiftly into statute.

We have over a million vacancies in the labour market, and well over 500,000 people who left work during Covid have not returned. The question for us this morning is, quite simply: flexible working—why would you not? Covid was something which very few generations will ever live through. It was a once-in-a-century—if that—cataclysmic set of circumstances, and for work it was similarly so. Coming out of that, we must take all of that experience into how we think about work and structure it, and how we fundamentally underline the essential truth of work and employment: that it is a relationship. It should never be seen as simply transactional; it is relational. That is why there is a lot of writing, understandably, around hybrid working and lots for all of us to think about. One thing must be clear to all of us, coming out of Covid: work or employment cannot mean five days a week, 8 am until 6 pm, in the office—but nor can it mean five days a week at home on Teams, on your tod. That is not what work is about. It is about relationships.

When we consider this whole question of flexible work, ultimately, what are we talking about? We are talking about talent. Would not any organisation want to try to secure the brightest, best talent for any role? Research shows that where flexible work is mentioned in job ads, 30% more applications come in. It makes sense. It is not about where work takes place; it is more about how we experience work, what it feels like, how it is structured and, fundamentally, how it is made human. That has to be one of the greatest things we can take from Covid: how to make work more human.

To my mind, the greatest champion of flexible working is probably still the great Dame Stephanie Shirley. At the time, she saw an opportunity in having female workers at home who would be able to contribute so fabulously to the technology business she was building while being able to run their family lives as well. That is still the most sensational example of the strength that flexible working can bring, both to the individual and to the business, if understood and gone about as part of a respectful conversation. The Bill talks about the consultation. Really, that is a respectful conversation between employer and employee, with no preconceptions being brought to bear before that conversation around the request takes place.

For disabled people, flexible working would make an immediate difference, because things change. Circumstances change. Many disabled people successfully manage fluctuating conditions, but flexible working would just be so helpful in the face of that. It would not mean that disabled people would be doing less or being given a free pass—not a bit of it. It is more about being able to fully contribute and give of their talents. Again, why would any business pay a 100% salary to somebody but have a workplace and practices, policies and procedures which enable that person to be only 70%, 60%, 50% or 40% themselves in that working environment? It just makes no economic, social or psychological sense.

In 2018, I was asked to undertake an investigation—a review—into public appointments and how we could make them more open for disabled talents. So many of the suggestions that came up in the sessions, conversations and round tables I had with disabled people up and down the country were about flexible working or a flexible approach. When I published the report in 2018, at times it was almost like I was speaking a strange language to some audiences. I hope that Covid has changed that for the better, and that flexible working is surely now more the norm.

When looking at other pieces of research out there—understandably, there is plenty of it—we see that where employees feel that they have more control, their stress is less and their feeling of connection to work and to their employer is increased. To that I say: flexible working. When people say that they feel they have a friend or a connection at work, productivity goes up, attrition goes down, and benefits for employee and employer alike are raised. Flexible working: why would you not?

While we have my noble friend the Minister on the subject of employment, it would be wrong of me not to give a slight note on unpaid internships, which are connected to this subject. As we are bringing a number of these small, discrete, specific pieces of employment relations legislation through, I ask my noble friend: is it not high time to bring forward a Bill to ban unpaid internships, particularly for our young people who are currently asked to give of their time for free for months? That cannot be right; it cannot be part of the society and economy that we want to build and be part of in this country.

Finally, the algorithmic elephant that is all too often in the room in so many of our discussions: AI, machine learning, LLM—whatever we choose to call it—is having a profound effect already, not least on work and employment. If we just look at this morning’s newspapers, we see the headlines screaming out: “Bloodbath of AI impact on employment”, with the BT decision yesterday. Should we accept that prophecy of doom: the sense that the bots are coming, our jobs are going, we are all off to hell and we are not even sure there is a handcart? I do not think so. We should be neither Panglossian nor terrified about the prospects, we should be evidence-based and rationally optimistic about what we as humans, individually and collectively, can do alongside AI and all the new technologies, which are in our human hands. They are incredibly powerful and certainly could do a lot of harm and damage, not least to the labour market, but we should conceive of them, in essence, as tools, incredibly powerful tools but tools in our human hands. If we do not make a success of AI and all the new technologies in our human hands, that will be a human failure on our part, not a failure of the technologies.

The opportunity is clear. If we get it right, we can have the augmented worker. The critical point for all of us to focus on is the transition—as some parts of the labour market get hollowed out, how we intervene to support and help to transition those individuals and communities to the new opportunities that I believe will come through. Transition, transition, transition is where government should be focused if we are to make a success of AI and all the other new technologies in our human hands.

I support this Private Member’s Bill: it is simple, straightforward, clear and concise. Flexible working is not for disabled people, although it is of great benefit to us; it is not for carers, although it is of great benefit to us. Flexible working is a benefit to all people at some stage.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I congratulate her on the efficient and effective way in which she dealt with 17 amendments; she did so with such clarity. I rise to speak to Amendments 449 to 460, all of which bar one are in my name.

In speaking to my amendments and thanking all the organisations that have sent helpful briefings to noble Lords, I want to cover something before we get into the detail: I simply wish to reassert the primary purpose of the pavement. It is not a place for excessive A-boards, advertisements, marketing materials or sprawling seating. It is a place to connect people. It is a place where we can meet on our streets. Yet, all too often, we experience inaccessibility, obstacles and problems when we are simply trying to go about our daily business. This is bad enough for anybody, but for those of us who use guide dogs or wheelchairs it can often be an impossibility. Add to that the excessive dumping and the discarding of e-scooters and you can hardly say that the current usage of our pavements is in any sense optimal, accessible or inclusive.

Let us take a step back to the Business and Planning Act 2020, in which sensible measures were brought in at a time when we were facing a once-in-a-century pandemic. It cannot be right that the lessons we take from that are to roll over some of those provisions in perpetuity now that we are, fortunately, in such a different set of circumstances.

The amendments in my name can be split into three categories: accessibility and inclusion; payment for our pavements; and healthy environments. First, on accessibility and inclusion, the principle of “inclusive by design” should be the basis on which we base everything that we do, be it physical infrastructure or things way beyond. It should be the heart and soul—indeed, the very fabric—of our communities. Yet, as we see with this set of amendments, this is all too often not the case when it comes to pavements.

As has already been set out, Amendment 455 puts the case that, when pavement licences are to be granted, the flow and access needs of users and pedestrians should be thoroughly taken into account. We can call this, if you will, the amendment that goes to the heart of the purpose of our pavements.

Amendment 460 talks about the need for tactile markings and physical barriers to demark seating areas. This is not only to enable them to be safe and demarked for people who may use white canes to navigate and may have buddies who need to get through; crucially, it will also stop the sprawl of seating. Amendment 460 can now be known as the “prohibition of sprawling seating amendment”.

Amendment 458 seeks to put the case that, where licences for seating and other ephemera are granted, such seating must be removed from the pavement when it is not in use for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has already set out.

Similarly, Amendment 450 puts a real case that not only the pavement should be considered for such licences. If the circumstances fit and are safe, it could be quite proper to include part of the carriageway in that pavement licence. We have already seen schemes to skinny highways; this could be an effective part of that where, in effect, the load of sharing the licence is more equitably shared between pedestrians and the users of the carriageway.

However, access and inclusion are not just about the physical environment; “inclusive by design” is just as important for practices, policies and procedures. That brings me to Amendments 454 and 456, which look at the application and consultation processes for the granting of pavement licences. In 2020, when we passed the Business and Planning Act, there was a particular need for increased speed. Businesses were facing an extraordinary set of circumstances, as were local authorities and, indeed, all of us. Those circumstances have now changed and there can be no case for that consultation not to be returned to 28 days. In fact, I put it to my noble friend the Minister that, if the consultation period is reduced as currently set out in the Bill, it could very well represent a prima facie breach of local authorities’ public sector equality duties and contravene wider equalities legislation; I welcome her view on that point.

I turn to payments for our pavements. Although we can all be supportive of a certain level of pavement usage, such as for cafés, eating and the like, it should be clearly understood that the pavement is our pavement. It is operated and administered on our behalf by the local authority. Amendments 451 and 452 speak directly to this point, not only in terms of the cleansing and maintenance of pavements as a result of the granting of these licences but in terms of the potential profit share. I believe that sharing the profits generated on those pavements—our pavements—should be strongly considered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, pointed out, a formula could well be constructed within the licence itself, not least for cleansing and maintenance, but I believe that the profit share point is a critical one. We want to support our local businesses but, when they have a licence and are generating business on our pavements, it is only right and proper that, through the local authority, we should share in that profit.

Finally, these amendments would enable not only safer but cleaner, more accessible and more inclusive pavements, and therefore in all senses much healthier spaces. This cannot be inordinately difficult. It is simply about properly considering and balancing the needs of restaurants and residents, cafes and the community. Unfortunately, this clearly is not happening at any level to the extent it should. If this Bill is about levelling up, if it is about regeneration, then this starts with our streets and with the primary purpose of the pavement. That is what these amendments are all about. I very much look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate. I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. I congratulate the Boltonians in this House and another place on bringing this important Bill to Parliament. Similarly, I congratulate Kevin Hollinrake, the officials and all the team who have worked so hard to get it to this stage. I support the Bill. It does precisely what a Private Member’s Bill should do: it is simple, straightforward, clear, concise and will have such a positive benefit once it comes swiftly into statute.

We have over a million vacancies in the labour market, and well over 500,000 people who left work during Covid have not returned. The question for us this morning is, quite simply: flexible working—why would you not? Covid was something which very few generations will ever live through. It was a once-in-a-century—if that—cataclysmic set of circumstances, and for work it was similarly so. Coming out of that, we must take all of that experience into how we think about work and structure it, and how we fundamentally underline the essential truth of work and employment: that it is a relationship. It should never be seen as simply transactional; it is relational. That is why there is a lot of writing, understandably, around hybrid working and lots for all of us to think about. One thing must be clear to all of us, coming out of Covid: work or employment cannot mean five days a week, 8 am until 6 pm, in the office—but nor can it mean five days a week at home on Teams, on your tod. That is not what work is about. It is about relationships.

When we consider this whole question of flexible work, ultimately, what are we talking about? We are talking about talent. Would not any organisation want to try to secure the brightest, best talent for any role? Research shows that where flexible work is mentioned in job ads, 30% more applications come in. It makes sense. It is not about where work takes place; it is more about how we experience work, what it feels like, how it is structured and, fundamentally, how it is made human. That has to be one of the greatest things we can take from Covid: how to make work more human.

To my mind, the greatest champion of flexible working is probably still the great Dame Stephanie Shirley. At the time, she saw an opportunity in having female workers at home who would be able to contribute so fabulously to the technology business she was building while being able to run their family lives as well. That is still the most sensational example of the strength that flexible working can bring, both to the individual and to the business, if understood and gone about as part of a respectful conversation. The Bill talks about the consultation. Really, that is a respectful conversation between employer and employee, with no preconceptions being brought to bear before that conversation around the request takes place.

For disabled people, flexible working would make an immediate difference, because things change. Circumstances change. Many disabled people successfully manage fluctuating conditions, but flexible working would just be so helpful in the face of that. It would not mean that disabled people would be doing less or being given a free pass—not a bit of it. It is more about being able to fully contribute and give of their talents. Again, why would any business pay a 100% salary to somebody but have a workplace and practices, policies and procedures which enable that person to be only 70%, 60%, 50% or 40% themselves in that working environment? It just makes no economic, social or psychological sense.

In 2018, I was asked to undertake an investigation—a review—into public appointments and how we could make them more open for disabled talents. So many of the suggestions that came up in the sessions, conversations and round tables I had with disabled people up and down the country were about flexible working or a flexible approach. When I published the report in 2018, at times it was almost like I was speaking a strange language to some audiences. I hope that Covid has changed that for the better, and that flexible working is surely now more the norm.

When looking at other pieces of research out there—understandably, there is plenty of it—we see that where employees feel that they have more control, their stress is less and their feeling of connection to work and to their employer is increased. To that I say: flexible working. When people say that they feel they have a friend or a connection at work, productivity goes up, attrition goes down, and benefits for employee and employer alike are raised. Flexible working: why would you not?

While we have my noble friend the Minister on the subject of employment, it would be wrong of me not to give a slight note on unpaid internships, which are connected to this subject. As we are bringing a number of these small, discrete, specific pieces of employment relations legislation through, I ask my noble friend: is it not high time to bring forward a Bill to ban unpaid internships, particularly for our young people who are currently asked to give of their time for free for months? That cannot be right; it cannot be part of the society and economy that we want to build and be part of in this country.

Finally, the algorithmic elephant that is all too often in the room in so many of our discussions: AI, machine learning, LLM—whatever we choose to call it—is having a profound effect already, not least on work and employment. If we just look at this morning’s newspapers, we see the headlines screaming out: “Bloodbath of AI impact on employment”, with the BT decision yesterday. Should we accept that prophecy of doom: the sense that the bots are coming, our jobs are going, we are all off to hell and we are not even sure there is a handcart? I do not think so. We should be neither Panglossian nor terrified about the prospects, we should be evidence-based and rationally optimistic about what we as humans, individually and collectively, can do alongside AI and all the new technologies, which are in our human hands. They are incredibly powerful and certainly could do a lot of harm and damage, not least to the labour market, but we should conceive of them, in essence, as tools, incredibly powerful tools but tools in our human hands. If we do not make a success of AI and all the new technologies in our human hands, that will be a human failure on our part, not a failure of the technologies.

The opportunity is clear. If we get it right, we can have the augmented worker. The critical point for all of us to focus on is the transition—as some parts of the labour market get hollowed out, how we intervene to support and help to transition those individuals and communities to the new opportunities that I believe will come through. Transition, transition, transition is where government should be focused if we are to make a success of AI and all the other new technologies in our human hands.

I support this Private Member’s Bill: it is simple, straightforward, clear and concise. Flexible working is not for disabled people, although it is of great benefit to us; it is not for carers, although it is of great benefit to us. Flexible working is a benefit to all people at some stage.

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the thorough and clear manner in which he introduced it, taking us through all its provisions. It has to be a positive Bill with respect to the equipment and kit that so many often small businesses and individuals rely on; to make that equipment more difficult to steal and more difficult to sell is clearly a positive thing. The Bill brings support to our rural communities and the countryside and, through that, to our country. I support it and I wish it a swift, positive passage on to the statute book

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in today’s proceedings. As it is my first contribution on this Bill, I declare my technology and financial services interests, as set out in the register. I also apologise for not being able to take part in the Second Reading deliberations.

It is a particular pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Knight; I congratulate him on all the work that he has done in this area. Like other Members, I also say how delighted I was to be part of Lord Puttnam’s Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee. It is great to know that he is watching—hopefully on wide-movie screen from Skibbereen—because the contribution that he has made to this area over decades is beyond parallel. To that end, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he has had a chance to remind himself of the recommendations in our 2020 report. Although it is coming up to three years old, so much of what is in that report is completely pertinent today, as it was on the date of publication.

I am in the happy position to support all the amendments in this group; they all have similar intent. I have been following the debate up to this point and have been in the Chamber for a number of previous sessions. Critically important issues have been raised in every group of amendments but, in so many ways, this group is perhaps particularly critical, because this is one of the groups that enables individuals, particularly young people, to have the tools that they—and we—need in their hands to enable them to grip this stuff, in all its positive and, indeed, all its less-positive elements.

My Amendment 91A covers much of the same ground as Amendment 91 from the noble Lord, Lord Knight. It is critical that, when we talk about media literacy, we go into some detail around the subsets of data literacy, data privacy, digital literacy and, as I will come on to in a moment, financial literacy. We need to ensure that every person has an understanding of how this online world works, how it is currently constructed and how there is no inevitability about that whatever. People need to understand how the algorithms are set up. As was mentioned on a previous group, it is not necessarily that much of a problem if somebody is spouting bile in the corner; it is not ideal, but it is not necessarily a huge problem. The problem in this world is the programmability, the focus, the targeting and the weaponising of algorithms to amplify such content for monetary return. Nothing is inevitable; it is all utterly determined by the models currently in play.

It is critical for young people, and all people, to understand how data is used and deployed. In that media literacy, perhaps the greatest understanding of all is that it is not “the data” but “our data”. It is for us, through media literacy, to determine how our data is deployed, for what purpose, to what intent and in what circumstances, rather than, all too often, it being sold on, and so on.

Does the Minister agree that it is critical that we include financial literacy in this broader media literacy group of amendments, because so much of what is currently online is designed as financial scams or inducements? It would not be overstating it to say that there is currently an epidemic of online scamming and fraud. Does he agree that the Bill needs to be very clear on this specific issue of literacy? Will he update the Committee on the work the Government have done on the Media Literacy Taskforce Fund and, indeed, the programme fund launched last October? What updates or plans are there to scale, to develop and to further partner on both those funds?

Finally, I quote the words of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, stating pretty clearly, in terms, why media literacy matters:

“media literacy … can equip young people with the tools they need to help protect themselves as new online harms develop”.

I agree but, matching like with like, I seek to amplify. More than tools, we need media literacy to be nothing short of the sword and the shield for young people in the online world—the sword and the shield for all people.

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many (1) bank branches have closed, and (2) shared banking hubs have opened, in the last 12 months; and what steps they are taking to minimise the former and speed up the latter.

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my financial services interests as set out in the register.